Letter V

Address to the British Legislature

March 26, 1774.

It is demanded, with an air of confidence and imaginary triumph:

“Were not the first settlers in America British subjects? Did they not settle under the sanction of grants and charters? Has not the kingdom, at all times, put itself to great expense in their support, and favored them with many peculiar advantages in trade? Was not the last most expensive war undertaken solely on their account? Can anyone be so absurd as to imagine the kingdom intended to nurse and erect so many independent nations instead of enlarging her own dominion? Ought not the Americans to repay us part of the expenses of the war in particular, in order to enable us to discharge some part of that enormous debt it occasioned — and contribute their proportion toward the general expenses of the whole empire?”

To most of these questions, my arguments have already answered.

Now, let me ask, in my turn:

Have any of the nations of the earth, especially the free ones, become what they are in consequence of claims like these? Have not colonies, when properly treated, always repaid the fostering care of the mother country by trade, gratitude, and allegiance?

Were not our American brethren once among our most affectionate subjects? What, then, has alienated them? Coercion — pride — and taxation without consent.

We are told they should help pay our debts. But let us examine who contracted them — and for what purpose. Was it for defending the colonies? In part, yes — but largely, these debts arose from European rivalries and wars of ambition. Shall America pay for what she neither wanted nor asked?

And what of trade? If restrictions were lifted, and commerce left to flow freely, the wealth returned to Britain in exchange would outweigh all revenue extracted by force.

It is said we gave them charters. But those charters were not shackles — they were shields. They promised liberty, not subjugation. To now use them as instruments of control is to violate the spirit of the very grants we claim to uphold.

Distance makes the idea of true parliamentary governance impossible. We cannot legislate across the Atlantic and call it representation. We cannot tax across oceans and call it justice.

If we persist in asserting power where we have no right, we will dissolve the bonds of affection and create not loyal subjects — but reluctant enemies.

If we continue this course, we risk replacing voluntary union with resentment, and economic strength with political ruin.

Let us restore reason before it is too late.

I am, &c.
John Cartwright

HAL 1776 Commentary

“You can’t build unity on a balance sheet — and you can’t justify tyranny with receipts.”
— HAL 1776

In Letter V, Cartwright turns his pen directly toward Parliament — and dismantles, one by one, the excuses offered to defend its overreach. Did the colonies cost Britain money? Yes. But did that entitle Parliament to their obedience without consent? Absolutely not.

“Charters are not shackles — they are shields.”

Cartwright skewers the imperial mindset that sees America as a debtor rather than a partner, and that treats loyalty as something to be purchased rather than earned. His response is clear: liberty is not payment for services rendered — it is the price of being British.

He doesn’t just refute Parliament’s logic — he exposes its arrogance. Distance, he reminds us, makes governance without consent not only unjust, but impossible. “We cannot legislate across the Atlantic and call it representation.”

“To now use [charters] as instruments of control is to violate the spirit of the very grants we claim to uphold.”

Cartwright speaks here not just for America — but for a better Britain. His appeal is constitutional, economic, and moral. And it anticipates what would soon become historical fact: when a government tries to tax loyalty, it bankrupts its own legitimacy.

“The empire’s credit ran out the moment it taxed without consent — and Cartwright sent the notice.”
— HAL 1776