Marginalia in Good Humour, an Anonymous Pamphlet
ms notations in the margins of a copy in
the Historical Society of Pennsylvania of Good Humour: or, a Way
with the Colonies, Wherein Is Occasionally Enquired into Mr.
P———t’s Claim of Popularity; and the Principles of Virtuous
Liberty, as Taught in the School of Mr. Wilkes, and Other
Peripatetics (London, 1766).
The colonial question engages every one’s attention. Demagogues
who wish to bring government into contempt accuse Parliament of
exerting lawless power; the colonists deny its right to tax them
when they are not represented in it, and they are supported in this
by their great champion, who is also the false idol of the British
populace, William Pitt. Any well-wisher to the country must regret
Pitt’s popularity, for he has used it to fan the flame of
sedition.
In the colonies trade and commerce are at a
standstill, government is defied, and anarchy prevails. In
Massachusetts Governor Bernard, faithful to the crown and the
rights of Parliament, has shown spirit, understanding, and
integrity in dealing with a rancorous Assembly and a furious
people.
They knew the Governor to be, as it afterwards turn’d out, their
Enemy and Calumniator in private Letters to Govt. here.
Colonial resentment of Britain is passionate
and irrational. Even assuming that Parliament exercised an illegal
authority in passing the Stamp Act, what then? “Must the Colonies
in the first instance, and without waiting the issue of one
humble remonstrance,…proceed to an extreme, which nothing but the
most contemptuous neglect, and the most resolved tyranny can
excuse?” Does such resentment imply subordination? It would have
been more becoming to have remonstrated in terms of filial duty,
trusting for relief to the world-famous justice and equity of
Parliament.
How many of their Petitions were rejected on the most trivial
Pretences? How ignorant is this Writer of Facts! How many of their
Remonstrances were rejected!
Parliamentary authority to tax the colonies is
in doubt, though not clearly illegal. If it cannot be asserted to
the satisfaction of the Americans, “they must give us leave in our
turn to except against their demonstrations of legal
exemption from it.” The legal question may then be discarded,
and the issue settled on the basis of reason and utility.
There never was any Occasion of legal Exemption from what they
never had been subject to.
The colonies have a natural right, stronger
than any legal one, to be treated fairly. This right derives from
the natural right of all men to equity and justice, and it is
indefeasible. Whatever the basis for the authority of a government,
it has no right to oppress; for a right to do wrong is a logical
absurdity. Hence the colonies are entitled to all the equity and
indulgence that Britain can show them.
Here appears some Sense.
This argument, however, applies as much “to
the Mother Country as to the Colonies; for it would
be ridiculous to suppose, that a people should have a claim to
whatever happiness their situation will admit, and that Princes and
Governors should be excluded from it.…Great Britain and her
Colonies then are to be consider’d as mutually bound to
promote one another’s interests.…If this reasoning be just
(and I think it cannot be disproved) the Colonies will no
longer think it equitable to insist upon Immunities which
the people of Great Britain do not enjoy. To claim a right
of being taxed by their Assemblies only, appears to have too
much the air of Independence; and though they are not represented
here…would give them an Immunity beyond the inhabitants of
this Island.”
Here is the old Mistake of all these Writers. The People of the
Mother Country are Subjects not Governors. The King only is
sovereign in both Countries. Right. Why not, if they have a Right
to them? It is a Right however, and what signifies what Air it has?
The Inhabitants being Freeholders ought to have the same. If they
have it not, they are injured. Then rectify what is amiss among
yourselves, and do not make it a Justification of more Wrong.
Representation does not depend upon geography:
worthy and honorable gentlemen elected from any part of the kingdom
can secure the rights to liberty and property of citizens in any
other part. Hence the fact that the colonists do not have their own
members of Parliament is immaterial. “Could they hope to procure
any advantages from 100 Representatives? Common Sense
answers all this in the Negative.” Some sensible Americans
insist that their compatriots want no such thing.
Why not? As well as Scotland from 45? or rather 61? Common Sense,
on the contrary, says, that a Body of 100 Votes in Parliament will
always be worth the Attention of any Ministry; and the Fear of
offending them, will make every Minister cautious of injuring the
Rights of their Country, lest they join with his Opposers in Parlt.
The colonists have virtual representation in
Parliament, because its members are concerned with preserving
colonial freedom and immunities insofar as these can be reconciled
with dependence on the mother country. British and colonial
interests are interdependent; Parliament is therefore as solicitous
of the second as of the first, because in furthering one it is
furthering the other. “The interests of Great Britain and her
colonies are the same.” She will always have a parental regard for
the Americans, and lay no unnecessary burdens upon them.
All this Argument of the Interest of Britain and the Colonies being
the same is fallacious and unsatisfactory. Partners in Trade
have a common Interest, which is the same, the Flourishing
of the Partnership Business: But they may moreover have each a
separate In- terest; and in pursuit of that separate
Interest, one of them may endeavour to impose on the other, may
cheat him in the Accounts, may draw to himself more than his Share
of the Profits, may put upon the other more than an equal Share of
the Burthen. Their having a common Interest is no Security against
such Injustice. The Landholders of G. Britain have a common
Interest, and yet they injure one another in the Inequality of the
Land Tax. The Majority in Parliament being favoured in the
Proportion will never Consent to do Justice to the Minority, by a
more equal Assessment.
The colonists fear to submit to what they
regard as an exercise of arbitrary power, lest it become a
precedent. They fear, that is, either that the British government
is ignorant of colonial interests and hence liable to injure them
and, unintentionally, British interests as well, or that the
government is in essence arbitrary. But Parliament cannot fail to
recognize the identity of interest. If it is acting against both
Britain and America, the danger should be as apparent to one as to
the other; and it is not apparent.
If the Parliament is so knowing and so just, how comes it to
restrain Ireland in its Manufactures; America in its Trade? Why may
not an Irishman or an American make the same Manufactures and carry
them to the same Ports with an Englishman? In many Instances,
Britain [has] a selfish Regard to her own Interest in prejudice of
the Colonies. America therefore has no Confidence in her Equity.
The same is true of arbitrary power. “But I can
conceive no earthly security better, none indeed so good, as that
which depends upon the wisdom and integrity of a British King and
Parliament.”
Suppose Seats in your House of Commons hereditary, as those of the
House of Lords; or suppose the Commons to be nominated by the King,
or chosen by the Lords; Could you then rely upon them? If your
Members were to be chosen by the People of Ireland, could you then
rely upon them? Could you depend upon their Wisdom and Integrity as
a Security, the best possible, for your Rights? And wherein is our
Case different if the People of Britain chuse Legislators for the
People of America?
Whether or not the Stamp Act is a suitable and
fair method of taxation may confidently be left to the wisdom of
Parliament, which will study the issue and devise a remedy, if
needed, for colonial grievances. If the colonists have any virtue
left, “they will blush to be found in a posture of hostility
against Great Britain, and will recover from it as expeditiously as
they can; there being nothing so inexcusable as enmity to one’s
country, no name of infamy half so reproachful, as that of a base
and ungrateful Parricide.”
There was no Posture of Hostility in America. But Britain put
herself in a Posture of Hostility against America; Witness the
Landing of Troops in Boston, 1768.
The colonists’ real fear seems to be that they
will be saddled with a part of the British national debt. Why not
absolve them from this threat in return for an annual contribution
of raw materials or manufactures, or a grant of money to maintain
troops for colonial defense?
They want no British troops for that purpose, nor ever did.
[The remainder of the pamphlet deals largely
with John Wilkes, and has no marginal comments.]
625437 = 016-276a.html