that the measure it proposes, of an _union_ with the colonies, is a
wise one: but I doubt it will hardly be thought so here, till it is
too late to attempt it. The time has been, when the colonies would
have esteemed it a great advantage, as well as honour to them, to be
permitted to send members to parliament; and would have asked for
that privilege, if they could have had the least hopes of obtaining
it. The time is now come, when they are indifferent about it, and
will probably not ask it, though they might accept it if offered
them; and the time will come, when they will certainly refuse it.
But if such an union were now established (which methinks it highly
imports this country to establish) it would probably subsist as long
as Britain shall continue a nation. This people, however, is too
proud, and too much despises the Americans, to bear the thought of
admitting them to such an equitable participation in the government
of the whole. Then the _next best_ thing seems to be, leaving them
in the quiet enjoyment of their respective constitutions; and when
money is wanted for any public service in which they ought to bear
a part, calling upon them by requisitorial letters from the crown
(according to the long established custom) to grant such aids as
their loyalty shall dictate, and their abilities permit. The very
sensible and benevolent author of that paper, seems not to have
known, that such a constitutional custom subsists, and has always
hitherto been practised in America; or he would not have expressed
himself in this manner: "It is evident beyond a doubt, to the
intelligent and impartial, that after the very extraordinary efforts,
which were effectually made by Great Britain in the late war to
save the colonists from destruction, and attended of necessity with
an enormous load of debts in consequence, that the same colonists,
now firmly secured from foreign enemies, should be somehow induced
to contribute some proportion towards the exigencies of state in
future." This looks as if he conceived the war had been carried on
at the sole expence of Great Britain, and the colonies only reaped
the benefit, without hitherto sharing the burthen, and were therefore
now indebted to Britain on that account. And this is the same kind
of argument that is used by those who would fix on the colonies the
heavy charge of unreasonableness and ingratitude, which I think
your friend did not intend. Please to acquaint him then, that the
fact is not so: that every year during the war, requisitions were
made by the crown on the colonies for raising money and men; that
accordingly they made _more extraordinary_ efforts, in proportion
to their abilities, than Britain did; that they raised, paid and
clothed, for five or six years, near 25,000 men, besides providing
for other services (as building forts, equipping guard-ships, paying
transports, &c.) And that this was more than their fair proportion is
not merely an opinion of mine, but was the judgment of government
here, in full knowledge of all the facts; for the then ministry, to
make the burthen more equal, recommended the case to parliament, and
obtained a reimbursement to the Americans of about 200,000_l._ sterling
every year; which amounted only to about two fifths of their expence;
and great part of the rest lies still a load of debt upon them; heavy
taxes on all their estates, real and personal, being laid by acts
of their assemblies to discharge it, and yet will not discharge it
in many years. While then these burthens continue: while Britain
restrains the colonies in every branch of commerce and manufactures
that she thinks interferes with her own; while she drains the
colonies, by her trade with them, of all the cash they can procure
by every art and industry in any part of the world, and thus keeps
them always in her debt: (for they can make no law to discourage the
importation of your to _them_ ruinous superfluities, as _you_ do
the superfluities of France; since such a law would immediately be
reported against by your board of trade, and repealed by the crown:)
I say while these circumstances continue, and while there subsists
the established method of royal requisitions, for raising money on
them by their own assemblies on every proper occasion; can it be
necessary or prudent to distress and vex them by taxes laid here, in
a parliament wherein they have no representative, and in a manner
which they look upon to be unconstitutional and subversive of their
most valuable rights; and are they to be thought unreasonable and
ungrateful if they oppose such taxes? Wherewith, they say, shall we
show our loyalty to our gracious king, if our money is to be given
by others, without asking our consent? And if the parliament has a
right thus to take from us a penny in the pound, where is the line
drawn that bounds that right, and what shall hinder their calling
whenever they please for the other nineteen shillings and eleven
pence? Have we then any thing that we can call our own? It is more
than probable, that bringing representatives from the colonies to sit
and act here as members of parliament, thus uniting and consolidating
your dominions, would in a little time _remove_ these objections
and difficulties, and make the future government of the colonies
easy: but, till some such thing is done, I apprehend no taxes, laid
there by parliament here, will ever be collected, but such as must
be stained with blood: and I am sure the profit of such taxes will
never answer the expence of collecting them, and that the respect and
affection of the Americans to this country will in the struggle be
totally lost, perhaps never to be recovered; and therewith all the
commercial and political advantages, that might have attended the
continuance of this respect and this affection.
In my own private judgment I think an immediate repeal of the
stamp-act would be the best measure for _this_ country; but a
suspension of it for three years, the best for _that_. The _repeal_
would fill them with joy and gratitude, re-establish their respect
and veneration for parliament, restore at once their ancient and
natural love for this country, and their regard for every thing
that comes from it; hence the trade would be renewed in all its
branches; they would again indulge in all the expensive superfluities
you supply them with, and their own new assumed home industry
would languish. But the _suspension_, though it might continue
their fears and anxieties, would at the same time keep up their
resolutions of industry and frugality; which in two or three years
would grow into habits, to their lasting advantage. However, as the
repeal will probably not be now agreed to,[81] from what I think a
mistaken opinion, that the honour and dignity of government is better
supported by persisting in a wrong measure once entered into, than
by rectifying an error as soon as it is discovered; we must allow
the next best thing for the advantage of both countries is, the
suspension; for as to executing the act by force, it is madness, and
will be ruin to the whole.
The rest of your friend's reasonings and propositions appear to me
truly just and judicious; I will therefore only add, that I am as
desirous of his acquaintance and intimacy, as he was of my opinion.
I am, with much esteem,
Your obliged friend.
FOOTNOTES:
[80] The name of the person to whom this letter is addressed cannot
be made out in the original copy. The letter, to which it is a reply,
appears to have contained the letter of some third person equally
unknown to the editor. B. V.
[81] It was however agreed to in the same year, viz. in 1766. B. V.
_Letter from Governor Pownall to Dr. Franklin, concerning an equal
communication of rights, privileges, &c. to America by Great
Britain._[82]
DEAR SIR,
The following _objection_ against communicating to the colonies the
rights, privileges, and powers of the realm, as to parts of the
realm, has been made. I have been endeavouring to obviate it, and I
communicate [it] to you, in hopes of your promised assistance.
If, _say the objectors_, we communicate to the colonies the power
of sending representatives, and in consequence expect them to
participate in an _equal share and proportion_ of all our taxes, we
must grant to them all the powers of trade and manufacturing, which
any other parts of the realm within the isle of Great Britain enjoy:
if so, perchance the profits of the Atlantic commerce may converge to
some centre in America; to Boston, New-York, Philadelphia, or to some
of the isles: if so, then the natural and artificial produce of the
colonies, and in course of consequences the landed interest of the
colonies, will be promoted; while the natural and artificial produce
and landed interest of Great Britain will be depressed, to its utter
ruin and destruction; and consequently the balance of the power of
government, although still _within the realm_, will be _locally_
transferred from Great Britain to the colonies. Which consequence,
however it may suit a citizen of the world, must be folly and madness
to a Briton.--My fit is gone off, and though weak, both from the gout
and a concomitant and very ugly fever, I am much better.--Would be
glad to see you.
Your friend,
J. POWNALL.
FOOTNOTE:
[82] This letter bears no date. It was written possibly about the
time that governor Pownall was engaged in publishing his book on the
_administration of the colonies_. B. V.
_On the back of the foregoing letter of Governor Pownall, are the
following minutes, by Dr. Franklin._
This _objection_ goes upon the supposition, that whatever the
colonies gain, Britain must lose; and that if the _colonies_ can be
kept from gaining an advantage, _Britain will gain it_:--
If the colonies are fitter for a particular trade than Britain, they
should have it, and Britain apply to what it is more fit for. The
whole empire is a gainer. And if Britain is not so fit or so well
situated for a particular advantage, _other_ countries will get
it, _if the colonies do not_. Thus Ireland was forbid the woollen
manufacture and remains poor: but this has given to the French the
trade and wealth Ireland might have gained for the British empire.
The government cannot _long_ be retained without the union. Which is
best (supposing your case) to have a total separation, or a change
of the seat of government?--It by no means follows, that promoting
and advancing the landed interest in America will depress that
of Britain: the contrary has always been the fact. Advantageous
situations and circumstances will always secure and fix manufactures:
Sheffield against all Europe for these 300 years past.--
Impracticability.
Danger of innovation.
* * * * *
_The Examination of Dr. Benjamin Franklin before the English House
of Commons, in February, 1766, relative to the Repeal of the
American Stamp Act._[83]
_Q._ What is your name, and place of abode?
_A._ Franklin, of Philadelphia.
_Q._ Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes among themselves?
_A._ Certainly many, and very heavy taxes.
_Q._ What are the present taxes in Pensylvania, laid by the laws of
the colony?
_A._ There are taxes on all estates real and personal; a poll tax; a
tax on all offices, professions, trades and businesses, according to
their profits; an excise on all wine, rum, and other spirits; and a
duty of ten pounds per head on all negroes imported, with some other
duties.
_Q._ For what purposes are those taxes laid?
_A._ For the support of the civil and military establishments of the
country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted in the last war.
_Q._ How long are those taxes to continue?
_A._ Those for discharging the debt are to continue till 1772, and
longer, if the debt should not be then all discharged. The others
must always continue.
_Q._ Was it not expected that the debt would have been sooner
discharged?
_A._ It was, when the peace was made with France and Spain. But a
fresh war breaking out with the Indians, a fresh load of debt was
incurred; and the taxes, of course, continued longer by a new law.
_Q._ Are not all the people very able to pay those taxes?
_A._ No. The frontier counties, all along the continent, having been
frequently ravaged by the enemy and greatly impoverished, are able
to pay very little tax. And therefore, in consideration of their
distresses, our late tax laws do expressly favour those counties,
excusing the sufferers; and I suppose the same is done in other
governments.
_Q._ Are not you concerned in the management of the _post-office_ in
America?
_A._ Yes. I am deputy post-master general of North America.
_Q._ Don't you think the distribution of stamps _by post_ to all the
inhabitants very practicable, if there was no opposition?
_A._ The posts only go along the sea-coasts; they do not, except in a
few instances, go back into the country; and if they did, sending for
stamps by post would occasion an expence of postage, amounting, in
many cases, to much more than that of the stamps themselves.
_Q._ Are you acquainted with Newfoundland?
_A._ I never was there.
_Q._ Do you know whether there are any post-roads on that island?
_A._ I have heard that there are no roads at all, but that the
communication between one settlement and another is by sea only.
_Q._ Can you disperse the stamps by post in Canada?
_A._ There is only a post between Montreal and Quebec. The
inhabitants live so scattered and remote from each other in that vast
country, that posts cannot be supported among them, and therefore
they cannot get stamps per post. The _English colonies_ too along the
frontiers are very thinly settled.
_Q._ From the thinness of the back settlements, would not the stamp
act be extremely inconvenient to the inhabitants, if executed?
_A._ To be sure it would; as many of the inhabitants could not get
stamps when they had occasion for them, without taking long journeys,
and spending perhaps three or four pounds, that the crown might get
six-pence.
_Q._ Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able to pay
the stamp duty?
_A._ In my opinion there is not gold and silver enough in the
colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year.[84]
_Q._ Don't you know that the money arising from the stamps was all to
be laid out in America?
_A._ I know it is appropriated by the act to the American service;
but it will be spent in the conquered colonies, where the soldiers
are; not in the colonies that pay it.
_Q._ Is there not a balance of trade due from the colonies where the
troops are posted, that will bring back the money to the old colonies?
_A._ I think not. I believe very little would come back. I know
of no trade likely to bring it back. I think it would come from
the colonies where it was spent, directly to England; for I have
always observed, that in every colony the more plenty the means of
remittance to England, the more goods are sent for, and the more
trade with England carried on.
_Q._ What number of white inhabitants do you think there are in
Pensylvania?
_A._ I suppose there may be about one hundred and sixty thousand.
_Q._ What number of them are Quakers?
_A._ Perhaps a third.
_Q._ What number of Germans?
_A._ Perhaps another third; but I cannot speak with certainty.
_Q._ Have any number of the Germans seen service, as soldiers, in
Europe?
_A._ Yes, many of them, both in Europe and America.
_Q._ Are they as much dissatisfied with the stamp duty as the English?
_A._ Yes, and more; and with reason, as their stamps are, in many
cases, to be double[85].
_Q._ How many white men do you suppose there are in North America?
_A._ About three hundred thousand, from sixteen to sixty years of
age[86].
_Q._ What may be the amount of one year's imports into Pensylvania
from Britain?
_A._ I have been informed that our merchants compute the imports from
Britain to be above 500,000_l._
_Q._ What may be the amount of the produce of your province exported
to Britain?
_A._ It must be small, as we produce little that is wanted in
Britain. I suppose it cannot exceed 40,000_l._
_Q._ How then do you pay the balance?
_A._ The balance is paid by our produce carried to the West Indies
(and sold in our own islands, or to the French, Spaniards, Danes,
and Dutch)--by the same [produce] carried to other colonies in North
America, (as to New England, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Carolina,
and Georgia)--by the same, carried to different parts of Europe, (as
Spain, Portugal, and Italy.) In all which places we receive either
money, bills of exchange, or commodities that suit for remittance to
Britain; which, together with all the profits on the industry of our
merchants and mariners, arising in those circuitous voyages, and the
freights made by their ships, centre finally in Britain to discharge
the balance, and pay for British manufactures continually used in the
province, or sold to foreigners by our traders.
_Q._ Have you heard of any difficulties lately laid on the Spanish
trade?
_A._ Yes, I have heard that it has been greatly obstructed by some
new regulations, and by the English men of war and cutters stationed
all along the coast in America.
_Q._ Do you think it right that America should be protected by this
country, and pay no part of the expence?
_A._ That is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed, and paid,
during the last war, near twenty-five thousand men, and spent many
millions.
_Q._ Were you not reimbursed by parliament?
_A._ We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced
beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected
from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent. Pensylvania,
in particular, disbursed about 500,000_l._ and the reimbursements, in
the whole, did not exceed 60,000_l._
_Q._ You have said, that you pay heavy taxes in Pensylvania, what do
they amount to in the pound?
_A._ The tax on all estates, real and personal, is eighteen pence in
the pound, fully rated; and the tax on the profits of trades and
professions, with other taxes, do, I suppose, make full half-a-crown
in the pound.
_Q._ Do you know any thing of the _rate of exchange in_ Pensylvania,
and whether it has fallen lately?
_A._ It is commonly from one hundred and seventy to one hundred
and seventy-five. I have heard, that it has fallen lately from one
hundred and seventy-five to one hundred sixty-two and a half; owing,
I suppose, to their lessening their orders for goods; and when their
debts to this country are paid, I think the exchange will probably be
at par.
_Q._ Do not you think the people of America would submit to pay the
stamp duty, if it was moderated?
_A._ No, never, unless compelled by force of arms.
_Q._ Are not the taxes in Pensylvania laid on unequally, in order to
burthen the English trade; particularly the tax on professions and
business?
_A._ It is not more burthensome in proportion, than the tax on lands.
It is intended, and supposed to take an equal proportion of profits.
_Q._ How is the assembly composed? Of what kinds of people are the
members; landholders or traders?
_A._ It is composed of landholders, merchants, and artificers.
_Q._ Are not the majority landholders?
_A._ I believe they are.
_Q._ Do not they, as much as possible, shift the tax off from the
land, to ease that, and lay the burthen heavier on trade?
_A._ I have never understood it so. I never heard such a thing
suggested. And indeed an attempt of that kind could answer no
purpose. The merchant or trader is always skilled in figures, and
ready with his pen and ink. If unequal burthens are laid on his
trade, he puts an additional price on his goods; and the consumers,
who are chiefly landholders, finally pay the greatest part, if not
the whole.
_Q._ What was the temper of America towards Great Britain _before the
year_ 1763[87]?
_A._ The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the
government of the crown, and paid, in their courts, obedience to
acts of parliament. Numerous as the people are in the several old
provinces, they cost you nothing in forts, citadels, garrisons,
or armies, to keep them in subjection. They were governed by this
country at the expence only of a little pen, ink, and paper: they
were led by a thread. They had not only a respect, but an affection
for Great Britain; for its laws, its customs, and manners, and even
a fondness for its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce.
Natives of Britain were always treated with particular regard; to be
an _Old England-man_ was, of itself, a character of some respect, and
gave a kind of rank among us.
_Q._ And what is their temper now?
_A._ O, very much altered.
_Q._ Did you ever hear the authority of parliament to make laws for
America questioned till lately?
_A._ The authority of parliament was allowed to be valid in all laws,
except such as should lay internal taxes. It was never disputed in
laying duties to regulate commerce.
_Q._ In what proportion hath population increased in America?
_A._ I think the inhabitants of all the provinces together, taken at
a medium, double in about twenty-five years. But their demand for
British manufactures increases much faster; as the consumption is not
merely in proportion to their numbers, but grows with the growing
abilities of the same numbers to pay for them. In 1723, the whole
importation from Britain to Pensylvania was but about 15,000_l._
sterling; it is now near half a million.
_Q._ In what light did the people of America use to consider the
parliament of Great Britain?
_A._ They considered the parliament as the great bulwark and
security of their liberties and privileges, and always spoke of it
with the utmost respect and veneration. Arbitrary ministers, they
thought, might possibly, at times, attempt to oppress them; but they
relied on it, that the parliament, on application, would always give
redress. They remembered, with gratitude, a strong instance of this,
when a bill was brought into parliament, with a clause, to make royal
instructions laws in the colonies, which the house of commons would
not pass, and it was thrown out.
_Q._ And have they not still the same respect for parliament?
_A._ No, it is greatly lessened.
_Q._ To what causes is that owing?
_A._ To a concurrence of causes; the restraints lately laid on their
trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into [the]
colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper-money among
themselves,[88] and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps,
taking away, at the same time, trials by juries, and refusing to
receive and hear their humble petitions.
_Q._ Don't you think they would submit to the stamp act, if it was
modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and the duty reduced to some
particulars, of small moment?
_A._ No, they will never submit to it.
_Q._ What do you think is the reason that the people in America
increase faster than in England?
_A._ Because they marry younger, and more generally.
_Q._ Why so?
_A._ Because any young couple, that are industrious, may easily
obtain land of their own, on which they can raise a family.
_Q._ Are not the lower rank of people more at their ease in America
than in England?
_A._ They may be so, if they are sober and diligent; as they are
better paid for their labour.
_Q._ What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same
principle with that of the stamp act? how would the Americans receive
it?
_A._ Just as they do this. They would not pay it.
_Q._ Have not you heard of the resolutions of this house, and of
the house of lords, asserting the right of parliament relating to
America, including a power to tax the people there?
_A._ Yes, I have heard of such resolutions.
_Q._ What will be the opinion of the Americans on those resolutions?
_A._ They will think them unconstitutional and unjust.
_Q._ Was it an opinion in America before 1763, that the parliament
had no right to lay taxes and duties there?
_A._ I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties to
regulate commerce, but a right to lay internal taxes was never
supposed to be in parliament, as we are not represented there.
_Q._ On what do you found your opinion, that the people in America
made any such distinction?
_A._ I know that whenever the subject has occurred in conversation
where I have been present, it has appeared to be the opinion of every
one, that we could not be taxed in a parliament where we were not
represented. But the payment of duties laid by act of parliament as
regulations of commerce, was never disputed.
_Q._ But can you name any act of assembly, or public act of any of
your governments, that made such distinction?
_A._ I do not know that there was any; I think there was never an
occasion to make any such act, till now that you have attempted to
tax us: _that_ has occasioned resolutions of assembly, declaring the
distinction, in which I think every assembly on the continent, and
every member in every assembly, have been unanimous.
_Q._ What then could occasion conversations on that subject before
that time?
_A._ There was in 1754 a proposition made (I think it came from
hence) that in case of a war, which was then apprehended, the
governors of the colonies should meet, and order the levying of
troops, building of forts, and taking every other necessary measure
for the general defence; and should draw on the treasury here for the
sums expended; which were afterwards to be raised in the colonies
by a general tax, to be laid on them by _act of parliament_. This
occasioned a good deal of conversation on the subject; and the
general opinion was, that the parliament neither would nor could
lay any tax on us, till we were duly represented in parliament;
because it was not just, nor agreeable to the nature of an English
constitution.
_Q._ Don't you know there was a time in New York, when it was under
consideration to make an application to parliament to lay taxes on
that colony, upon a deficiency arising from the assembly's refusing
or neglecting to raise the necessary supplies for the support of the
civil government?
_A._ I never heard of it.
_Q._ There was such an application under consideration in New
York:--and do you apprehend they could suppose the right of
parliament to lay a tax in America was only local, and confined to
the case of a deficiency in a particular colony, by a refusal of its
assembly to raise the necessary supplies?
_A._ They could not suppose such a case, as that the assembly would
not raise the necessary supplies to support its own government. An
assembly that would refuse it must want common sense; which cannot be
supposed. I think there was never any such case at New York, and that
it must be a misrepresentation, or the fact must be misunderstood.
I know there have been some attempts, by ministerial instructions
from hence, to oblige the assemblies to settle permanent salaries
on governors, which they wisely refused to do; but I believe no
assembly of New York, or any other colony, ever refused duly to
support government by proper allowances, from time to time, to public
officers.