The Virginia Gazette

From the Public Ledger.

Governor Johnstone's SPEECH on the question for re-committing the Address, declaring the colony of Massachusetts Bay in rebellion,

MR. SPEAKER,

BEFORE you pronounce this dreadful sentence upon a meritorious, sober, and industrious people, I hope the House will indulge me with a few words in discharge of the duty I owe myself, and likewise with a view of transmitting my character fair to posterity, when those black scenes shall be examined without prejudice.

The real question before us is, upon the proper measures to be pursued respecting our fellow subjects in America. In order to judge of this we must consider the real cause of dispute: I say the substantial difference turns on the right of taxation. Most of the advocates on the other side have endeavoured to slur this point, and allege, "that the claims of the Americans extend far beyond this article," and that the act of navigation itself is in danger. But it is impossible for a judicious mind to read the material papers, and not to see that this is illusory. The Congress has expressly told us, "they are willing to acquiesce in those laws which secure to us the monopoly of their trade, as necessary in the mutual connexion;" and the instructions from Philadelphia, on which the proceedings of the Congress are chiefly formed, avow these doctrines in more full and explicit terms. This method of condemning men by inference and conjecture, contrary to their repeated declarations, I cannot approve; I therefore bend the whole force of my argument to the original cause of quarrel—taxation.

The great and only secret yet found out for preserving the liberties of mankind from the encroachments of that power which is necessary for the executive in large kingdoms, is the power of the purse. This was the subject of contention in the civil wars of Charles I. It is this privilege alone which makes the House of Commons respectable: This was the point which Hampden obtained for us! And I leave every one acquainted with the history of those memorable times, to determine, in his own mind, whether we should ever have enjoyed this blessing, if he had tamely paid the tax, and had not resisted? From this power we derive the certainty of assembling the representatives of the people; by this redress of grievances may precede supplies; and the security that the exercise will not be abused is derived from hence, that the House cannot impose on others what they are not to feel themselves. By the principles of the constitution, every man should be represented; but the deviation from a rule, too nice for practice, is safely borne, because the interest of every particular member remains as a pledge, that no individual can be overburdened.

When this security is removed, there is no longer any safety for those to whom the fact does not apply. What is the case respecting the Americans? Does any member feel himself affected by the impositions he shall lay on them? Nay, does not the contrary principle prevail? The more he shall burden America, the more he will relieve himself. Judge Hobart says, "If an Act of Parliament was made, constituting a man a judge in his own cause, it would be void by the law of nature." Yet such is the precise situation in which we contend we ought to be placed respecting the Americans, and for the denial of which we are ready to condemn our fellow subjects to all the tortures enacted by the laws of treason.

Let us look round, and view the fate of different states that have yielded or preserved the privileges for which the Americans contend. So soon as the Cortes lost their power, their slavery was complete. Portugal has now no vestige of this palladium. Here is tyranny supreme! In France, where the traces are left (as in the Pays d'etat) their happiness is distinguishable from the misery of other parts. In Britain we are yet free, because we retain it. In Holland, Switzerland, and the other states of Europe, they are more or less so as they preserve it.

What are the circumstances that distinguish and protect the British colonies from those of other nations? The representatives of the people met in General Assembly, and the trial by jury. If the system of taxation by the Parliament of Great Britain takes place, what being can be so credulous as to expect the Assemblies of the people will ever meet? And it is confessed, that Admiralty Courts, disclaiming trials by jury, are necessary to enforce this species of taxation. Here then are all the essential privileges of an Englishman dependent on this question, and the real interest of the state is no way concerned in the contrary case, since the prosperity of the colonies must ever prove the riches and glory of England. Nothing but the absurd pride, or narrow ignorance of the present Administration, can be thrown into it. When once this system takes place, we shall then feel the tyranny and oppression of Governors, with all their train of dependents, as in the provinces of Rome, which are now quoted as an example.

Thus much, supposing the Americans right in the dispute, as I believe they are; but supposing them wrong, I shall now state their excuse, and see what heart can condemn them, and retain any claims to humanity.

The question concerning the right to tax the colonies, though clear to those who are accustomed to think deeply on the principles of free governments, is difficult to common apprehensions. Montesquieu has observed, "that in despotism every thing ought to depend on two or three ideas." As for instance, is there any thing so fit to solve this dispute as the unity of the British empire, the supremacy of the legislative authority of Great Britain, the omnipotence of Parliament? Is there any man so ignorant, after having heard those sounding words, as not clearly to comprehend the whole of the controversy? Plodding, thinking creatures, who are accustomed to consider the complicated privileges in a free government, from whence the harmony of the whole springs, may be puzzled; but men who have never disturbed their repose with such dry considerations can have no doubt on the matter. Be that as it may, certain it is, that the discussion of this most important question was debated in this Assembly by the greatest abilities, after the fullest information, that ever accompanied any political question. The decision was in favour of the Americans; the stamp act was repealed.

I admit that "principles of expediency" are alleged as the reason, in the preamble of the bill; but the men who boldly denied, during this discussion, the power of taxing the colonies, as constitutionally existing in the Commons of Great Britain, namely, Lord Chatham and Lord Camden (men of extraordinary talents as ever adorned society) the one was made Prime Minister; the other was created a Peer, and Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, the keeper of the King's conscience! What American could have retained any doubt of his cause in the mind of his Majesty, or the nation, after such a decision? The compromising Act soon followed (for the sake of gratifying a party) violating all the principles of commerce and policy in the lump—giving drawbacks here, exacting duties there, committing the power and authority of the nation on subjects which never could produce any effectual revenue, and this in a manner that all men of sense must ever condemn.

When the Americans saw, by this act of Parliament, that the question was likely again to return upon them, in the progress of time, through the great ignorance or caprice of statesmen, they met the position in its new, circuitous, questionable shape; they recurred to their old principles; they revolted against the preamble; they transmitted petitions; and all failing, they entered into non-importation agreements. This produced Lord Hillsborough's circular letter, which I will repeat again and again, till a contrary conduct is pursued; for no satisfactory answer can be given about it, while the present doctrines are avowed. The Americans thus fortified in their opinions concerning the point of taxation, are unanimously against our power, from Nova Scotia to Georgia.

If there be any doubt on this fact, why not call Governor Eden? We are told he lately arrived; it would have been becoming to have produced him. But I call on his relations, friends, or any man, to contradict me in this assertion, "that the Americans are unanimously against this power of taxation, as lodged in the British Parliament." They are resolved to resist; and since you have placed them in a situation, where they must either be rebels or slaves, the blame must lie with those who have drove them to this dilemma.

In discussing the question of resistance, the Gentlemen of the other side have great advantages: We stand on difficult ground, since, from its nature, it never can be defined, or admitted as lawful. The first officer of the Crown has fairly expressed my ideas on this subject. The principle should never be extinguished in any government, much less in a free country; the occasion must ever be referred to the general feelings of mankind. Now, if depriving a trading town of its commerce, if cutting off whole societies from the benefit of the elements which God has given them, if proceeding to deprive them of the fishery, their subsistence, if altering their charter, and annihilating all their rights, without hearing them in defence, if establishing in their stead a new form of government, which leaves all things in confusion, if erecting a system of tyranny in their neighbourhood, and establishing (not tolerating) all the absurdities of the Roman Catholic religion, trial by jury dismissed, habeas corpus denied, the representatives of the people determined useless, inferior duties levied by Act of Parliament; in short, precedents for the violation of every thing we hold most sacred in this country: I say if acts like these can vindicate resistance, the Americans can quote them, and God and the world must judge between us. For my part I consider, with Lord Somers, that treason against the constitution is the first species of that crime. Acts of Parliament are sacred things, and yet they may be made so, grinding the face of mankind, that human nature will revolt at their severity. Dudley and Empson were hanged for acting according to acts of Parliament.

I have now stated the arguments which should induce you to pause at least before you take this irretrievable step. I shall examine next the consequences.

Suppose we should succeed in subduing the Americans, is it not clear from henceforward that we must govern them by military force? Must not our army be increased in proportion? While his Majesty retains the power of moving his troops from one part of his dominions to another, can there be any safety for the liberties of this country? If the mortification begins at the extremities, will it not soon communicate to the centre? Every man acquainted with the history of nations must foresee the consequences.

If we fail in the attempt, which is the happiest event that can occur, what difficulties may not disgust, irritations, and all the horrors of civil war, engender; while the justice and moderation of this country are blotted from the face of the earth, and the accumulated expense, when the springs of riches are cut off, must shake public credit to the very centre?

The noble Lord has hinted, "if repealing the tea tax would do, he would yield that;" and he speaks even faintly on the power of taxation. If these are his principles we are yet more inexcusable. We are going to punish men for maintaining what we are ready to yield, and to engage the nation in endless expense for the sake of a quiddity; since, whether renounced on the principles of expediency or right, the satisfaction must be equally complete to the Americans.

But the noble Lord alleges, that yielding the point of taxation would not now do. This is conjecture on his part: But at least it would produce this good effect, we should divide the Americans: We should unite men in this country, and go to the contest in better hopes of success. The proofs the noble Lord gives for his opinion are several indiscreet acts of different meetings in the late confusion in America. Such detail never affects me. I think no conclusions can be drawn from them. In all civil wars, when the people are let loose to reason on Government, a thousand absurd doctrines are broached. Let us apply this to our own country, let us remember all the ridiculous circumstances which Hudibras has painted better than I can. But should the great cause of liberty, in which our ancestors were engaged, suffer from such circumstances? To their feelings we may trust, on reasoning of the multitude there is little dependence; for my own part I think, with Cardinal De Retz, "that any number above one hundred is at best but mere mob." [Here the House felt the expressions as too strong.] It never could be my intention to apply the rule to this House, long trained in form and discipline, though sometimes there are doctrines and proceedings even here that would surprise a stranger into this belief.

But the noble Lord says, "why not petition first and acknowledge the right, and then we will grant relief." Have they not petitioned? Is there a means of supplication and prostration they have not tried? I am then convinced they went to the Crown merely as a mode of introducing their petition here. Do you deny hearing their agents. An honourable Gentleman in administration says, "he wished we had heard their petitions." Do not condemn them for not petitioning, till you have declared your resolution to hear them. Can it be expected the Americans will act on the innuendos of a Minister? If you mean fair, why not declare your intentions by some binding act? After the East India Company, who will trust you? You invited them to petition under false hopes and declarations, and afterwards made use of this very petition, to deprive them both of their money and their privileges.

In the ceded islands you invited men to settle under the royal proclamation, and then levied 4 per cent. on their produce, which procedure has lately been condemned in the courts of law. In Canada you have been guilty of a greater violation, as liberty is dearer than property. Here you have despised the royal proclamation, and forfeited your engagements to mankind. I repeat it again, what man or society of men can trust you?

The next objection to the Americans is the Congress. This is now termed an "illegal meeting." Government here lay by with great expectation, waiting their resolves. If they had been favourable to their views, or had any untoward circumstances broke their union, we should have had much eulogium on the Congress. Now they have come to resolves favourable to the liberties of mankind, all is abuse. I do not know by what law (except that of common sense) mankind can be regulated on these occasions. What kind of meeting can that be called which was held in this place at the revolution; Aldermen and old members of Parliament mixing in consultation? The necessity on these occasions gives rise to the case. You wished to know the sense of the people of America: Was ever the judgment of a people so fairly taken? First the occasion is promulgated. The people choose representatives. These choose deputies. The deputies in Congress publish their proceedings, each member returns to his respective colony, where his conduct is again approved! No place, no pension, no bribe, to influence his election, or bias his vote. But even as to the legality. The manner of meeting is not new, Government itself called a Congress in the last war, to apportion the quotas of men and troops.

One Gentleman has said, "that our situation is quite new, and there is no example in history to direct our steps." I say there is a case directly similar, but we are too conceited to profit from such experience, Philip the Second, and his seventeen provinces, are the counterpart of what we are acting. The debates in his Council on sending the Duke of Alva into the Netherlands are applicable in every part. He was advised by two sensible men to repair thither himself, and hear the complaints of his people before he came to such rash resolves. But the majority said; as in this case, that his glory was compromised, It was not religion only, but taxing without consent of their states, that brought matters to the last extremity: The Duke of Alva, it is true, was victorious every where at first, but his cruelties were but sowing the serpent's teeth. The Gueux, the beggars of the Brill, esteemed at that time infinitely more despicable than the New Englandmen are represented, gave the first shock to the power of Spain. In comparing the probability of events, can any man say Great Britain has such a prospect of victory in the contest as Spain might then have expected? Yet we know the event, and how that mighty empire was rent in pieces. The present resolution hurries us into that situation from which there is no retreating. It obliges the Americans immediately to act, By declaring them in rebellion, they must have recourse to arms; all negotiation is cut off. I think the word rebellion both impolitic and unjustifiable.

I beg to know what paper on your table can vindicate that term? The first law officer of the Crown said, "a number of men committing treason was rebellion." I differ from him in the definition: According to my conception of the phrase, they must be in military array, to effect some military purpose. One hundred men coining money are not in rebellion though committing treason. Insurrections to pull down enclosures is not rebellion, though deemed a constructive levying war. In the case of purchase and demurrer for pulling down the meeting houses, they were convicted of treason, but no one ever thought of saying the confederates or associates were in rebellion. I think we should be very cautious how we criminate bodies of men on such intelligence.

I dare say the noble Lord has been deceived himself. But this I affirm, he has hitherto constantly deceived this House, It appears to me that no intelligence from General Gage can be depended on. I beg the House will attend particularly to what I now say, before they engage their lives and fortunes. It appears General Gage has regularly deceived Administration. No event has turned out as he foretold, or gave reason to hope; the next letter constantly contradicts the expectations raised by the former. He, seems never to have known what they were about, no doubt grossly imposed on himself. but the facts are undeniable. When
He first arrived, he writes, "the malcontents were abashed, and the friends of Government would soon appear." Next "his expectations from the Assembly were disappointed," and he dissolves them in surprise: Then "there would be no Congress;" Next, "though there would be no Congress they would differ and disagree," in short, led on and leading others by vain expectations, till, the very last letters which announces a total dissatisfaction, and which I believe to be the true state of the provinces, Singling out the province of Massachusetts Bay, can answer no purpose, but to expose our partiality. It is the cause of all, and the other colonies can never be so mean as first to encourage and then to desert them before the general right is settled. The noble Lord talks next of stopping their fisheries; but he says, "the act is only to be temporary." Does the noble Lord think he can turn the channels of trade as easily as he can turn the majorities of this House? To explain the idea, supposing, the New England fisheries stopped, their utensils must waste and destroy. But will the English merchant madly increase his stock, and fit out new ships, if the act is merely temporary? If it is perpetual the people in America are ruined. The consequence is, that the French must in the end reap the benefit of all this strange policy,

We are constantly stating the great obligation we have conferred on the colonies by our former behaviour towards them; if it was ever so good, we can claim no merit from hence in private or public concerns, to do injury in future; they do not complain of your former behaviour, but they say, you have altered this very system from whence you would now derive their submission.

There are two arguments of the noble Lord which I must remark upon before I sit down; the first is, "the comparative view of taxation between this country and the colonies, according to the number of inhabitants," His Lordship says, "we pay about twenty five shillings a head, and they pay about six pence."

Who is there so unacquainted with political arithmetic as not to know that the small sum people pay in taxation is often a proof of their poverty, and the large sum a proof of their prosperity, by demonstrating the riches from the greatness of the consumption?

Let this kind of reasoning be applied to Ireland or Scotland, where we know the multitude to be poor in comparison to the inhabitants in London, whom we know to be rich; besides, if the colonist does not pay in palpable cash from his own hand, does not he pay all the taxes on the four millions of manufactures he receives, and part of those taxes on the raw materials he sends hither?

The other argument is still more extraordinary. The noble Lord says, "if we fail in our attempt of forcing America, we shall still be in the same situation we are in at present." What! after our armies have been disgraced, our fellow subjects destroyed, all the irritation of a civil war, public confidence, and fair opinion lost! Does the noble Lord think he will be in the same situation himself I really speak it with regret, for personally I have much regard for the noble Lord, and particularly because I perceive, from his faint manner of stating his propositions, that they are not the dictates of his own mind, and that they are forced on him.

I cannot see my memorandums, and therefore I shall conclude by heartily concurring with the noble Lord who moved for the re-commitment of this address.