(except from the Indian ravages) enjoys the _most perfect internal
tranquillity_!"--Amazing! what! the most perfect tranquillity! when
there have been three atrocious riots within a few months! when
in two of them, horrid murders were committed on twenty innocent
persons; and in the third, no less than one hundred and forty like
murders were meditated, and declared to be intended, with as many
more as should be occasioned by any opposition! when we know that
these rioters and murderers have none of them been punished, have
never been prosecuted, have not even been apprehended! when we are
frequently told, that they intend still to execute their purposes,
as soon as the protection of the king's forces is withdrawn! Is
our tranquillity more perfect now, than it was between the first
riot and the second, or between the second and the third? And why
"except the Indian ravages," is a _little intermission_ to be
denominated "the most perfect tranquillity?" For the Indians too
have been quiet lately. Almost as well might ships in an engagement
talk of the most perfect tranquillity between two broadsides. But
"a spirit of riot and violence is foreign to the general temper
of the inhabitants." I hope and believe it is; the assembly have
said nothing to the contrary. And yet is there not too much of it?
Are there not pamphlets continually written, and daily sold in our
streets, to justify and encourage it? Are not the mad armed mob in
those writings instigated to embrue their hands in the blood of their
fellow-citizens, by first applauding their murder of the Indians,
and then representing the assembly and their friends as worse than
Indians, as having privately stirred up the Indians to murder the
white people, and armed and rewarded them for that purpose? LIES,
gentlemen, villanous as ever the malice of hell invented, and which,
to do you justice, not one of you believes, though you would have the
mob believe them.
But your petition proceeds to say, "that where such disturbances
have happened, they have been _speedily quieted_." By whom were
they quieted? The _two first_, if they can be said to be quieted,
were quieted only by the rioters themselves going home quietly
(that is, without any interruption) and remaining there till their
next insurrection, without any pursuit, or attempt to apprehend
any of them. And the _third_, was it quieted, or was the mischief
they intended prevented, or could it have been prevented, without
the aid of the king's troops, marched into the province for that
purpose?--"The civil powers have been supported," in some sort.
We all know how they were supported; but have they been _fully_
supported? Has the government sufficient strength, even with all its
supports, to venture on the apprehending and punishment of those
notorious offenders? If it has not, why are you angry at those who
would strengthen its hands by a more immediate royal authority? If
it has, why is not the thing done? Why will the government, by its
conduct, strengthen the suspicions (groundless no doubt) that it
has come to a private understanding with those murderers, and that
impunity for their past crimes is to be the reward of their future
political services?--O! but says the petition, "there are perhaps
cases in all governments where it may _not be possible speedily
to discover offenders_." Probably; but is there any case in any
government where it is not possible to _endeavour_ such a discovery?
There may be cases where it is not safe to do it: and perhaps the
best thing our government can say for itself is, that that is our
case. The only objection to such an apology must be, that it would
justify that part of the assembly's petition to the crown, which
relates to the _weakness_ of our present government.[68]
Still, if there is any _fault_, it must be _in the assembly_; for,
says the petition, "if the executive part of our government should
seem in any case too weak, we conceive it is the duty of the
assembly, and in _their_ power, to strengthen it." This weakness,
however, you have just denied. "Disturbances you say _have_ been
speedily quieted, and the civil power supported," and thereby you
have deprived your insinuated charge against the assembly of its only
support. But is it not a fact known to you all, that the assembly
_did_ endeavour to strengthen the hands of the government? That, at
his honour's instance, they prepared and passed in a few hours a bill
for extending hither the act of parliament for dispersing rioters?
That they also passed and presented to him a militia bill, which he
refused, unless powers were thereby given him over the lives and
properties of the inhabitants, which the public good did not require;
and which their duty to their constituents would not permit them to
trust in the hands of any proprietary governor? You know the points,
gentlemen: they have been made public. Would you have had your
representatives give up those points? Do _you_ intend to give them
up, when at the next election _you_ are made assemblymen? If so, tell
it us honestly beforehand, that we may know what we are to expect
when we are about to choose you?
I come now to the last clause of your petition, where, with the
same wonderful sagacity with which you in another case discovered
the excellency of a speech you never heard, you undertake to
_characterise a petition_ [_from the_ assembly] _you own you never
saw_; and venture to assure his majesty, that it is "exceeding
grievous in its nature, that it by no means contains a proper
representation of the state of this province, and is repugnant to
the general sense of his numerous and loyal subjects in it." Are
then his majesty's "numerous and loyal subjects" in this province
all as great wizards as yourselves, and capable of knowing, without
seeing it, that a petition is repugnant to their general sense? But
the inconsistence of your petition, gentlemen, is not so much to be
wondered at; the _prayer_ of it is _still more_ extraordinary, "We
therefore most humbly pray, that your majesty would be graciously
pleased _wholly to disregard_ the said petition of the assembly."
What! without enquiry! without examination! without a hearing of
what the assembly might say in support of it! "wholly disregard" the
petition of your representatives in assembly, accompanied by other
petitions, signed by thousands of your fellow-subjects as loyal, if
not as wise and as good, as yourselves! Would you wish to see your
great and amiable prince act a part that could not become a dey
of Algiers? Do you, who are Americans, pray for a _precedent_ of
such contempt in the treatment of an American assembly! such "total
disregard" of their humble applications to the throne? Surely your
wisdoms here have overshot yourselves.--But as wisdom shows itself
not only in doing what is right, but in confessing and _amending_
what is wrong, I recommend the latter particularly to your present
attention; being persuaded of this consequence, that though you have
been mad enough to sign such a petition, you never will be fools
enough to present it.
There is one thing mentioned in the preface, which I find I omitted
to take notice of as I came along, _the refusal of the house to enter
Mr. Dickinson's protest_ on their minutes. This is mentioned in such
a manner there and in the newspapers, as to insinuate a charge of
some partiality and injustice in the assembly. But the _reasons_
were merely these, that though protesting may be a practice with
the lords of parliament, there is no instance of it in the house of
commons, whose proceedings are the model followed by the assemblies
of America; that there is no precedent of it on our votes, from the
beginning of our present constitution; and that the introducing
such a practice would be attended with inconveniences, as the
representatives in assembly are not, like the lords in parliament,
unaccountable to any constituents, and would therefore find it
necessary for their own justification, if the reasons of the minority
for being against a measure were admitted in the votes, to put there
likewise the reasons that induced the majority to be for it: whereby
the votes, which were intended only as a register of propositions and
determinations, would be filled with the disputes of members with
members, and the public business be thereby greatly retarded, if ever
brought to a period.
As that protest was a mere abstract of Mr. Dickinson's speech, every
particular of it will be found answered in the following speech of
Mr. Galloway, from which it is fit that I should no longer detain the
reader.[69]
FOOTNOTES:
[59] As I am very much unacquainted with the history and principles
of these provincial politics, I shall confine myself to some
imperfect anecdotes concerning the parties, &c. A speech, which Mr.
Dickinson had delivered in the Pensylvania assembly against the
abolition of the proprietary government, having been published, and
a preface having been written to it, as I think by a Dr. Smith, Mr.
Galloway's speech was held forth as a proper answer to that speech,
while the preface to it appeared balanced by the above preface from
Dr. Franklin. Mr. Galloway's speech, or probably the advertisement
that attended it, urged, I believe, Mr. Dickinson first to a
challenge, and then to a printed reply.--The controversy was quickly
republished in England, or at least the principal parts of it; and
it is from the English edition of Mr. Galloway's speech (printed in
London by Nichols in 1765) that I have copied the above.
These several gentlemen however seem, for a time, to have better
agreed in their subsequent opinions concerning American taxation
by Great Britain; Mr. Dickinson, in particular, having taken a
very spirited line in the Farmer's Letters and other pieces, which
procured him considerable reputation. The congress declaration,
nevertheless, for independence, was reported not to have given
perfect satisfaction at first, either to himself or to Mr. Galloway.
And in the event, Mr. Galloway thought proper to come over to General
Howe, and afterwards to embark for England. B. V.
[60] This act is intitled, An Act for granting to his Majesty the Sum
of One Hundred Thousand Pounds: striking the same in Bills of Credit,
and sinking the Bills by a Tax on all Estates real and personal.
[61] i. e. In England, I suppose, when the laws were brought home to
receive the king's assent. B. V.
[62] Possibly this word _where_, means _wherever_. B. V.
[63] This would have been done, and the money all sunk in the hands
of the people, if the agents, Benjamin Franklin, and Robert Charles,
had not interposed, and voluntarily, without authority from the
assembly so to do, but at their own risque, undertaken, that these
amendments should be made, or that they themselves would indemnify
the proprietaries from any damages they might sustain for want
thereof. An action which, as the prefacer says in another case,
"posterity perhaps may find a name for."
[64] It is not easy to guess from what source our proprietaries have
drawn their principles. Those who study law and justice as a science
have established it a maxim in equity, "Qui sentit commodum, sentire
debet et onus." And so consistent is this with the common sense of
mankind, that even our lowest untaught coblers and porters feel the
force of it in their own maxim (which they are honest enough never to
dispute) "Touch pot, touch penny."
[65] For a fuller account of this dispute the reader is referred to
the newspapers and votes of assembly.
[66] These words, "by completing the agreement," &c. are omitted
by the honest prefacer, in his account of the resolve, that they
might not interfere with his insinuation of the measure's being
impracticable, "have the proprietors, by any act of theirs, forfeited
the least tittle of what was granted them by his Majesty's royal
ancestors? Or can they be _deprived_ of their charter rights without
their consent?" &c. Sensible that these questions are impertinent, if
those rights are already sold.
[67] The prefacer, with great art, endeavours to represent this
number as insignificant. He says the petitioners were but 3500, and
that the province contains near three hundred thousand _souls_! His
reader is to imagine, that _two hundred and ninety six thousand
five hundred_ of them were applied to, and refused to sign it.
The truth is, that his number of souls is vastly exaggerated. The
dwelling-houses in the province in 1752 did not exceed 20,000.
Political arithmeticians reckon generally but five souls to a
house, one house with another; and therefore, allowing for houses
since built, there are not probably more than an hundred and ten
thousand souls in the province; that of these, scarce twenty two
thousand could with any propriety be petitioners. And considering
the scattered settlement of the province; the general inattention
of mankind, especially in new countries, to public affairs; and
the indefatigable pains taken by the proprietaries' new allies the
presbyterian clergy of Philadelphia, (who wrote circular letters to
every congregation in the county, to deter them from petitioning, by
dutiful intimations, that if we were reduced to a royal government,
it would be the "ruin of the province;") it is a wonder the number
(near a sixth part) was so great as it was. But if there had been
no such petitions, it would not have been material to the point.
The _assembly_ went upon another foundation. They had adjourned to
consult their constituents; they returned satisfied that the measure
was agreeable to them, and _nothing appeared to the contrary_.
[68] The assembly being called upon by the governor for their advice
on that occasion did, in a message, advise his sending for and
examining the magistrates of Lancaster county and borough, where the
murders were committed, in order to discover the actors; but neither
that nor any of the other measures recommended were ever taken.
Proclamations indeed were published, but soon discontinued.
[69] Mr. Galloway's speech is of course omitted here. _Editor._
_Remarks on a late Protest against the Appointment of Mr. Franklin
as Agent for this Province_ [of Pensylvania].
I have generally passed over, with a silent disregard, the _nameless_
abusive pieces that have been written against me; and though this
paper, called a _protest_, is signed by some respectable names, I
was, nevertheless, inclined to treat it with the same indifference;
but, as the assembly is therein reflected on upon my account, it is
thought more my duty to make some remarks upon it.
I would first observe then, that this mode of _protesting_ by the
minority, with a string of reasons against the proceedings of the
majority of the house of assembly, is quite new among us; the present
is the second we have had of the kind, and both within a few months.
It is unknown to the practice of the house of commons, or of any
house of representatives in America, that I have heard of; and seems
an affected imitation of the lords in parliament, which can by no
means become assemblymen of America. Hence appears the absurdity
of the complaint, that the house refused the protest an _entry_
on their minutes. The protesters know, that they are not, by any
custom or usage, intitled to such an entry; and that the practice
here is not only useless in itself, but would be highly inconvenient
to the house, since it would probably be thought necessary for the
majority also to enter their reasons, to justify themselves to their
constituents; whereby the minutes would be incumbered and the public
business obstructed. More especially will it be found inconvenient,
if such protests are made use of as a new form of libelling, as the
vehicles of personal malice, and as means of giving to private abuse
the appearance of a sanction as public acts. Your protest, gentlemen,
was therefore properly refused; and since it is no part of the
proceedings of assembly, one may with the more freedom examine it.
Your first reason against my appointment is, that you "believe me to
be the chief author of the measures pursued by the last assembly,
which have occasioned _such uneasiness_ and distraction among the
good people of this province." I shall not dispute my share in those
measures; I hope they are such as will in time do honour to all
that were concerned in them. But you seem mistaken in the order of
time: it was the uneasiness and distraction among the good people
of the province that occasioned the measures; the province was in
confusion before they were taken, and they were pursued in order to
prevent such uneasiness and distraction for the future. Make one
step farther back, and you will find proprietary injustice supported
by proprietary minions and creatures, the original cause of all our
uneasiness and distractions.
Another of your reasons is, "that I am, as you are informed, very
_unfavourably_ thought of by several of his _majesty's ministers_." I
apprehend, gentlemen, that your informer is mistaken. He indeed has
taken great pains to give unfavourable impressions of me, and perhaps
may flatter himself, that it is impossible so much true industry
should be totally without effect. His long success in maiming or
murdering all the reputations that stand in his way (which has been
the dear delight and constant employment of his life) may likewise
have given him some just ground for confidence, that he has, as
they call it, _done for me_, among the rest. But, as I said before,
I believe he is mistaken. For what have I done, that they should
think unfavourably of me? It cannot be my constantly and uniformly
promoting the measures of the crown, ever since I had any influence
in the province. It cannot, surely, be my promoting the change from a
proprietary to a royal government. If indeed I had, by speeches and
writings, endeavoured to make his majesty's government universally
odious in the province: if I had harangued by the week to all comers
and goers, on the pretended injustice and oppressions of royal
government, and the slavery of the people under it: if I had written
traitorous papers to this purpose, and got them translated into other
languages, to give his majesty's foreign subjects here those horrible
ideas of it: if I had declared, written, and printed, that "the
king's little finger we should find heavier than the proprietor's
whole loins," with regard to our liberties; _then indeed_ might the
ministers be supposed to think unfavourably of me. But these are not
exploits for a man, who holds a profitable office under the crown,
and can expect to hold it no longer than he behaves with the fidelity
and duty that becomes every good subject. They are only for officers
of proprietary appointment, who hold their commissions during his,
and not the king's pleasure; and who, by dividing among themselves
and their relations, offices of many thousands a year enjoyed by
proprietary favour, _feel_ where to place their loyalty. I wish they
were as good subjects to his majesty; and perhaps they may be so,
when the proprietary interferes no longer.
Another of your reasons is, "that the proposal of me for _an agent_
is extremely disagreeable to a very great number of the most serious
and reputable inhabitants of the province; and the _proof_ is, my
having been rejected at the last election, though I had represented
the city in assembly for fourteen years."
And do those of you, gentlemen, reproach me with this, who, among
near four thousand voters, had scarcely a score more than I had? It
seems then, that your _elections_ were very near being _rejections_,
and thereby furnishing the same proof in your case that you
produce in mine, of _your_ being likewise extremely disagreeable to
a very great number of the most serious and reputable people. Do
you, honourable sir, reproach me with this, who, for almost twice
fourteen years have been rejected (if _not being chosen_ is _to be
rejected_) by the same people? and (unable, with all your wealth and
connections, and the influence they give you, to obtain an election
in the county where you reside, and the city where you were born,
and are best known) have been obliged to accept a seat from one of
the out-counties, the remotest of the province!--It is known, sir,
to the persons who proposed me, that I was first chosen against my
inclination, and against my entreaties that I might be suffered
to remain a private man. In none of the fourteen elections you
mention, did I ever appear as a candidate. I never did, directly or
indirectly, solicit any man's vote. For six of the years in which
I was annually chosen, I was absent, residing in England; during
all which time, your secret and open attacks upon my character and
reputation were incessant; and yet you gained no ground. And can you
really, gentlemen, find matter of triumph in this _rejection_ as you
call it? A moment's reflection on the means by which it was obtained
must make you ashamed of it.
Not only my duty to the crown, in carrying the post-office act more
duly into execution, was made use of to exasperate the ignorant, as
if I was encreasing my own profits, by picking their pockets; but my
very zeal in opposing the murderers, and supporting the authority of
government; and even my humanity, with regard to the innocent Indians
under our protection, were mustered among my offences, to stir up
against me those religious bigots, who are of all savages the most
brutish. Add to this, the numberless falshoods propagated as truths,
and the many perjuries procured among the wretched rabble, brought to
swear themselves intitled to a vote: And yet so _poor a superiority_
obtained at all this expence of honour and conscience! can this,
gentlemen, be matter of triumph? Enjoy it then. Your exultation,
however, was short. Your artifices did not prevail every where; nor
your double tickets and whole boxes of forged votes. A great majority
of the new-chosen assembly were of the old members, and remain
uncorrupted. They still stood firm for the people, and will obtain
justice from the proprietaries. But what does that avail to you, who
are in the proprietary interest? And what comfort can it afford you,
when, by the assembly's choice of an agent, it appears that the same,
to you obnoxious, man (notwithstanding all your venomous invectives
against him) still retains so great a share of the public confidence?