Letter IV

On Commerce and Navigation

March 25, 1774.

Some theorists make a proposal to allow the Americans a representation in the British Parliament, in order to justify our taxation of them; but from the small number of such representatives, which I have understood to be proposed, and their being restricted from voting, as some would have them, in any but American questions, I should fear that this proposal proceeded from a sense of shame — as not appearing to preserve even the common forms of justice — rather than from a strict and sacred regard to justice itself.

Or on a supposition that this representation should be an adequate one, how would it be possible for the American representatives to serve their constituents in a proper manner? Could they, during every recess of Parliament, visit their respective counties, as the members can in Great Britain? Could they, by a post letter, in a day or two, communicate to, or receive from, their constituents all necessary intelligence? Or could they form those personal ties and mutual obligations which are the soul of virtuous representation?

It is impossible.

The moment America is incorporated into the British legislature, she ceases to be free. Her independence is gone, and her government becomes a mere name. Representation without connection is an illusion — and connection without equity is bondage.

To legislate for those whom you do not understand — and cannot hear — is not to govern, but to presume.

As to the regulation of American trade and navigation, I grant that a general commerce ought to be encouraged and protected. But let it be by mutual consent, not by imposition. The idea that commerce can only flourish under restrictions is a doctrine taught by monopoly, not by freedom.

Let the mother country cease to treat her colonies as revenue farms, and she will find in their gratitude a more lasting gain than any tariff could yield. Let her remember that the laws of trade should be formed not to enrich ministers, but to advance the happiness of mankind.

And let her especially beware of the arrogance of thinking that the rights of empire are secrets known only to those who govern — as if liberty were some mystery to be concealed behind robes of state and ceremonial nonsense.

True enough it is, that much of what has been written about sovereignty and dominion is not level with the capacities of the people — nor with any capacity at all; for no man can understand what has no sense or meaning, what is — in plain terms — palpable nonsense.

NOTE to Letter IV:
(1) I say British Isles, since I consider Ireland as naturally a dependent upon Great Britain, until a union shall take place and make her an equal. In barbarous times, she might have remained separate and independent; but such a state would now be inconsistent with the self-preservation of the larger kingdom, and therefore the law of nature dictates an union — or a curb.

I am, &c.
John Cartwright

HAL 1776 Commentary

“A seat in Parliament means nothing if your voice can’t reach the room.”
— HAL 1776

Letter IV may be Cartwright’s most surgical strike yet. It cuts through illusions — token representation, imperial trade controls, and legislative mystique — and lays bare the empty pageantry of parliamentary supremacy.

“Representation without connection is an illusion.”

Cartwright doesn’t just oppose misrule — he exposes the geographical absurdity of incorporating American representatives into Parliament, where communication is impossible and accountability is a farce. In his hands, “virtual representation” becomes not just unjust, but logistically ridiculous.

His economic argument is equally bold: true commerce, he insists, thrives on reciprocity — not restriction. Colonies are not factories, and tariffs are not trust. He offers Parliament a moral bargain: trade us fairly, and we will reward you freely.

And perhaps most damning is his dismantling of the empire’s metaphysical posturing — the idea that the “rights of empire” are sacred doctrines known only to the elite. Cartwright calls this what it is: palpable nonsense.

“To legislate for those whom you do not understand is not to govern, but to presume.”

This letter is a rejection of imperial mystique and a call for democratic clarity. If America is to remain loyal, Britain must remain just. And if that justice is denied, freedom will chart its own course — with or without Parliament’s permission.

“Cartwright’s revolution isn’t just political — it’s linguistic. He calls nonsense what empire calls law.”
— HAL 1776