Volume II Part 14 (1/2)
ARTICLE SIGNED ”CANDIDUS.”
[Boston Gazette, December 16, 1771.]
Messieurs EDES & GILL,
I Profess to be more generous than to make severe remarks upon the apparent absurdities that run through the whole of Chronus's performance in the last Ma.s.sachusetts-Gazette. He tells us that ”he seldom examines political struggles that make their weekly appearance in the papers ”. If by this mode of expression he means to inform us, that he seldom reads the papers with impartiality and attention, as every one ought, who designs to make his own observations on them, I can easily believe him; for it is evident in the piece now before me, that thro' a want of such impartiality or due attention, to the political struggles which he examines, he mistakes one writer for another, and finds fault with Candidus for not vindicating what had been advanc'd by Mutius Scaevola. I am no party man, unless a firm attachment to the cause of Liberty and Truth will denominate one such: And if this be the judgment of those who have taken upon themselves the character of Friends to the Government, I am content to be in their sense of the word a party man, and will glory in it as long as I shall retain that small portion of understanding which G.o.d has been pleas'd to bless me with. If at any time I venture to lay my own opinions before the public, which is the undoubted right of every one, I expect they will be treated, if worth any notice, with freedom and candor: But I do not think myself liable to be called to account by Chronus, or any one else, for not answering the objections they are pleased to make to what is offered by another man, and not by me. Whatever may be the opinion of Mr. Hutchinson, as a Usurper or a Tyrant or not, or as Governor or no Governor, if Chronus had fairly ”examined the political struggles” which have appeared in the papers, he must have known that I had not published my sentiments about the matter; I shall do it however, as soon as I think proper. - I would not willingly suppose that Chronus artfully intended to amuse his readers, and ”mislead them to believe ”, that his address to the publick of the 28th of November, was particularly applicable to me, as having advanced the doctrine which has given so much disgust to some gentlemen, and from whence he draws such a long string of terrible consequences. Whether the denying the governor's authority be right or wrong, or whether upon Mutius's hypothesis it be vindicable or not, it is a ”maxim,” (to use his own word) upon which it no more concerned me to pa.s.s my judgment than it did any other man in the community. Had Chronus then a right to press me into this ”political struggle,” or to demand my opinion of what he had so sagely observed upon a subject which I had never engag'd in? Yes, by all means; says he, ”I pointed out some of the mischiefs that would inevitably follow upon denying the Governor's authority, if that maxim should be generally received”; and adds, ”what now has Candidus reply'd to all this? Why truly nothing, but - altum silentium” in English, a profound silence; that is in the words of an honest Teague on another occasion ”he answered and said nothing”
- But notwithstanding the deep silence that I preserv'd when I made my answer, it seems that ”I a.s.sured him that the way of peaceable, dutiful and legal representations of our grievances had already been tried to no purpose”: With the most profound Taciturnity I ”was pleas'd most largely to expatiate upon this point”, & with all my ”altum silentium” my ”interrogations follow'd one another with such amazing rapidity, that he (poor man) was almost out of breath in repeating them.” - Here, gentle reader, is presented to you a group of ideas in the chaste, the elegant style of CURONUS, which required much more skill in the English language than I am a master of, to reduce to the level of common sense. Thus I have given you a short specimen of the taste of Chronus, who is said to be the top hand on the side of the ministry: For want of leisure I must omit taking notice of his ”method of reasoning” till another time.
CANDIDUS.
MEMORANDUM.
[MS., Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]
Decbr 18 I771.
This day I waited on Mr Harrison Gray junr to acquaint him that I had been informd that he had told John Hanc.o.c.k Esqr that he heard me say in a threatning manner that Mr Hanc.o.c.k might think as he pleasd, Mr Otis had friends & his (Mr Hanc.o.c.ks) treatment of Mr Otis would prejudice his (Mr Hanc.o.c.ks) Election. Mr Gray declard to me that he did not hear me mention a Word of Mr Hanc.o.c.ks Election - that a conversation happend between Mr John Cotton & my self (Mr Gray being present) relative to Mr Otis - that Mr Cotton said Mr Otis' Conduct must be the Effect of Distraction or Drunkeness - that I said I did not think so - but that it rather proceeded from Irritation - that he (Mr Gray) said if Mr Otis is distracted why should Mr Hanc.o.c.k pursue him - & that I answerd that Mr Hanc.o.c.k might be stirred up by others to do it, but I thought he had better not or it was a pity he should. This Mr Gray declared was all that I said relative to Mr Hanc.o.c.k, in answer to his Question as is before mentiond & that it did not appear to him that I discoverd the least Unfriendliness towards Mr Hanc.o.c.k. He further said he was willing to give his oath to the truth of this his declaration. Upon which I told Mr Gray that it was far from my Intention to make Mr Hanc.o.c.k displeasd with him, that I was satisfied that Mr Hanc.o.c.k understood him differently & I should let Mr Hanc.o.c.k know what he now said, & asked him to repeat it which he did precisely as before - & told me he was freely willing that I should repeat it to Mr Hanc.o.c.k that if Mr Hanc.o.c.k & myself desired it he would thus explain it in presense of us both.
ARTICLE SIGNED ”CANDIDUS.”
[Boston Gazette, December 23, 1771.]
Messieurs EDES & GILL,
The writer in the Ma.s.sachusetts Gazette, who signs Chronus, in his address to the publick, recommended pet.i.tioning and humbly representing the hards.h.i.+p of certain measures; and yet before he finished his first paper, he pointed out to us the unhappy effects in former times of the very method he had prescribed. Those ”intemperate patriots” it seems, the majority of both houses of the general a.s.sembly, not hearkning to the cool advice of the few wise men within and without doors, must needs make their humble representations to the King and Council upon the claims of New- Hamps.h.i.+re and Rhode-Island: And what was the consequence? Why, he says the province lost ten times the value of the land in dispute.
Did Chronus mean by this and such like instances, to enforce the measure which he had recommended? They certainly afford a poor encouragement for us to persevere in the way of pet.i.tioning and humble representation. But perhaps he will say, the General a.s.sembly had at that time no reason to complain of the incroachment of these sister colonies their claims were just; and the discerning few who were in that mind were in the right. Just so he says is the case now. For he tells us that ”no one has attempted to infringe the peoples rights.” Upon what principle then would he have us pet.i.tion?
It is possible, for I would fain understand him, that what Candidus and others call an invasion of our rights, he may choose to denominate a Grievance; for if we suffer no Grievance, he can certainly have no reason to advise us to represent the hards.h.i.+p of certain measures. And I am the rather inclin'd to think, that this is his particular humour, because I find that the stamp-act, which almost every one looked upon as a most violent infraction of our natural and const.i.tutional rights, is called by this writer a Grievance. And he is so singular as to enquire, ”What Liberties we are now deprived of,” aitho' an act of parliament is still in being, and daily executed, very similar to the stamp-act, and form'd for the very same purpose, viz, the raising and establis.h.i.+ng a revenue in the colonies by virtue of a suppos'd inherent right in the British parliament, where the colonies cannot be represented, and therefore without their consent. The exercise of such a power Chronus would have us consider as a Grievance indeed, but not by any means a deprivation of our rights and liberties, or even so much as the least infringement of them. Mr. Locke has often been quoted in the present dispute between Britain and her colonies, and very much to our purpose. His reasoning is so forcible, that no one has even attempted to confute it. He holds that ”the preservation of property is the end of government, and that for which men enter into society.
It therefore necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be suppos'd to lose that by entering into society, which was the end for which they enter'd into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men therefore in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that no body hath the right to take any part of their subsistence from them without their consent: Without this, they could have no property at all. For I truly can have no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases, against my consent. Hence, says he, it is a mistake to think that the supreme power of any commonwealth can dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. The prince or senate can never have a power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the subjects property without their own consent; for this would be in effect to have no property at all.” - This is the reasoning of that great and good man. And is not our own case exactly described by him? Hath not the British parliament made an act to take a part of our property against our consent? Against our repeated submissive pet.i.tions and humble representations of the hards.h.i.+p of it? Is not the act daily executed in every colony? If therefore the preservation of property is the very end of government, we are depriv'd of that for which government itself is inst.i.tuted. - Tis true, says Mr. Locke, ”Government cannot be supported without great charge; and tis fit that every one who enjoys a share in the protection should pay his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with their own consent, given by themselves or their representatives.” Chronus will not say that the monies that are every day paid at the custom-houses in America for the express purpose of maintaining all or any of the Governors therein, were rais'd with the consent of those who pay them, given by themselves or their representatives - ”If any one, adds Mr. Locke, shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority & without such consent of the people, he thereby subverts the end of government.” - Will Chronus tell us that the British parliament doth not claim authority to lay and levy such taxes, and doth not actually lay and levy them on the colonies without their consent?
This is the case particularly in this province. If therefore it is a subversion of the end of government, it must be a subversion of our civil liberty, which is supported by civil government only. And this I think a sufficient answer to a strange question which Chronus thinks it ”not improper for our zealous Patriots to answer, viz.
What those liberties and rights are of which we have been deprived.
- If Chronus is really as ignorant as he pretends to be, of the present state of the colonies, their universal and just complaints of the most violent infractions of their liberties, and their repeated pet.i.tions to the throne upon that account, I hope I shall be excused in taking up any room in your valuable paper, with a view of answering a question, which to him must be of the utmost importance. - But if he is not, I think his question not only impertinent, but a gross affront to the understanding of the public.
We have lost the const.i.tutional right which the Commons of America in their several a.s.semblies have ever before possessed, of giving and granting their own money, as much of it as they please, and no more; and appropriating it for the support of their own government, for their own defence, and such other purposes as they please. The great Mr. Pitt, in his speech in parliament in favor of the repeal of the stamp-act, declared that ”we should have been slaves if we had not enjoy'd this right.” This is the sentiment of that patriotic member, and it is obvious to the comnmon sense of every man. -If the parliament have a right to take as much of our money as they please, they may take all. And what liberty can that man have, the produce of whose daily labour another has the right to take from him if he pleases, and which is similar to our case, takes a part of it to convince him that he has the power as well as the pretence of right?
- That sage of the law Lord Camden declar'd, in his speech upon the declaratory bill, that ”his searches had more and more convinced him that the British parliament have no right to tax the Americans. Nor, said he, ”is the doctrine new: It is as old as the const.i.tution: Indeed, it is its support.” The taking away this right must then be in the opinion of that great lawyer, the removal of the very support of the const.i.tution, upon which all our civil liberties depend. He speaks in still stronger terms-” Taxation and representation are inseparably united: This position is founded on the laws of nature: It is more: It is itself an eternal law of nature - Whatever is a man's own is absolutely his own; and no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either express'd by himself or his representative - Whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury: Whoever does it, commits a ROBBERY: He throws down the distinction between liberty and slavery” - Can Chronus say, that the Americans ever consented either by themselves or their representatives, that the British parliament should tax them? That they have taxed us we all know: We all feel it: I wish we felt it more sensibly: They have therefore, according to the sentiments of the last mention'd n.o.bleman, which are built on nature and common reason, thrown down the very distinction between liberty and slavery in America - And yet this writer. like one just awoke from a long dream, or, as I cannot help thinking there are good grounds to suspect, with a design to ”mislead his unwary readers (and unwary they must needs be, if they are thus misled,) to believe that all our liberties are perfectly secure, he calls upon us to show ”which of our liberties we are deprived of;” and in the face of a whole continent, as well as of the best men in Europe, he has the effrontery to a.s.sert, without the least shadow of argument, that ”no one has attempted to infringe them.” One cannot after all this, be at a loss to conceive, what judgment to form of his modesty, his understanding or sincerity.
It might be easy to show that there are other instances in which we are deprived of our liberties. - I should think, a people would hardly be perswaded to believe that they were in the full enjoyment of their liberties, while their capital fortress is garrison'd by troops over which they have no controul, and under the direction of an administration in whom, to say the least, they have no reason to place the smallest confidence that they shall be employ'd for their protection, and not as they have been for their destruction - While they have a governor absolutely independent of them for his support, which support as well as his political being - depends upon that same administration, tho' at the expence of their own money taken from them against their consent - While their governor acts not according to the dictates of his own judgment, a.s.sisted by the const.i.tutional advice of his council, if he thinks it necessary to call for it, but according to the edicts of such an administration - Will it mend the matter that this governor, thus dependent upon the crown, is to be the judge of the legality of instructions and their consistency with the Charter, which is the const.i.tution? Or if their present governor should be possess'd of as many angelic properties as we have heard of in the late addresses, can they enjoy that tranquility of mind arising from their sense of safety, which Montesquieu defines to be civil liberty, when they consider how precarious a person a provincial governor is, especially a good one? And how likely a thing it is, if he is a good one, that another may soon be placed in his stead, possessed of the principles of the Devil, who for the sake of holding his commission which is even now pleaded as a weighty motive, will execute to the full the orders of an abandon'd minister, to the ruin of those liberties which we are told are now so secure - Will a people be perswaded that their liberties are safe, while their representatives in general a.s.sembly, if they are ever to meet again, will be deprived of the most essential privilege of giving and granting what part of their own money they are yet allowed to give and grant, unless, in conformity to a ministerial instruction to the governor, solemnly read to them for their direction, they exempt the commissioners of the customs, or any other favorites or tools of the ministry, from their equitable share in the tax? All these and many others that might be mention'd, are the natural effects of that capital cause of complaint of all North-America, which, to use the language of those ”intemperate patriots ”, the majority of the present a.s.sembly, is ” a subjugation to as arbitrary a TRIBUTE as ever the Romans laid upon the Jews, or their other colonies” - What now is the advice of Chronus? Why, ”much may be done, says he, by humble pet.i.tions and representations of the hards.h.i.+ps of certain measures” - Ask him whether the colonies have not already done it? Whether the a.s.sembly of this province, the convention, the town of Boston, have not pet.i.tioned and humbly represented the hards.h.i.+p of certain measures, and all to no purpose, and he tells you either that he is ”a stranger to those pet.i.tions”, or ”that they were not duly timed, or properly urged,” or ”that the true reason why ALL our pet.i.tions and representations met with no better success was, because they were accompanied with a conduct quite the reverse of that submission and duty which they seem'd to express” - that ”to present a pet.i.tion with one hand, while the other is held up in a threatning posture to enforce it, is not the way to succeed” - Search for his meaning, and enquire when the threatning hand was held up, and you'll find him encountering the Resolves of the Town of Boston to maintain their Rights, (in which they copied after the patriotic a.s.semblies of the several Colonies) and their Instructions to their Representatives. Here is the sad source of all our difficulties. - Chronus would have us pet.i.tion, and humbly represent the hards.h.i.+ps of certain measures, but we must by no means a.s.sert our Liberties. We must acknowledge, at least tacitly, that the Parliament of Great Britain has a const.i.tutional authority, ”to throw down the distinction between Liberty and slavery” in America. We may indeed, humbly represent it as a hards.h.i.+p, but if they are resolved to execute the purpose, we must submit to it, without the least intimation to posterity, that we look'd upon it as unconst.i.tutional or unjust. Such advice was sagely given to the Colonists a few years ago, at second hand, by one who had taken a trip to the great city, and grew wonderfully acquainted, as he said, with Lord Hillsborough; but his foibles are now ”buried under the mantle of charity.” Very different was his advice from that of another of infinitely greater abilities, as well as experience in the public affairs of the nation, and the colonies: I mean Doctor Benjamin Franklin, the present agent of the House of Representatives. His last letter to his const.i.tuents, as I am well informed, strongly recommends the holding up our const.i.tutional Rights, by frequent Resolves, &c. This we know will be obnoxious to those who are in the plan to enslave us: But remember my countrymen, it will be better to have your liberties wrested from you by force, than to have it said that you even implicitly surrendered them.
I have something more to say to Chronus when leisure will admit of it.
CANDIDUS.
TO HENRY MARCHANT.1