permit. They consider themselves as a part of the British empire,
and as having one common interest with it: they may be looked on
here as foreigners, but they do not consider themselves as such.
They are zealous for the honour and prosperity of this nation; and,
while they are well used, will always be ready to support it, as far
as their little power goes.--In 1739 they were called upon to assist
in the expedition against Carthagena, and they sent three thousand
men to join your army.[93] It is true Carthagena is in America, but
as remote from the northern colonies, as if it had been in Europe.
They make no distinction of wars, as to their duty of assisting in
them. I know the _last war_ is commonly spoken of here as entered
into for the defence, or for the sake of the people in America. I
think it is quite misunderstood. It began about the limits between
Canada and Nova Scotia; about territories to which the _crown_ indeed
laid claim, but [which] were not claimed by any British _colony_;
none of the lands had been granted to any colonist, we had therefore
no particular concern or interest in that dispute.--As to the Ohio,
the contest there began about your right of trading in the Indian
country, a right you had by the treaty of Utretcht, which the French
infringed; they seized the traders and their goods, which were your
manufactures; they took a fort which a company of your merchants, and
their factors and correspondents had erected there, to secure that
trade. Braddock was sent with an army to re-take that fort (which
was looked on here as another incroachment on the king's territory)
and to protect your trade. It was not till after his defeat that the
colonies were attacked.[94] They were before in perfect peace with
both French and Indians; the troops were not therefore sent for their
defence. The trade with the Indians, though carried on in America, is
not an _American interest_. The people of America are chiefly farmers
and planters, scarce any thing that they raise or produce is an
article of commerce with the Indians. The Indian trade is a _British
interest_; it is carried on with British manufactures, for the profit
of British merchants and manufacturers; therefore the war, as it
commenced for the defence of territories of the crown (the property
of no American) and for the defence of a trade purely British, was
really a British war--and yet the people of America made no scruple
of contributing their utmost towards carrying it on, and bringing it
to a happy conclusion.
_Q._ Do you think then that the taking possession of the king's
territorial rights, and _strengthening the frontiers_, is not an
American interest?
_A._ Not particularly, but conjointly a British and an American
interest.
_Q._ You will not deny that the preceding war, the _war with Spain_,
was entered into for the sake of America; was it not _occasioned by
captures made in the American_ seas?
_A._ Yes; captures of ships carrying on the British trade there with
British manufactures.
_Q._ Was not the _late war with the_ Indians, _since the peace with
France_, a war for America only?
_A._ Yes; it was more particularly for America than the former; but
it was rather a consequence or remains of the former war, the Indians
not having been thoroughly pacified; and the Americans bore by much
the greatest share of the expence. It was put an end to by the army
under General Bouquet; there were not above three hundred regulars in
that army, and above one thousand Pensylvanians.
_Q._ Is it not necessary to send troops to America, to defend the
Americans against the Indians?
_A._ No, by no means; it never was necessary. They defended
themselves when they were but an handful, and the Indians much more
numerous. They continually gained ground, and have driven the Indians
over the mountains, without any troops sent to their assistance from
this country. And can it be thought necessary now to send troops for
their defence from those diminished Indian tribes, when the colonies
are become so populous, and so strong? There is not the least
occasion for it, they are very able to defend themselves.
_Q._ Do you say there were no more than three hundred regular troops
employed in the late Indian war?
_A._ Not on the Ohio, or the frontiers of Pensylvania, which was
the chief part of the war that affected the colonies. There were
garrisons at Niagara, Fort Detroit, and those remote posts kept for
the sake of your trade; I did not reckon them; but I believe that on
the whole the number of Americans, or provincial troops, employed in
the war, was greater than that of the regulars. I am not certain, but
I think so.
_Q._ Do you think the assemblies have a right to levy money on the
subject there, to grant _to the crown_?
_A._ I certainly think so, they have always done it.
_Q._ Are they acquainted with the declaration of rights? And do they
know that, by that statute, money is not to be raised on the subject
but by consent of parliament?
_A._ They are very well acquainted with it.
_Q._ How then can they think they have a right to levy money for the
crown, or for any other than local purposes?
_A._ They understand that clause to relate to subjects only within
the realm; that no money can be levied on them for the crown, but
by consent of parliament. _The colonies_ are not supposed to be
within the realm; they have assemblies of their own, which are their
parliaments, and they are, in that respect, in the same situation
with Ireland. When money is to be raised for the crown upon the
subject in Ireland, or in the colonies, the consent is given in
the parliament of Ireland, or in the assemblies of the colonies.
They think the parliament of Great Britain cannot properly give
that consent, till it has representatives from America; for the
petition of right expressly says, it is to be by _common consent in
parliament_; and the people of America have no representatives in
parliament, to make a part of that common consent.
_Q._ If the stamp act should be repealed, and an act should pass,
ordering the assemblies of the colonies to indemnify the sufferers by
the riots, would they obey it?
_A._ That is a question I cannot answer.
_Q._ Suppose the king should require the colonies to grant a revenue,
and the parliament should be against their doing it, do they think
they can grant a revenue to the king, _without_ the consent of the
parliament of Great Britain?
_A._ That is a deep question. As to my own opinion, I should think
myself at liberty to do it, and should do it, if I liked the occasion.
_Q._ When money has been raised in the colonies, upon requisitions,
has it not been granted to the king?
_A._ Yes, always; but the requisitions have generally been for some
service expressed, as to raise, clothe, and pay troops, and not for
money only.
_Q._ If the act should pass, requiring the American assemblies to
make compensation to the sufferers, and they should disobey it, and
then the parliament should, by another act, lay an internal tax,
would they then obey it?
_A._ The people will pay no internal tax; and I think an act to
oblige the assemblies to make compensation is unnecessary; for I am
of opinion, that as soon as the present heats are abated, they will
take the matter into consideration, and if it is right to be done,
they will do it of themselves.
_Q._ Do not letters often come into the post-offices in America
directed to some inland town where no post goes?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ Can any private person take up those letters and carry them as
directed?
_A._ Yes; any friend of the person may do it, paying the postage that
has accrued.
_Q._ But must not he pay an additional postage for the distance to
such inland town?
_A._ No.
_Q._ Can the post-master answer delivering the letter, without being
paid such additional postage?
_A._ Certainly he can demand nothing, where he does no service.
_Q._ Suppose a person, being far from home, finds a letter in a
post-office directed to him, and he lives in a place to which the
post generally goes, and the letter is directed to that place, will
the post-master deliver him the letter, without his paying the
postage receivable at the place to which the letter is directed?
_A._ Yes; the office cannot demand postage for a letter that it does
not carry, or farther than it does carry it.
_Q._ Are not ferrymen in America obliged, by act of parliament, to
carry over the posts without pay?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ Is not this a tax on the ferrymen?
_A._ They do not consider it as such, as they have an advantage from
persons travelling with the post.
_Q._ If the stamp-act should be repealed, and the crown should make a
requisition to the colonies for a sum of money, would they grant it?
_A._ I believe they would.
_Q._ Why do you think so?
_A._ I can speak for the colony I live in; I had it in _instruction_
from the assembly to assure the ministry, that as they always had
done, so they should always think it their duty, to grant such aids
to the crown as were suitable to their circumstances and abilities,
whenever called upon for that purpose, in the usual constitutional
manner; and I had the honour of communicating this instruction to
that honourable gentleman then minister.[95]
_Q._ Would they do this for a British concern, as suppose a war in
some part of Europe, that did not affect them?
_A._ Yes, for any thing that concerned the general interest. They
consider themselves as part of the whole.
_Q._ What is the usual constitutional manner of calling on the
colonies for aids?
_A._ A letter from the secretary of state.
_Q._ Is this all you mean; a letter from the secretary of state?
_A._ I mean the usual way of requisition, in a circular letter from
the secretary of state, by his majesty's command, reciting the
occasion, and recommending it to the colonies to grant such aids as
became their loyalty, and were suitable to their abilities.
_Q._ Did the secretary of state ever write for _money_ for the crown?
_A._ The requisitions have been to raise, clothe, and pay men, which
cannot be done without money.
_Q._ Would they grant money alone, if called on?
_A._ In my opinion they would, money as well as men, when they have
money, or can make it.
_Q._ If the parliament should repeal the stamp act, will the assembly
of Pensylvania rescind their resolutions?
_A._ I think not.
_Q._ Before there was any thought of the stamp act, did they wish for
a representation in parliament?
_A._ No.
_Q._ Don't you know that there is, in the Pensylvanian charter, an
express reservation of the right of parliament to lay taxes there?
_A._ I know there is a clause in the charter, by which the king
grants that he will levy no taxes on the inhabitants, unless it be
with the consent of the assembly, or by act of parliament.
_Q._ How then could the assembly of Pensylvania assert, that laying a
tax on them by the stamp act was an infringement of their rights?
_A._ They understand it thus: by the same charter, and otherwise,
they are intitled to all the privileges and liberties of Englishmen;
they find in the great charters, and the petition and declaration
of rights, that one of the privileges of English subjects is, that
they are not to be taxed but by their _common consent_; they have
therefore relied upon it, from the first settlement of the province,
that the parliament never would, nor could, by colour of that
clause in the charter, assume a right of taxing them, _till_ it had
qualified itself to exercise such right, by admitting representatives
from the people to be taxed, who ought to make a part of that common
consent.
_Q._ Are there any words in the charter that justify that
construction?
_A._ The common rights of Englishmen, as declared by Magna Charta,
and the petition of right, all justify it.
_Q._ Does the distinction between internal and external taxes exist
in the words of the charter?
_A._ No, I believe not.
_Q._ Then may they not, by the same interpretation, object to the
parliament's right of external taxation?
_A._ They never _have_ hitherto. Many arguments have been lately
used here to show them that there is no difference, and that if you
have no right to tax them internally, you have none to tax them
externally, or make any other law to bind them. At present they do
not reason so; but in time they may possibly be convinced by these
arguments.
_Q._ Do not the resolutions of the Pensylvania assembly say--all
taxes?
_A._ If they do, they mean only internal taxes; the same words have
not always the same meaning here and in the colonies. By taxes they
mean internal taxes; by duties they mean customs; these are their
ideas of the language.
_Q._ Have you not seen the resolutions of the Massachusett's Bay
assembly?
_A._ I have.
_Q._ Do they not say, that neither external nor internal taxes can be
laid on them by parliament?
_A._ I don't know that they do; I believe not.
_Q._ If the same colony should say, neither tax nor imposition could
be laid, does not that province hold the power of parliament can lay
neither?
_A._ I suppose that by the word imposition, they do not intend to
express duties to be laid on goods imported, as _regulations of
commerce_.
_Q._ What can the colonies mean then by imposition as distinct from
taxes?
_A._ They may mean many things, as impressing of men, or of
carriages, quartering troops on private houses, and the like; there
may be great impositions that are not properly taxes.
_Q._ Is not the post-office rate an internal tax laid by act of
parliament?
_A._ I have answered that.
_Q._ Are all parts of the colonies equally able to pay taxes?
_A._ No, certainly; the frontier parts, which have been ravaged by
the enemy, are greatly disabled by that means; and therefore, in such
cases, are usually favoured in our tax-laws.
_Q._ Can we, at this distance, be competent judges of what favours
are necessary?
_A._ The parliament have supposed it, by claiming a right to make
tax-laws for America; I think it impossible.
_Q._ Would the repeal of the stamp act be any discouragement of your
manufactures? Will the people that have begun to manufacture decline
it?
_A._ Yes, I think they will; especially if, at the same time, the
trade is opened again, so that remittances can be easily made. I have
known several instances that make it probable. In the war before
last, tobacco being low, and making little remittance, the people of
Virginia went generally into family-manufactures. Afterwards, when
tobacco bore a better price, they returned to the use of British
manufactures. So fulling-mills were very much disused in the last war
in Pensylvania, because bills were then plenty, and remittances could
easily be made to Britain for English cloth and other goods.
_Q._ If the stamp act should be repealed, would it induce the
assemblies of America to acknowledge the rights of parliament to tax
them, and would they erase their resolutions?
_A._ No, never.
_Q._ Are there no means of obliging them to erase those resolutions?
_A._ None that I know of; they will never do it, unless compelled by
force of arms.
_Q._ Is there a power on earth that can force them to erase them?
_A._ No power, how great soever, can force men to change their
opinions.
_Q._ Do they consider the post-office as a tax, or as a regulation?
_A._ Not as a tax, but as a regulation and conveniency; _every
assembly_ encouraged it, and supported it in its infancy, by grants
of money, which they would not otherwise have done; and the people
have always paid the postage.
_Q._ When did you receive the instructions you mentioned?
_A._ I brought them with me, when I came to England, about fifteen
months since.
_Q._ When did you communicate that instruction to the minister?
_A._ Soon after my arrival,--while the stamping of America was under
consideration, and _before_ the bill was brought in.
_Q._ Would it be most for the interest of Great Britain, to employ
the hands of Virginia in tobacco, or in manufactures?
_A._ In tobacco, to be sure.
_Q._ What used to be the pride of the Americans?
_A._ To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great Britain.
_Q._ What is now their pride?
_A._ To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make new
ones.
_Withdrew._
FOOTNOTES:
[83] 1766. Feb. 3. Benjamin Franklin, Esq. and a number of other
persons were "ordered to attend the committee of the whole house [of
commons] to whom it was referred, to consider farther the several
papers [relative to America] which were presented to the house by Mr.
Secretary Conway, &c."
Feb. 13. Benjamin Franklin, Esq. having passed through his
examination, was exempted from farther attendance.
Feb. 24. The resolutions of the committee were reported by the
chairman, Mr. Fuller, their _seventh_ and last resolution setting
forth "that it was their opinion that the house be moved, that leave
be given to bring in a bill to repeal the stamp act." A proposal for
re-committing this resolution was negatived by 240 votes to 133. (See
the Journals of the House of Commons.)
This examination of Dr. Franklin was printed in the year 1767, under
the form of a shilling pamphlet. It is prior in point of date to some
of the foregoing pieces; but I readily submitted to this derangement,
thinking by this means to provide the reader with a knowledge of the
proceedings on which the examination was grounded. B. V.
[84] "The stamp act says, that the Americans shall have no commerce,
make no exchange of property with each other, neither purchase nor
grant nor recover debts; they shall neither marry nor make their
wills, unless they pay such and such sums" in _specie_ for the stamps
which must give validity to the proceedings. The operation of such a
tax, had it obtained the consent of the people, appeared inevitable;
and its annual productiveness, if I recollect well, was estimated
by its proposer in the house of commons at the committee for
supplies, at 100,000_l._ sterling. The colonies being already reduced
to the necessity of having _paper_-money, by sending to Britain the
specie they collected in foreign trade, in order to make up for the
deficiency of their other returns for Britain's manufactures; there
were doubts where could remain the _specie_ sufficient to answer the
tax. B. V.
[85] The stamp act provides that a double duty should be laid "where
the instrument, proceedings, &c. shall be engrossed, written, or
printed, within the said colonies and plantations, in any other
than the English language." This measure, I presume, appeared to be
suggested by motives of convenience, and the policy of assimilating
persons of foreign to those of British descent, and preventing their
interference in the conduct of law business till this change should
be effected. It seems however to have been deemed too precipitate,
immediately to extend this clause to newly-conquered countries. An
exemption therefore was granted, in this particular, with respect to
Canada and Grenada, for the space of five years, to be reckoned from
the commencement of the duty. (See the Stamp Act.) B. V.
[86] Strangers excluded, some parts of the northern colonies double
their numbers in fifteen or sixteen years; to the southward they are
longer, but, taking one with another, they have doubled by natural
generation only, once in twenty-five years. Pensylvania, I believe,
_including strangers_, has doubled in about sixteen years. The
calculation for February 1766 will not then suit 1779. B. V.
[87] In the year 1733--"for the welfare and prosperity of our
sugar colonies in America," and "for remedying discouragements of
planters;" duties were "_given and granted_" to George the Second
upon all rum, spirits, molasses, syrups, sugar, and paneles of
foreign growth, produce, and manufacture, imported into our colonies.
This _regulation of trade_, for the benefit of the general empire
was acquiesced in, notwithstanding the introduction of the novel
terms "give and grant." But the act, which was made only for the
term of five years, and had been several times renewed in the
reign of George the Second, and once in the reign of George the
Third; was renewed again in the year 1763, in the reign of George
the Third, and _extended to other articles, upon new and altered
grounds_. It was stated in the preamble to this act, "that it was
expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established
for _improving the revenue of this kingdom_;" "that it was just and
necessary that a revenue should be raised in America for defending,
protecting, and securing the same;" "and that the commons of Great
Britain ... desirous of making some provision ... towards _raising
the said revenue_ in America, have resolved to give and grant to
his majesty the several rates and duties, &c." Mr. Mauduit, agent
for Massachusett's Bay, tells us, that he was instructed in the
following terms to oppose Mr. Grenville's taxing system.--"You are
to remonstrate against these measures, and, if possible, to obtain a
repeal of the sugar act, and prevent the imposition of any further
duties or taxes on the colonies. Measures will be taken that you may
be joined by all the other agents. _Boston, June 14, 1764._"
The question proposed to Dr. Franklin alludes to this sugar act in
1763. Dr. Franklin's answer appears to deserve the best attention of
the reader. B. V.
[88] Some of the colonies have been reduced to the necessity of
bartering, from the want of a medium of traffic. See p. 146. B. V.
[89] Afterwards expressed in the Declaratory-Act. B. V.
[90] See the answer to the report of the board of trade, p. 144. B. V.
[91] See the note to Lord Howe's letter to our author. B. V.
[92] i. e. Mills for the slitting of iron. B. V.
[93] Admiral Vernon and General Wentworth commanded this expedition;
with what success, is well known. B. V.
[94] When this army was in the utmost distress from the want of
waggons, &c. our author and his son voluntarily traversed the
country, in order to collect a sufficient quantity; and they had zeal
and address enough to effect their purpose, upon pledging themselves,
to the amount of many thousand pounds, for payment. It was but just
before Dr. Franklin's last return to America, that the accounts in
this transaction were passed at home. B. V.
[95] I take the following to be the history of this transaction.
Until 1763, and the years following, whenever Great Britain wanted
supplies directly from the colonies, the secretary of state, in his
majesty's name, sent them a letter of requisition, in which the
occasion for the supplies was expressed; and the colonies returned
a _free gift_, the mode of levying which _they_ wholly prescribed.
At this period, a chancellor of the exchequer (Mr. George Grenville)
steps forth and says to the house of commons: _We must call for money
from the colonies in the way of a tax_;--and to the colony-agents,
_write to your several colonies, and tell them, if they dislike a
duty upon stamps, and prefer any other method of raising the money
themselves, I shall be content, provided the_ amount _be but raised_.
"That is," observed the colonies, when commenting upon his terms, "if
we will not tax ourselves, _as we may be directed_, the parliament
will tax us," Dr. Franklin's instructions, spoken of above, related
to this gracious option. As the colonies could not choose "_another_
tax," while they disclaimed _every_ tax; the parliament passed the
stamp-act.
It seems that the only part of the offer which bore a show of favour,
was the grant of the _mode of levying_--and this was the only
circumstance which was _not new_.
See Mr. Mauduit's account of Mr. Grenville's conference with the
agents, confirmed by the agents for Georgia and Virginia, and Mr.
Burke's speech, in 1774, p. 55. B. V.
_Attempts of Dr. Franklin for Conciliation of Great Britain with
the Colonies[96]._
_London, Nov. 28, 1768._
DEAR SIR,
I received your obliging favour of the 12th instant. Your sentiments
of the importance of the present dispute between Great Britain and
the colonies, appear to me extremely just. There is nothing I wish
for more than to see it amicably and equitably settled.
But Providence will bring about its own ends by its own means; and if
it intends the downfal of a nation, that nation will be so blinded by
its pride, and other passions, as not to see its danger, or how its
fall may be prevented.
Being born and bred in one of the countries, and having lived long
and made many agreeable connexions of friendship in the other, I wish
all prosperity to both: but I have talked, and written so much and
so long on the subject, that my acquaintance are weary of hearing,
and the public of reading any more of it, which begins to make me
weary of talking and writing; especially as I do not find that I
have gained any point, in either country, except that of rendering
myself suspected, by my impartiality; in England, of being too much
an American, and in America of being too much an Englishman. Your
opinion, however, weighs with me, and encourages me to try one
effort more, in a full, though concise state of facts, accompanied
with arguments drawn from those facts; to be published about the
meeting of parliament, after the holidays.
If any good may be done I shall rejoice; but at present I almost
despair.
Have you ever seen the barometer so low as of late?
The 22d instant mine was at 28, 41, and yet the weather fine and fair.