an assembly to raise the necessary supplies, and the assembly should
refuse to do it, do you not think it would then be for the good of
the people of the colony, as well as necessary to government, that
the parliament should tax them?
_A._ I do not think it would be necessary. If an assembly could
possibly be so absurd, as to refuse raising the supplies requisite
for the maintenance of government among them, they could not long
remain in such a situation; the disorders and confusion occasioned by
it must soon bring them to reason.
_Q._ If it should not, ought not the right to be in Great Britain of
applying a remedy?
_A._ A right, only to be used in such a case, I should have no
objection to; supposing it to be used merely for the good of the
people of the colony.
_Q._ But who is to judge of that, Britain or the colony?
_A._ Those that feel can best judge.
_Q._ You say the colonies have always submitted to external taxes,
and object to the right of parliament only in laying internal taxes;
now can you show, that there is any kind of _difference between the
two taxes_ to the colony on which they may be laid?
_A._ I think the difference is very great. An _external_ tax is a
duty laid on commodities imported; that duty is added to the first
cost and other charges on the commodity, and, when it is offered to
sale, makes a part of the price. If the people do not like it at
that price, they refuse it; they are not obliged to pay it. But an
_internal_ tax is forced from the people without their consent, if
not laid by their own representatives. The stamp act says, we shall
have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each other,
neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall neither marry
nor make our wills, unless we pay such and such sums; and thus it is
intended to extort our money from us, or ruin us by the consequences
of refusing to pay it.
_Q._ But supposing the external tax or duty to be laid on the
necessaries of life imported into your colony, will not that be the
same thing in its effects as an internal tax?
_A._ I do not know a single article imported into the _northern_
colonies, but what they can either do without, or make themselves.
_Q._ Don't you think cloth from England absolutely necessary to them?
_A._ No, by no means absolutely necessary; with industry and good
management, they may very well supply themselves with all they want.
_Q._ Will it not take a long time to establish that manufacture among
them; and must they not in the mean while suffer greatly?
_A._ I think not. They have made a surprising progress already. And I
am of opinion, that before their old clothes are worn out, they will
have new ones of their own making.
_Q._ Can they possibly find wool enough in North America?
_A._ They have taken steps to increase the wool. They entered into
general combinations to eat no more lamb; and very few lambs were
killed last year. This course, persisted in, will soon make a
prodigious difference in the quantity of wool. And the establishing
of great manufactories, like those in the clothing towns here, is not
necessary, as it is where the business is to be carried on for the
purposes of trade. The people will all spin, and work for themselves,
in their own houses.
_Q._ Can there be wool and manufacture enough in one or two years?
_A._ In three years, I think there may.
_Q._ Does not the severity of the winter, in the northern colonies,
occasion the wool to be of bad quality?
_A._ No, the wool is very fine and good.
_Q._ In the more southern colonies, as in Virginia, don't you know,
that the wool is coarse, and only a kind of hair?
_A._ I don't know it. I never heard it. Yet I have been sometimes
in Virginia. I cannot say I ever took particular notice of the wool
there, but I believe it is good, though I cannot speak positively of
it; but Virginia, and the colonies south of it, have less occasion
for wool; their winters are short, and not very severe; and they
can very well clothe themselves with linen and cotton of their own
raising for the rest of the year.
_Q._ Are not the people in the more northern colonies obliged to
fodder their sheep all the winter?
_A._ In some of the most northern colonies they may be obliged to do
it, some part of the winter.
_Q._ Considering the resolutions of parliament[89], _as to the
right_; do you think, if the stamp act is repealed, that the North
Americans will be satisfied?
_A._ I believe they will.
_Q._ Why do you think so?
_A._ I think the resolutions of _right_ will give them very little
concern, if they are never attempted to be carried into practice. The
colonies will probably consider themselves in the same situation, in
that respect, with Ireland: they know you claim the same right with
regard to Ireland, but you never exercise it. And they may believe
you never will exercise it in the colonies, any more than in Ireland,
unless on some very extraordinary occasion.
_Q._ But who are to be the judges of that extraordinary occasion? Is
not the parliament?
_A._ Though the parliament may judge of the occasion, the people will
think it can never exercise such right, till representatives from
the colonies are admitted into parliament; and that, whenever the
occasion arises, representatives _will_ be ordered.
_Q._ Did you never hear that Maryland, during the last war, had
refused to furnish a quota towards the common defence?
_A._ Maryland has been much misrepresented in that matter. Maryland,
to my knowledge, never refused to contribute, or grant aids to the
crown. The assemblies, every year during the war, voted considerable
sums, and formed bills to raise them. The bills were, according
to the constitution of that province, sent up to the council, or
upper house, for concurrence, that they might be presented to the
governor, in order to be enacted into laws. Unhappy disputes between
the two houses--arising from the defects of that constitution
principally--rendered all the bills but one or two abortive. The
proprietary's council rejected them. It is true, Maryland did
contribute its proportion; but it was, in my opinion, the fault of
the government, not of the people.
_Q._ Was it not talked of in the other provinces as a proper measure,
to apply to parliament to compel them?
_A._ I have heard such discourse; but as it was well known, that the
people were not to blame, no such application was ever made, nor any
step taken towards it.
_Q._ Was it not proposed at a public meeting?
_A._ Not that I know of.
_Q._ Do you remember the abolishing of the paper-currency in New
England, by act of assembly?
_A._ I do remember its being abolished in the Massachusett's Bay.
_Q._ Was not lieutenant-governor Hutchinson principally concerned in
that transaction?
_A._ I have heard so.
_Q._ Was it not at that time a very unpopular law?
_A._ I believe it might, though I can say little about it, as I lived
at a distance from that province.
_Q._ Was not the _scarcity of gold and silver_ an argument used
against abolishing the paper?
_A._ I suppose it was[90].
_Q._ What is the present opinion there of that law? Is it as
unpopular as it was at first?
_A._ I think it is not.
_Q._ Have not instructions from hence been sometimes sent over to
governors, highly oppressive and unpolitical?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ Have not some governors dispensed with them for that reason?
_A._ Yes, I have heard so.
_Q._ Did the Americans ever dispute the controling power of
parliament to regulate the commerce?
_A._ No.
_Q._ Can any thing less than a military force carry the stamp act
into execution?
_A._ I do not see how a military force can be applied to that purpose.
_Q._ Why may it not?
_A._ Suppose a military force sent into America, they will find
nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man
to take stamps who chooses to do without them. They will not find a
rebellion: they may indeed make one.
_Q._ If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the
consequences?
_A._ A total loss of the respect and affection the people of America
bear to this country, and of all the commerce that depends on that
respect and affection.
_Q._ How can the commerce be affected?
_A._ You will find, that if the act is not repealed, they will take
very little of your manufactures in a short time.
_Q._ Is it in their power to do without them?
_A._ I think they may very well do without them.
_Q._ Is it their interest not to take them?
_A._ The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries,
mere conveniences, or superfluities. The first, as cloth, &c.
with a little industry they can make at home; the second they can
do without, till they are able to provide them among themselves;
and the last, which are much the greatest part, they will strike
off immediately. They are mere articles of fashion, purchased and
consumed, because the fashion in a respected country; but will now be
detested and rejected. The people have already struck off, by general
agreement, the use of all goods fashionable in mournings, and many
thousand pounds worth are sent back as unsaleable.
_Q._ Is it their interest to make cloth at home?
_A._ I think they may at present get it cheaper from Britain, I mean
of the same fineness and neatness of workmanship: but when one
considers other circumstances, the restraints on their trade, and the
difficulty of making remittances, it is their interest to make every
thing.
_Q._ Suppose an act of internal regulations connected with a tax, how
would they receive it?
_A._ I think it would be objected to.
_Q._ Then no regulation with a tax would be submitted to?
_A._ Their opinion is, that when aids to the crown are wanted, they
are to be asked of the several assemblies, according to the old
established usage; who will, as they always have done, grant them
freely. And that their money ought not to be given away, without
their consent, by persons at a distance, unacquainted with their
circumstances and abilities. The granting aids to the crown is the
only means they have of recommending themselves to their sovereign;
and they think it extremely hard and unjust, that a body of men, in
which they have no representatives, should make a merit to itself of
giving and granting what is not its own, but theirs; and deprive them
of a right they esteem of the utmost value and importance, as it is
the security of all their other rights.
_Q._ But is not the post-office, which they have long received, a tax
as well as a regulation?
_A._ No; the money paid for the postage of a letter is not of the
nature of a tax; it is merely a _quantum meruit_ for a service done;
no person is compellable to pay the money, if he does not choose to
receive the service. A man may still, as before the act, send his
letter by a servant, a special messenger, or a friend, if he thinks
it cheaper and safer.
_Q._ But do they not consider the regulations of the post-office, by
the act of last year, as a tax?
_A._ By the regulations of last year the rate of postage was
generally abated near thirty per cent through all America; they
certainly cannot consider such abatement _as a tax_.
_Q._ If an excise was laid by parliament, which they might likewise
avoid paying, by not consuming the articles excised, would they then
not object to it?
_A._ They would certainly object to it, as an excise is unconnected
with any service done, and is merely an aid, which they think ought
to be asked of them, and granted by them, if they are to pay it; and
can be granted for them by no others whatsoever, whom they have not
impowered for that purpose.
_Q._ You say, they do not object to the right of parliament, in
laying duties on goods to be paid on their importation: now, is there
any kind of difference between a duty on the _importation_ of goods,
and an excise on their _consumption_?
_A._ Yes; a very material one: an excise, for the reasons I have
just mentioned, they think you can have no right to lay within their
country. But _the sea_ is yours; you maintain, by your fleets, the
safety of navigation in it, and keep it clear of pirates; you may
have therefore a natural and equitable right to some _toll_ or duty
on merchandizes carried through that part of your dominions, towards
defraying the expence you are at in ships to maintain the safety of
that carriage.
_Q._ Does this reasoning hold in the case of a duty laid on the
produce of their lands _exported_? And would they not then object to
such a duty?
_A._ If it tended to make the produce so much dearer abroad, as to
lessen the demand for it, to be sure they would object to such a
duty; not to your right of laying it, but they would complain of it
as a burthen, and petition you to lighten it.
_Q._ Is not the duty paid on the tobacco exported, a duty of that
kind?
_A._ That, I think, is only on tobacco carried coast-wise, from one
colony to another, and appropriated as a fund for supporting the
college at Williamsburgh, in Virginia.
_Q._ Have not the assemblies in the West Indies the same natural
rights with those in North America?
_A._ Undoubtedly.
_Q._ And is there not a tax laid there on their sugars exported?
_A._ I am not much acquainted with the West Indies; but the duty of
four and a half per cent on sugars exported was, I believe, granted
by their own assemblies.[91]
_Q._ How much is the poll-tax in your province laid on unmarried men?
_A._ It is, I think, fifteen shillings, to be paid by every single
freeman, upwards of twenty-one years old.
_Q._ What is the annual amount of _all_ the taxes in Pensylvania?
_A._ I suppose about 20,000_l._ sterling.
_Q._ Supposing the stamp act continued and enforced, do you imagine
that ill-humour will induce the Americans to give as much for worse
manufactures of their own, and use them, preferably to better of ours?
_A._ Yes, I think so. People will pay as freely to gratify one
passion as another, their resentment as their pride.
_Q._ Would the people at Boston discontinue their trade?
_A._ The merchants are a very small number compared with the body
of the people, and must discontinue their trade, if nobody will buy
their goods.
_Q._ What are the body of the people in the colonies?
_A._ They are farmers, husbandmen, or planters.
_Q._ Would they suffer the produce of their lands to rot?
_A._ No; but they would not raise so much. They would manufacture
more, and plow less.
_Q._ Would they live without the administration of justice in civil
matters, and suffer all the inconveniencies of such a situation for
any considerable time, rather than take the stamps, supposing the
stamps were protected by a sufficient force, where every one might
have them?
_A._ I think the supposition impracticable, that the stamps should
be so protected as that every one might have them. The act requires
sub-distributors to be appointed in every county town, district,
and village, and they would be necessary. But the _principal_
distributors, who were to have had a considerable profit on the
whole, have not thought it worth while to continue in the office; and
I think it impossible to find sub-distributors fit to be trusted,
who, for the trifling profit that must come to their share, would
incur the odium, and run the hazard that would attend it; and if they
could be found, I think it impracticable to protect the stamps in so
many distant and remote places.
_Q._ But in places where they could be protected, would not the
people use them, rather than remain in such a situation, unable to
obtain any right, or recover, by law, any debt?
_A._ It is hard to say what they would do. I can only judge what
other people will think, and how they will act, by what I feel within
myself. I have a great many debts due to me in America, and I had
rather they should remain unrecoverable by any law, than submit to
the stamp act. They will be debts of honour. It is my opinion the
people will either continue in that situation, or find some way to
extricate themselves, perhaps by generally agreeing to proceed in the
courts without stamps.
_Q._ What do you think a sufficient military force to protect the
distribution of the stamps in every part of America?
_A._ A very great force, I can't say what, if the disposition of
America is for a general resistance.
_Q._ What is the number of men in America able to bear arms, or of
disciplined militia?
_A._ There are, I suppose, at least----
[_Question objected to. He withdrew. Called in again._]
_Q._ Is the American stamp act an equal tax on the country?
_A._ I think not.
_Q._ Why so?
_A._ The greatest part of the money must arise from law-suits for the
recovery of debts, and be paid by the lower sort of people, who were
too poor easily to pay their debts. It is therefore a heavy tax on
the poor, and a tax upon them for being poor.
_Q._ But will not this increase of expence be a means of lessening
the number of law-suits?
_A._ I think not; for as the costs all fall upon the debtor, and are
to be paid by him, they would be no discouragement to the creditor to
bring his action.
_Q._ Would it not have the effect of excessive usury?
_A._ Yes, as an oppression of the debtor.
_Q._ How many ships are there laden annually in North America with
_flax-seed_ for Ireland?
_A._ I cannot speak to the number of ships, but I know, that in 1752
ten thousand hogsheads of flax-seed, each containing seven bushels,
were exported from Philadelphia to Ireland. I suppose the quantity
is greatly increased since that time, and it is understood, that the
exportation from New York is equal to that from Philadelphia.
_Q._ What becomes of the flax that grows with that flax-seed?
_A._ They manufacture some into coarse, and some into a middling kind
of linen.
_Q._ Are there any _slitting-mills_ in America?[92]
_A._ I think there are three, but I believe only one at present
employed. I suppose they will all be set to work, if the interruption
of the trade continues.
_Q._ Are there any _fulling-mills_ there?
_A._ A great many.
_Q._ Did you never hear, that a great quantity of stockings were
contracted for, for the army, during the war, and manufactured in
Philadelphia?
_A._ I have heard so.
_Q._ If the stamp-act should be repealed, would not the Americans
think they could oblige the parliament to repeal every external
tax-law now in force?
_A._ It is hard to answer questions of what people at such a distance
will think.
_Q._ But what do you imagine they will think were the motives of
repealing the act?
_A._ I suppose they will think, that it was repealed from a
conviction of its inexpediency; and they will rely upon it, that
while the same inexpediency subsists, you will never attempt to make
such another.
_Q._ What do you mean by its inexpediency?
_A._ I mean its inexpediency on several accounts, the poverty and
inability of those who were to pay the tax, the general discontent it
has occasioned, and the impracticability of enforcing it.
_Q._ If the act should be repealed, and the legislature should show
its resentment to the opposers of the stamp-act, would the colonies
acquiesce in the authority of the legislature? What is your opinion
they would do?
_A._ I don't doubt at all, that if the legislature repeal the
stamp-act, the colonies will acquiesce in the authority.
_Q._ But if the legislature should think fit to ascertain its right
to lay taxes, by any act laying a small tax, contrary to their
opinion, would they submit to pay the tax?
_A._ The proceedings of the people in America have been considered
too much together. The proceedings of the assemblies have been very
different from those of the mobs, and should be distinguished, as
having no connection with each other. The _assemblies_ have only
peaceably resolved what they take to be their rights: they have
taken no measures for opposition by force, they have not built a
fort, raised a man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to
such opposition. The ring-leaders of riots, they think ought to be
punished; they would punish them themselves, if they could. Every
sober, sensible man would wish to see rioters punished, as otherwise
peaceable people have no security of person or estate.--But as to an
internal tax, how small soever, laid by the legislature here on the
people there, while they have no representatives in this legislature,
I think it will never be submitted to: they will oppose it to the
last.--They do not consider it as at all necessary for you to raise
money on them by your taxes; because they are, and always have been,
ready to raise money by taxes among themselves, and to grant large
sums, equal to their abilities, upon requisition from the crown. They
have not only granted equal to their abilities, but, during all the
last war, they granted far beyond their abilities, and beyond their
proportion with this country (you yourselves being judges) to the
amount of many hundred thousand pounds; and this they did freely and
readily, only on a sort of promise, from the secretary of state, that
it should be recommended to parliament to make them compensation. It
was accordingly recommended to parliament, in the most honourable
manner for them. America has been greatly misrepresented and abused
here, in papers, and pamphlets, and speeches, as ungrateful, and
unreasonable, and unjust; in having put this nation to immense
expence for their defence, and refusing to bear any part of that
expence. The colonies raised, paid, and clothed, near twenty-five
thousand men during the last war; a number equal to those sent from
Britain, and far beyond their proportion; they went deeply into debt
in doing this, and all their taxes and estates are mortgaged, for
many years to come, for discharging that debt. Government here was
at that time very sensible of this. The colonies were recommended
to parliament. Every year the king sent down to the house a written
message to this purpose, "that his majesty, being highly sensible
of the zeal and vigour with which his faithful subjects in North
America had exerted themselves, in defence of his majesty's just
rights and possessions; recommended it to the house to take the
same into consideration, and enable him to give them a proper
compensation." You will find those messages on your own journals
every year of the war to the very last; and you did accordingly
give 200,000_l._ annually to the crown, to be distributed in such
compensation to the colonies. This is the strongest of all proofs
that the colonies, far from being unwilling to bear a share of the
burthen, did exceed their proportion; for if they had done less, or
had only equalled their proportion, there would have been no room or
reason for compensation. Indeed the sums, reimbursed them, were by no
means adequate to the expence they incurred beyond their proportion:
but they never murmured at that; they esteemed their sovereign's
approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and the approbation of this
house, far beyond any other kind of compensation, therefore there
was no occasion for this act, to force money from a willing people:
they had not refused giving money for the _purposes_ of the act, no
requisition had been made, they were always willing and ready to do
what could reasonably be expected from them, and in this light they
wish to be considered.
_Q._ But suppose Great Britain should be engaged in a _war in
Europe_, would North America contribute to the support of it?