SECOND MISSION TO ENGLAND, I
Franklin so hastened his preparations that he was ready to depart again
for England in twelve days after his election. There was no money in the
provincial treasury; but some of the well-to-do citizens, in expectation
of reimbursement, raised by subscription £1100. He took only £500. A
troop of three hundred mounted citizens escorted him from the city
sixteen miles down the river to the ship, and "filled the sails with
their good wishes." This parade, designed only as a friendly
demonstration, was afterward made a charge against him, as an assumption
of pomp and a display of popularity. If it had been deliberately
planned, it would have been ill advised; but it took him by surprise,
and he could not prevent it. The ship cast anchor in St. Helen's Road,
Isle of Wight, on December 9, 1764. He forthwith hastened to London, and
installed himself in the familiar rooms at No. 7 Craven Street, Strand.
In Philadelphia, when the news came of the safe arrival of this "man the
most obnoxious to his country," the citizens kept the bells ringing
until midnight.
So altogether the prospect now seemed agreeable in whatever direction
Dr. Franklin chose to look. He was in quarters in which he was at least
as much at home as he could feel in his house at Philadelphia; Mrs.
Stevenson, his landlady, and her daughter Mary, whom he had sought to
persuade his son to marry, upon the excellent ground of his own great
affection for her, not only made him comfortable but saved him from
homesickness; old and warm friends welcomed him; the pleasures of London
society again spread their charms before him. Without the regrets and
doubts which must have attended the real emigration which he had been
half inclined to make, he seemed to be reaping all the gratification
which that could have brought him. At the same time he had also the
pride of receiving from the other side of the Atlantic glowing accounts
of the esteem in which he was held by a controlling body of those who
were still his fellow citizens there. But already there had shown itself
above the horizon a cloud which rapidly rose, expanded, and obscured all
this fair sky.
Franklin came to England in the anticipation of a short stay, and with
no purpose beyond the presentation and urging of the petition for the
change of government. Somewhat less than ten months, he thought, would
suffice to finish this business. In fact, he did not get home for ten
years, and this especial errand, which had seemed all that he had to do,
soon sank into such comparative insignificance that, though not
actually forgotten, it could not secure attention. He conscientiously
made repeated efforts to keep the petition in the memory of the English
ministry, and to obtain action upon it; but his efforts were vain; that
body was absorbed by other affairs in connection with the troublesome
American colonies,--affairs which gave vastly more perplexity and called
for much more attention than were becoming in the case of provinces that
should have been submissive as well-behaved children. Franklin himself
found his own functions correspondingly enlarged. Instead of remaining
simply an agent charged with urging a petition which brought him in
conflict only with private persons, like himself subjects of the king,
he found his position rapidly change and develop until he became really
the representative of a disaffected people maintaining a cause against
the monarch and the government of the great British Empire. It was the
"Stamp Act" which effected this transformation.
Scarcely had the great war with France been brought to a close by the
treaty of 1763, bringing such enormous advantages to the old British
possessions in America, before it became apparent that among the fruits
some were mingled that were neither sweet nor nourishing. The war had
moved the colonies into a perilous foreground. Their interests had cost
much in men and money, and had been worth all that they had cost, and
more; the benefits conferred upon them had been immense, yet were
recognized as not being in excess of their real importance, present and
future. Worst of all, the magnitude of their financial resources had
been made apparent; without a murmur, without visible injury to their
prosperity, they had voluntarily raised large sums by taxation.
Meanwhile the English treasury had been put to enormous charges, and the
English people groaned beneath the unwonted tax burdens which they had
to bear. The attention of British financiers, even before the war was
over, was turned toward the colonies, as a field of which the productive
capacity had never been developed.
So soon as peace brought to the government leisure to adjust domestic
matters in a thorough manner, the scheme for colonial taxation came to
the front. "America ... became the great subject of consideration; ...
and the minister who was charged with its government took the lead in
public business."[16] This minister was at first Charles Townshend, than
whom no man in England, it was supposed, knew more of the transatlantic
possessions. His scheme involved a standing army of 25,000 men in the
provinces, to be supported by taxes to be raised there. In order to
obtain this revenue he first gave his care to the revision of the
navigation act. Duties which had been so high that they had never been
collected he now proposed to reduce and to enforce. This was designed to
be only the first link in the chain, but before he could forge others
he had to go out of office with the Bute ministry. The change in the
cabinet, however, made no change in the colonial policy; that was not
"the wish of this man or that man," but apparently of nearly all English
statesmen.
[Note 16: Bancroft, _Hist. U. S._ iv. 28.]
So in March, 1763, George Grenville, in the treasury department, took up
the plan which Townshend had laid down. Grenville was commercially
minded, and his first efforts were in the direction of regulating the
trade of the colonies so as to carry out with much more stringency and
thoroughness than heretofore three principles: first, that England
should be the only shop in which a colonist could purchase; second, that
colonists should not make for themselves those articles which England
had to sell to them; third, that the people of different colonies should
not trade with each other even to the indirect or possible detriment of
the trade of either with England. Severely as these restrictions bore
upon the colonists, they were of that character, as relating to external
trade, which no colonist denied to lie within the jurisdiction of
Parliament. But they were not enough; they must be supplemented; and a
stamp act was designed as the supplement. On March 9, 1764, Grenville
stated his intention to introduce such a bill at the next session; he
needed the interval for inquiries and preparation. It was no very novel
idea. It "had been proposed to Sir Robert Walpole; it had been thought
of by Pelham; it had been almost resolved upon in 1755; it had been
pressed upon Pitt; it seems, beyond a doubt, to have been a part of the
system adopted in the ministry of Bute, and it was sure of the support
of Charles Townshend. Knox, the agent of Georgia, stood ready to defend
it.... The agent of Massachusetts favored raising the wanted money in
that way." Little opposition was anticipated in Parliament, and none
from the king. In short, "everybody, who reasoned on the subject,
decided for a stamp tax."[17] Never did any bill of any legislature seem
to come into being with better auspices. Some among the colonial agents
certainly expressed ill feeling towards it; but Grenville silenced them,
telling them that he was acting "from a real regard and tenderness"
towards the Americans. He said this in perfect good faith. His views
both of the law and of the reasons for the law were intelligent and
honest; he had carefully gathered information and sought advice; and he
had a profound belief alike in the righteousness and the wisdom of the
measure.
[Note 17: Bancroft, _Hist. U. S._ iv. 155.]
News of what was in preparation in England reached Pennsylvania in the
summer of 1764, shortly before Franklin sailed. The Assembly debated
concerning it; Franklin was prominent in condemning the scheme; and a
resolution protesting against it was passed. It was made part of
Franklin's duty in London to urge upon Grenville these views of
Pennsylvania. But when he arrived he found that the grinding at the
mills of government was going on much too evenly to be disturbed by the
introduction of any such insignificant foreign substance as a colonial
protest. Nevertheless he endeavored to do what he could. In company with
three other colonial agents he had an interview with Grenville, February
2, 1765, in which he urged that taxation by act of Parliament was
needless, inasmuch as any requisition for the service of the king always
had found, and always would find, a prompt and liberal response on the
part of the Assembly. Arguments, however, and protests struck
ineffectually against the solid wall of Grenville's established purpose.
He listened with a civil appearance of interest and dismissed his
visitors and all memory of their arguments together. On the 13th of the
same month he read the bill in Parliament; on the 27th it passed the
Commons; on March 8, the Lords; and on March 22 it was signed by a royal
commission; the insanity of the king saved him from placing his own
signature to the ill-starred law. In July Franklin wrote to Charles
Thomson:--
"Depend upon it, my good neighbor, I took every step in my power to
prevent the passing of the Stamp Act. Nobody could be more
concerned and interested than myself to oppose it sincerely and
heartily. But the tide was too strong against us. The nation was
provoked by American claims of independence, and all parties joined
in resolving by this act to settle the point. We might as well have
hindered the sun's setting. That we could not do. But since it is
down, my friend, and it may be long before it rises again, let us
make as good a night of it as we can. We can still light candles.
Frugality and industry will go a great way towards indemnifying us.
Idleness and pride tax with a heavier hand than kings and
parliaments. If we can get rid of the former, we may easily bear
the latter."
In such a temper was he at this time, and so remained until he got news
of the first mutterings of the storm in the colonies. His words show a
discouragement and despondency unusual with him; but what attracts
remark is the philosophical purpose to make the best even of so bad a
business, the hopeless absence of any suggestion of a further
opposition, and that his only advice is patient endurance.
Unquestionably he did conceive the matter to be for the time settled.
The might of England was an awful fact, visible all around him; he felt
the tremendous force of the great British people; and he saw their
immense resources every day as he walked the streets of busy, prosperous
London. As he recalled the infant towns and scattered villages of the
colonies, how could he contemplate forcible resistance to an edict of
Parliament and the king? Had Otis, Adams, Henry, Gadsden, and the rest
seen with their bodily eyes what Franklin was seeing every day, their
words might have been more tempered. Even a year later, in talk with a
gentleman who said that so far back as 1741 he had expressed an opinion
that the colonies "would one day release themselves from England,"
Franklin answered, "with his earnest, expressive, and intelligent face:"
"Then you were mistaken; the Americans have too much love for their
mother country;" and he added that "secession was impossible, for all
the American towns of importance, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia,
were exposed to the English navy. Boston could be destroyed by
bombardment." Near the same time he said to Ingersoll of Connecticut,
who was about departing for the colonies: "Go home and tell your
countrymen to get children as fast as they can." By no means without
forebodings for the future, he was yet far from fancying that the time
had come when physical resistance was feasible. It seemed still the day
for arguments, not for menaces.
To Franklin in this frame of mind, never doubting that the act would be
enforced, there was brought a plausible message from Grenville. The
minister desired "to make the execution of the act as little
inconvenient and disagreeable to America as possible," and to this end
he preferred to nominate as stamp distributers "discreet and reputable"
residents in the province, rather than to send over strangers from Great
Britain. Accordingly he solicited a nomination from Franklin of some
"honest and responsible" man in Philadelphia. Franklin readily named a
trustworthy merchant of his acquaintance, Mr. Hughes. The Stamp Act
itself hardly turned out a greater blunder for Grenville than this
well-meant suggestion was near turning out for Franklin. When the
Philadelphians got news of the passage of the act, the preparations for
its enforcement, the nomination of Mr. Hughes, and the fact that he had
been suggested by Franklin, the whole city rose in a wild frenzy of
rage. Never was such a sudden change of feeling. He who had been their
trusted companion was now loudly reviled as a false and truckling
traitor. He was said to have deserted his own, and to have gone over to
the minister's side; to have approved the odious law, and to have asked
that a position under it might be given to his friend. The mobs ranging
the streets threatened to destroy the new house, in which he had left
his wife and daughter. The latter was persuaded to seek safety in
Burlington; but Mrs. Franklin, with admirable courage, stayed in the
house till the danger was over. Some armed friends stood ready to assist
if the crisis should come, but fortunately it passed by. All sorts of
stories were spread concerning Franklin,--even that it was he who had
"_planned_ the Stamp Act;" and that he was endeavoring also to get the
Test Act introduced into the colonies! A caricature represented the
devil whispering into his ear: "Ben, you shall be my agent throughout my
dominions."
Knowing Franklin's frame of mind, it is easy to fancy the surprise with
which he learned of the spirit which had blazed forth in the colonies,
and of the violent doings in many places; and we may imagine the pain
and mortification with which he heard of the opinions expressed by his
fellow citizens concerning his own action. He said little at the time,
so far as we know; but many years afterwards he gave a narrative of his
course in language which was almost apologetic and deprecatory. A pen in
his fingers became a sympathetic instrument, and betrays sometimes what
his moderate language does not distinctly state. The intense, bitter
condemnation vented by his constituents, who so lately had been
following his lead, but who now reviled a representative who had
misrepresented them in so vital an affair, cut its way deep.
The gap between him and them did indeed seem a wide one. In the colonies
there was universal wrath, oftentimes swelling into fury; in some places
mobs, much sacking of houses, hangings and burnings in effigy;
compulsion put upon king's officers publicly to resign their offices;
wild threats and violence; obstruction to the distribution of the
stamped paper; open menaces of forcible resistance, even of secession
and rebellion; a careful estimating of the available armed forces among
the colonies; the proposal for a congress of colonies to promote
community of action, to protest, and to consult for the common cause;
disobedient resolutions by legislatures; a spreading of the spirit of
colonial union by the general cry of "Join or die;" agreements not to
import or use articles of English manufacture, with other sunderings of
commercial relations. Far behind this mad procession, of which the more
moderate divisions were marshaled by Otis, Sam Adams, and Gadsden, and
soon also by John Adams and Patrick Henry, and by many other well-known
"patriots," Franklin appeared to be a laggard in the rear distance, with
disregarded arguments and protests, with words of moderation, even
counsels of submission, nay, actually with a sort of connivance in the
measure by the nomination of an official under it.
Yet the intervening space was not so great as it appeared. There was
nothing in the counsels of the reasonable and intelligent "patriots"
which was repugnant to Franklin's opinions. So soon as he saw the ground
upon which they had placed themselves, he made haste to come into
position with them. It was fortunate indeed that the transient
separation was closed again before it could lead to the calamity of his
removal from his office. For no man or even combination of men, whom it
was possible to send from the provinces, could have done them the
services which Franklin was about to render. Besides the general power
of his mind, he had peculiar fitnesses. He was widely known and very
highly esteemed in England, where he moved in many circles. Among
members of the nobility, among men high in office, among members of
Parliament, among scientific men and literary men, among men of business
and affairs, and among men who made a business of society, he was always
welcome. In that city in which dinners constituted so important an
element in life, even for the most serious purposes, he was the greatest
of diners-out; while at the coffee-houses, clubs, and in the
old-fashioned tavern circles no companion was more highly esteemed than
he. He consorted not only with friends of the colonies, but was, and for
a long time continued to be, on intimate terms of courteous intercourse
also with those who were soon to be described as their enemies. Each and
all, amid this various and extensive acquaintance, listened to him with
a respect no tithe of which could have been commanded by any other
American then living. The force of his intelligence, the scope of his
understanding, the soundness of his judgment, had already been
appreciated by men accustomed to study and to estimate the value of such
traits. His knowledge of American affairs, of the trade and business of
the provinces, of the characteristics of the people in different parts
of the country, was very great, because of his habit of shrewd
observation, of his taste for practical matters, and of his extensive
travels and connections as postmaster. Add to this that he had a
profound affection for the mother country, which was not only a
tradition and a habit, but a warm and lively attachment nourished by
delightful personal experience, by long residence and numerous
friendships, by gratifying appreciation of and compliments to himself.
No one could doubt his sincerity when he talked of his love for England
as a real and influential sentiment. At the same time he was an
American and a patriot. Though he had failed to anticipate the state of
feeling which the Stamp Act begot, it was his only failure of this kind;
generally he spoke the sentiments of the colonists with entire truth and
sympathy. He was one who could combine force with moderation in the
expression of his views, the force being all the greater for the
moderation; he had an admirable head to conceive an argument, a tongue
and pen to state it clearly and pointedly. He had presence of mind in
conversation, was ready and quick at fence; he was widely learned; he
was a sounder political economist than any member of the English
government; above all, he had an unrivaled familiarity with the facts,
the arguments, and the people on both sides of the controversy; he kept
perfect control of his temper, without the least loss of earnestness;
and had the rare faculty of being able to state his own side with plain
force, and yet without giving offense. Such were his singular
qualifications, which soon enabled him to perform the greatest act of
his public life.
Matters came by degrees into better shape for the colonies. In politics
any statesman has but to propose a measure to find it opposed by those
who oppose him. So what had seemed an universal willingness to levy
internal taxes upon the colonies soon lost this aspect. No sooner did
the news from the angry colonies bring the scheme into prominence than
the assaults upon it became numerous, and enemies of Grenville became
friends of America. Arguments so obvious and so strong as those against
the measure were eagerly made the most of by the opponents of the men
who were in office. Among these opponents was Pitt, that formidable man
before whom all trembled. Gout had disabled him, but who could tell when
he might get sufficient respite to return and deal havoc? Yet in spite
of all that was said, the ministry seemed impregnable. Grenville was
very able, always of a stubborn temper, and in this especial case
convinced to the point of intensity that the right lay with him;
moreover, he was complete master in Parliament, where his authority
seemed still to increase steadily. No man was sanguine enough to see
hope for the colonies, when suddenly an occurrence, which in this age
could not appreciably affect the power of an English premier, snapped
Grenville's sway in a few days. This was only the personal pique of the
king, irritated by complaints made by the Duke of Bedford about the
favorite, Bute. For such a cause George III. drove out of office, upon
grounds of his own dislike, a prime minister and cabinet with whom he
was in substantial accord upon the most important public matters then
under consideration, and although it was almost impossible to patch
together any tolerably congruous or competent body of successors.
Pitt endeavored to form a cabinet, but was obliged, with chagrin, to
confess his inability. At last the Duke of Cumberland succeeded in
forming the so-called Rockingham Cabinet, a weak combination, but far
less unfavorable than its predecessor towards America. The Marquis of
Rockingham, as prime minister, had Edmund Burke as his private
secretary; while General Conway, one of the very few who had opposed the
Stamp Act, now actually received the southern department of state within
which the colonies were included. Still there seemed little hope for any
undoing of the past, which probably would never have been wrung from
this or any British ministry so long as all the discontent was on the
other side of three thousand miles of ocean. But this was ceasing to be
the case. The American weapon of non-importation was proving most
efficient. In the provinces the custom of wearing mourning was
abandoned; no one killed or ate lamb, to the end that by the increase of
sheep the supply of wool might be greater; homespun was now the only
wear; no man would be seen clad in English cloth. In a word, throughout
America there was established what would now be called a thorough and
comprehensive "boycott" against all articles of English manufacture. So
very soon the manufacturers of the mother country began to find
themselves the only real victims of the Stamp Act. In America it was
inflicting no harm, but rather was encouraging economy, enterprise, and
domestic industry; while the sudden closing of so enormous a market
brought loss and bankruptcy to many an English manufacturer and
warehouseman. Shipping, too, was indirectly affected. An outcry for the
change of a disastrous policy swelled rapidly in the manufacturing and
trading towns; and erelong the battle of the colonists was being fought
by allies upon English soil, who were stimulated by the potent impulse
of self-preservation. These men cared nothing for the principle at
stake, nothing for the colonists personally; but they cared for the
business by which they sustained their own homes, and they were resolved
that the destroying Stamp Act should be got out of their way. Such an
influence was soon felt. Death also came in aid of the Americans,
removing in good time the Duke of Cumberland, the merciless conqueror of
Culloden, who now was all ready to fight it out with the colonies, and
only thus lost the chance to do so.
Beneath the pressure of these events concession began to be talked of,
though at first of course its friends were few and its enemies many.
Charles Townshend announced himself able to contemplate with equanimity
the picture of the colonies relapsing "to their primitive deserts." But
the trouble was that little deserts began to spot the face of England;
and still the British merchant, who seldom speaks long in vain, was
increasing his clamor, and did not fancy the prospect of rich trading
fields reduced to desolation. In January, 1766, too, the dreaded voice
of Pitt again made itself heard in St. Stephen's, sending forth an
eloquent harangue for America: "The Americans are the sons, not the
bastards, of England. As subjects they are entitled to the common right
of representation, and cannot be bound to pay taxes without their
consent. Taxation is no part of the governing power.[18] The taxes are a
voluntary gift and grant by the Commons alone. In an American tax what
do we do? We, your Majesty's Commons of Great Britain, give and grant to
your Majesty--what? Our own property? No! we give and grant to your
Majesty the property of your Majesty's commons in America. It is an
absurdity in terms."[19] "The idea of a virtual representation of
America in this House is the most contemptible that ever entered into
the head of man." "I never shall own the justice of taxing America
internally until she enjoys the right of representation." Not very many
men in either house of Parliament would go the full logical length of
Pitt's argument; but men who held views quite opposite to his as to the
lawful authority of Parliament to lay this tax were beginning to feel
that they must join him in getting it out of the way of domestic
prosperity in England. It seemed to them a mistaken exercise of an
unquestionable right. They were prepared to correct the mistake, which
could be done without abandoning the right.
[Note 18: Grenville had laid down the proposition that England was
"the sovereign, the supreme legislative power over America," and that
"taxation is a part of that sovereign power."]
[Note 19: Bancroft, _Hist. U. S._ v. 385-387.]
As this feeling visibly gained ground the ministry gathered courage to
consider the expediency of introducing a bill to repeal the act. Could
the king have had his way they would not have survived in office to do
so. He would have had their ministerial heads off, as he had stricken
those of their immediate predecessors. But efforts which he made to find
successors for them were fruitless, and so they remained in places which
no others could be induced to fill. Pitt was sounded, to see whether he
would ally himself with them; but he would not. Had he been gained the
fight would not have come simply upon the repeal of the act as
unsatisfactory, but as being contrary to the constitution of England.
The narrower battle-ground was selected by Rockingham.
The immediate forerunner in Parliament of the repeal of the Stamp Act
was significant. A resolution was introduced into the House of Lords,
February 3, 1766, that the "king in Parliament has full power to bind
the colonies and people of America in all cases whatsoever." The debate
which followed showed what importance this American question had assumed
in England; the expression of feeling was intense, the display of
ability very great. Lord Camden and Lord Mansfield encountered each
other; but the former, with the best of the argument, had much the worst
of the division. One hundred and twenty-five peers voted for the
resolution, only five against it. In the Commons, Pitt assailed the
resolution, with no better success than had attended Camden. No one
knew how many voted Nay, but it was "less than ten voices, some said
five or four, some said but three."[20] Immediately after this assertion
of a principle, the same Parliament prepared to set aside the only
application of it which had ever been attempted. It was well understood
that the repeal of the Stamp Act was close at hand.
[Note 20: Bancroft, _Hist. U. S._ v. 417.]
It was at this juncture that Franklin, who had been by no means idle
during the long struggle, appeared as a witness in that examination
which perhaps displayed his ability to better advantage than any other
single act in his life. It was between February 3 and 13, 1766, that he
and others were summoned to give testimony concerning the colonies at
the bar of the House of Commons sitting in committee of the whole. The
others have been forgotten, but his evidence never will be. The
proceeding was striking; there were some of the cleverest and most
experienced men in England to question him; no one of them singly was
his match; but there were many of them, and they conducted an
examination and a cross-examination both in one; that is to say, those
who wished to turn a point against him might at any moment interpose
with any question which might suddenly confuse or mislead him. But no
man was ever better fitted than Franklin to play the part of a witness,
and no record in politics or in law can compare with the report of his
testimony. Some persons have endeavored to account for, which means of
course to detract from, its extraordinary merit by saying that some of
the questions and replies had been prearranged; but it does not appear
that such prearrangement went further than that certain friendly
interrogators had discussed the topics with him so as to be familiar
with his views. Every lawyer does this with his witnesses. Nor can it be
supposed that the admirable replies which he made to the enemies of
America were otherwise than strictly impromptu. He had thorough
knowledge of the subject; he was in perfect control of his head and his
temper; his extraordinary faculty for clear and pithy statement never
showed to better advantage; he was, as always, moderate and reasonable;
but above all the wonderful element was the quick wit and ready skill
with which he turned to his own service every query which was designed
to embarrass him; and this he did not in the vulgar way of flippant
retort or disingenuous twistings of words or facts, but with the same
straightforward and tranquil simplicity of language with which he
delivered evidence for the friendly examiners. Burke likened the
proceeding to an examination of a master by a parcel of schoolboys.
Franklin used to say, betwixt plaint and humor, that it always seemed to
him that no one ever gave an abbreviation or an abstract of anything
which he had written, without very nearly spoiling the original. This
would be preëminently true of an abstract of this examination;
abbreviation can be only mutilation. It ranged over a vast
ground,--colonial history and politics, political economy, theories and
practice in colonial trade, colonial commerce and industry, popular
opinions and sentiment, and the probabilities of action in supposed
cases. His answers made a great stir; they were universally admitted to
have substantially advanced the day of repeal. They constituted the
abundant armory to which the friends of the colonies resorted for
weapons offensive and defensive, for facts and for ideas. He himself,
with just complacency, remarked: "The then ministry was ready to hug me
for the assistance I afforded them." The "Gentleman's Magazine" said:--
"From this examination of Dr. Franklin the reader may form a
clearer and more comprehensive idea of the state and disposition in
America, of the expediency or inexpediency of the measure in
question, and of the character and conduct of the minister who
proposed it, than from all that has been written upon the subject
in newspapers and pamphlets, under the titles of essays, letters,
speeches, and considerations, from the first moment of its becoming
the subject of public attention until now. The questions in general
are put with great subtlety and judgment, and they are answered
with such deep and familiar knowledge of the subject, such
precision and perspicuity, such temper and yet such spirit, as do
the greatest honor to Dr. Franklin, and justify the general opinion
of his character and abilities."
Like praises descended from every quarter.
One interesting fact clearly appears from this examination: that
Franklin now fully understood the colonial sentiment, and was thoroughly
in accord with it. Being asked whether the colonists "would submit to
the Stamp Act, if it were modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and
the duty reduced to some particulars of small moment," he replied with
brief decision: "No, they will never submit to it." As to how they would
receive "a future tax imposed on the same principle," he said, with the
same forcible brevity: "Just as they do this: they would not pay it."
_Q._ "Can anything 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 a very little of your
manufactures in a short time. _Q._ Is it in their power to do without
them? _A._ The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries,
mere conveniences, or superfluities. The first, as cloth, etc., with a
little industry they can make at home; the second they can do without
until they are able to provide them among themselves; and the last,
which are much the greatest part, they will strike off immediately."
This view of the willingness and capacity of the colonists to forego
English importations he elsewhere elaborated fully. The English
merchants knew to their cost that he spoke the truth.
With reference to the enforcement of claims in the courts, he was asked
whether the people would not use the stamps "rather than remain ...
unable to obtain any right or recover by law any debt?" He replied: "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 would rather they should
remain unrecoverable by any law than submit to the Stamp Act."
A few weeks later he wrote: "I have some little property in America. I
will freely spend nineteen shillings in the pound to defend my right of
giving or refusing the other shilling. And, after all, if I cannot
defend that right, I can retire cheerfully with my family into the
boundless woods of America, which are sure to afford freedom and
subsistence to any man who can bait a hook or pull a trigger." The
picture of Dr. Franklin, the philosopher, at the age of sixty-one,
"cheerfully" sustaining his family in the wilderness by the winnings of
his rod and his rifle stirs one's sense of humor; but the paragraph
indicates that he was in strict harmony with his countrymen, who were
expressing serious resolution with some rhetorical exaggeration, in the
American fashion.
The main argument of the colonies, that under the British constitution
there could be no taxation without representation, was of course
introduced into the examination; and Franklin seized the occasion to
express his theory very ingeniously. Referring to the fact that, by the
Declaration of Rights, no money could "be raised on the subject but by
consent of Parliament," the subtle question was put: How the colonists
could think that they themselves had a right to levy money for the
crown? Franklin replied: "They understand that clause to relate only to
subjects 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." This was a favorite theory with him, in expounding which
he likened the colonies to Ireland, and to Scotland before the union.
Many sentences to the same purport occur in his writings; for example:
"These writers against the colonies all bewilder themselves by supposing
the colonies _within_ the realm, which is not the case, nor ever was."
"If an Englishman goes into a foreign country, he is subject to the laws
and government he finds there. If he finds no government or laws there,
he is subject there to none, till he and his companions, if he has any,
make laws for themselves; and this was the case of the first settlers in
America. Otherwise, if they carried the English laws and power of
Parliament with them, what advantage could the Puritans propose to
themselves by going?" "The colonists carried no law with them; they
carried only a power of making laws, or adopting such parts of the
English law or of any other law as they should think suitable to their
circumstances."[21] Radical doctrines these, which he could not
reasonably expect would find favor under any principles of government
then known in the world. To the like effect were other assertions of
his, made somewhat later: "In fact, the British Empire is not a single
state; it comprehends many." "The sovereignty of the crown I understand.
The sovereignty of the British legislature out of Britain I do not
understand." "The king, and not the King, Lords, and Commons
collectively, is their sovereign; and the king with their respective
parliaments is their only legislator."[22] "The Parliament of Great
Britain has not, never had, and of right never can have, without consent
given either before or after, power to make laws of sufficient force to
bind the subjects of America in any case whatever, and particularly in
taxation." The singular phrase "the subjects of America" is worth
noting. In 1769, still reiterating the same principle, he said: "We are
free subjects of the king; and fellow subjects of one part of his
dominions are not sovereigns over fellow subjects in any other part."
[Note 21: To same purport, see also _Works_, iv. 300.]
[Note 22: Concerning this theory, see Fiske's _The Beginnings of New
England_, 266.]
It is a singular fact that Franklin long cherished a personal regard
towards the king, and a faith in his friendly and liberal purposes
towards the colonies. Indignation against the Parliament was offset by
confidence in George III. Even so late as the spring of 1769, he writes
to a friend in America: "I hope nothing that has happened, or may
happen, will diminish in the least our loyalty to our sovereign, or
affection for this nation in general. I can scarcely conceive a king of
better disposition, of more exemplary virtues, or more truly desirous of
promoting the welfare of all his subjects. The experience we have had of
the family in the two preceding mild reigns, and the good temper of our
young princes, so far as can yet be discovered, promise us a continuance
of this felicity." Of the British people too he thought kindly. But for
the Parliament he could find no excuse. He admitted that it might be
"decent" indeed to speak in the "public papers" of the "wisdom and the
justice of Parliament;" nevertheless, the ascription of these qualities
to the present Parliament certainly was not true, whatever might be the
case as to any future one. The next year found him still counseling that
the colonies should hold fast to their allegiance to their king, who
had the best disposition towards them, and was their most efficient
bulwark against "the arbitrary power of a corrupt Parliament." In the
summer of 1773, he was seeking excuses for the king's adherence to the
principle that Parliament could legally tax the colonies: "when one
considers the king's situation," with all his ministers, advisers,
judges, and the great majority of both houses holding this view, when
"one reflects how necessary it is for him to be well with his
Parliament," and that any action of his countenancing a doctrine
contrary to that of both the Lords and the Commons "would hazard his
embroiling himself with those powerful bodies," Franklin was of opinion
that it seemed "hardly to be expected from him that he should take any
step of that kind." But this was the last apology which he uttered for
George III. He was about to reach the same estimation of that monarch
which has been adopted by posterity. Only a very little later he writes:
"Between you and me, the late measures have been, I suspect, very much
the king's own, and he has in some cases a great share of what his
friends call _firmness_." Thus tardily, reluctantly, and at first
gently, the kindly philosopher began to admit to himself and others the
truth as to his Majesty's disposition and character.
Some persons in England, affected by the powerful argument of
non-representation, proposed that the colonies should be represented in
Parliament; and about the time of the Stamp Act the possibility of such
an arrangement was seriously discussed. Franklin was willing to speak
kindly of a plan which was logically unobjectionable, and which involved
the admission that the existing condition was unjust; but he knew very
well that it would never develop into a practicable solution of the
problem, and in fact it soon dropped out of men's minds. January 6,
1766, he wrote that in his opinion the measure of an _Union_, as he
shrewdly called it, was a wise one; "but," he said, "I doubt it will
hardly be thought so here until it is too late to attempt it. The time
has been when the colonies would have esteemed it a great advantage, as
well as honor, 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 so 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."[23]
[Note 23: To same purport, see letter to Evans, May 9, 1766,
_Works_, iii. 464.]
Haughty words these, though so tranquilly spoken, and which must have
startled many a dignified Briton: behold! a mere colonist, the son of a
tallow chandler, is actually declaring that those puny colonies of
simple "farmers, husbandmen, and planters" were already "indifferent"
about, and would soon feel in condition to "refuse," representation in
such a body as the Parliament of England; also that it "highly imported"
Great Britain to _seek_ amalgamation while yet it could be had! But
Franklin meant what he said, and he repeated it more than once, very
earnestly. He resented that temper, of which he saw so much on every
side, and which he clearly described by saying that every individual in
England felt himself to be "part of a sovereign over America."
Men of a different habit of mind of course reiterated the shallow and
threadbare nonsense about "virtual," or as it would be called nowadays
constructive, representation of the colonies, likening them to
Birmingham, Manchester, and other towns which sent no members to
Parliament--as if problems in politics followed the rule of algebra,
that negative quantities, multiplied, produce a positive quantity. But
Franklin concerned himself little about this unreasonable reasoning,
which indeed soon had an effect eminently disagreeable to the class of
men who stupidly uttered it. For it was promptly replied that if there
were such large bodies of unrepresented Englishmen, it betokened a wrong
state of affairs in England also. If English freeholders have not the
right of suffrage, said Franklin, "they are injured. Then rectify what
is amiss among yourselves, and do not make it a justification of more
wrong."[24] Thus that movement began which in time brought about
parliamentary reform, another result of this American disturbance which
was extremely distasteful to that stratum of English society which was
most strenuous against the colonists.
[Note 24: See also to same purport, _Works_, iv. 157.]
Still another point which demanded elucidation was, why Parliament
should not have the power to lay internal taxes just as much as to levy
duties. Grenville said: "External and internal taxes are the same in
effect, and only differ in name;" and the authority of Parliament to lay
external taxes had never been called in question. Franklin's examiners
tried him upon this matter: Can you show that there is any kind of
difference between the two taxes, to the colony on which they are laid?
He answered: "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 for
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 for 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." It was suggested that an
external tax might be laid on the necessaries of life, which the people
must have; but Franklin said that the colonies were, or very soon would
be, in a position to produce for themselves all necessaries. He was then
asked what was the difference "between a duty on the importation of
goods and an excise on their consumption?" He replied that there was a
very material one; the excise, for reasons given, seemed unlawful. "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 merchandises carried through
that part of your dominions, towards defraying the expense you are at in
ships to maintain the safety of that carriage." This was a rather narrow
basis on which to build the broad and weighty superstructure of the
British Custom House; but it was not to be expected that Franklin should
supply any better arguments upon that side of the question. It was
obvious that Grenville's proposition might lead to two conclusions. He
said: External and internal taxation are in principle substantially
identical; we have the right to the former; therefore we must have the
right to the latter. It was a quick reply: Since you have not a right to
the latter, you cannot have a right to the former. But Franklin, being
a prudent man, kept within his intrenchments, and would not hazard
increasing the opposition to the colonial claims by occupying this
advanced ground. He hinted at it, nevertheless: "At present the
colonists do not reason so; but in time they possibly may be convinced
by these arguments;" and so they were.
Franklin also in his examination, and at many other times and places,
had something to say as to the willingness of the colonies to bear their
full share of public burdens. He spoke with warmth and feeling, but with
an entire absence of boastfulness or rodomontade. He achieved his
purpose by simply recalling such facts as that the colonies in the late
war had kept 25,000 troops in the field; that they had raised sums of
money so large that even the English Parliament had seen that they were
exceeding any reasonable estimate of their capacity, and had voted some
partial restitution to them; and that they had received thanks, official
and formal yet apparently sincere, for their zeal and their services.
Few Englishmen knew these things. So, too, he said, the Americans would
help the mother country in an European war, so far as they could; for
they regarded themselves as a part of the empire, and really had an
affection and loyalty towards England.
***
On February 21, 1766, General Conway moved for leave to introduce into
the House of Commons a bill to repeal the Stamp Act. The motion was
carried. The next day the House divided upon the repealing bill: 275 for
repeal, 167 against it. The minority were willing greatly to modify the
act; but insisted upon its enforcement in some shape. The anxious
merchants, who were gathered in throngs outside, and who really had
brought about the repeal, burst into jubilant rejoicing. A few days
later, March 4 and 5, the bill took its third reading by a vote of 250
yeas against 122 nays. In the House of Lords, upon the second reading,
73 peers voted for repeal, 61 against it. Thirty-three peers thereupon
signed and recorded their protest. At the third reading no division was
had, but a second protest, bearing 28 signatures, was entered. On March
18 the king, whose position had been a little enigmatical, but who at
last had become settled in opposition to the bill, unwillingly placed
his signature to it, and ever after regretted having done so.
When the good news reached the provinces great indeed was the gladness
of the people. They heeded little that simultaneously with the repeal a
resolve had been carried through declaratory of the principle on which
the Stamp Act had been based. The assertion of the right gave them at
this moment "very little concern," since they hugged a triumphant belief
that no further attempt would be made to carry that right into practice.
The people of Philadelphia seemed firmly persuaded that the repeal was
chiefly due to the unwearied personal exertions of their able agent.
They could not recall their late distrust of him without shame, and now
replaced it with boundless devotion. In the great procession which they
made for the occasion "the sublime feature was a barge, forty feet long,
named FRANKLIN, from which salutes were fired as it passed along the
streets."[25] That autumn the old ticket triumphed again at the
elections for members of the Assembly. Franklin's own pleasant way of
celebrating the great event was by sending to his wife "a new gown,"
with the message, referring, of course, to the anti-importation league:
that he did not send it sooner, because he knew that she would not like
to be finer than her neighbors, unless in a gown of her own spinning.
[Note 25: Parton's _Life of Franklin_, i. 481.]
No American will find it difficult to conceive the utter ignorance
concerning the colonies which then prevailed in England; about their
trade, manufactures, cultivated products, natural resources, about the
occupations, habits, manners, and ideas of their people, not much more
was known than Americans now know concerning the boers of Cape Colony or
the settlers of New Zealand. In his examination before the Commons, in
many papers which he printed, by his correspondence, and by his
conversation in all the various companies which he frequented, Franklin
exerted himself with untiring industry to shed some rays into this
darkness. At times the comical stories which he heard about his country
touched his sense of humor, with the happy result that he would throw
off some droll bit of writing for a newspaper, which would delight the
friends of America and make its opponents feel very silly even while
they could not help laughing at his wit. A good one of these was the
paper in which he replied, among other things, to the absurd supposition
that the Americans could not make their own cloth, because American
sheep had little wool, and that little of poor quality: "Dear sir, do
not let us suffer ourselves to be amused with such groundless
objections. The very tails of the American sheep are so laden with wool
that each has a little car or wagon on four little wheels to support and
keep it from trailing on the ground. Would they caulk their ships, would
they even litter their horses, with wool, if it were not both plenty and
cheap? And what signifies the dearness of labor when an English shilling
passes for five and twenty?" and so on. It is pleasant to think that
then, as now, many a sober Britisher, with no idea that a satirical jest
at his own expense was hidden away in this extravagance, took it all for
genuine earnest, and was sadly puzzled at a condition of things so far
removed from his own experience.
Very droll is the account of how nearly a party of clever Englishmen
were taken in by the paper which purported to advance the claim of the
king of Prussia to hold England as a German province, and to levy taxes
therein, supported by precisely the same chain of reasoning whereby
Britain claimed the like right in respect of the American colonies.
This keen and witty satire had a brilliant success, and while Franklin
prudently kept his authorship a close secret, he was not a little
pleased to see how well his dart flew. In one of his letters he says:--
"I was down at Lord le Despencer's when the post brought that day's
papers. Mr. Whitehead was there, too, who runs early through all
the papers, and tells the company what he finds remarkable.... We
were chatting in the breakfast parlor, when he came running in to
us, out of breath, with the paper in his hand. 'Here,' says he,
'here's news for ye! Here's the king of Prussia claiming a right to
this kingdom!' All stared, and I as much as anybody; and he went on
to read it. When he had read two or three paragraphs, a gentleman
present said: 'Damn their impudence! I daresay we shall hear by the
next post that he is upon his march with 100,000 men to back this.'
Whitehead, who is very shrewd, soon after began to smoke it, and
looking in my face said, 'I'll be hanged if this is not some of
your American jokes upon us.'"
Then, amid much laughter, it was admitted to be "a fair hit." Of a like
nature was his paper setting out "Rules for reducing a great Empire to a
small one," which prescribed with admirable satire such a course of
procedure as English ministries had pursued towards the American
provinces. Lord Mansfield honored it with his condemnation, saying that
it was "very able and very artful indeed; and would do mischief by
giving here a bad impression of the measures of government."
Yet this English indifference to transatlantic facts could not always be
met in a laughing mood. It was too serious, too unfortunate, too
obstinately persisted in to excite only ridicule. It was deplorable,
upon the very verge of war, and incredible too, after all the warnings
that had been had, that there should be among Englishmen such an utter
absence of any desire to get accurate knowledge. In 1773 Franklin wrote:
"The great defect here is, in all sorts of people, a want of attention
to what passes in such remote countries as America; an unwillingness to
read anything about them, if it appears a little lengthy; and a
disposition to postpone a consideration even of the things which they
know they must at last consider." Such ignorance, fertilized by ill
will, bore the only fruit which could grow in such soil: abuse and
vilification. Yet all the while the upper classes in France, with their
eyes well open to a condition of things which seemed to threaten
England, were keen enough in their desire for knowledge, translating all
Franklin's papers, and keeping up constant communication with him
through their embassy. Patient in others of those faults of vehemence
and prejudice which had no place in his own nature, Franklin endured
long the English provocations and retorted only with a wit too perfect
to be personal, with unanswerable arguments, and with simple recitals of
facts. But we shall see, later on, that there came an occasion, just
before his departure, when even his temper gave way. It was not
surprising, for the blood-letting point had then been reached by both
peoples.
Franklin's famous examination and his other efforts in behalf of the
colonies were appreciated by his countrymen outside of Pennsylvania. He
was soon appointed agent also for New Jersey, Georgia, and
Massachusetts. The last office was conferred upon him in the autumn of
1770, by no means without a struggle. Samuel Adams, a man as narrow as
Franklin was broad, as violent as Franklin was calm, as bigoted a
Puritan as Franklin was liberal a Free-thinker, felt towards Franklin
that distrust and dislike which a limited but intense mind often
cherishes towards an intellect whose vast scope and noble serenity it
cannot comprehend. Adams accordingly strenuously opposed the
appointment. It was plausibly suggested that Franklin already held other
agencies, and that policy would advise "to enlarge the number of our
friends." It was meanly added that he held an office under the crown,
and that his son was a royal governor. Other ingenious, insidious, and
personal objections were urged. Fortunately, however, it was in vain to
array such points against Franklin's reputation. Samuel Cooper wrote to
him that, though the House had certainly been much divided, "yet such
was their opinion of your abilities and integrity, that a majority
readily committed the affairs of the province at this critical season
to your care." By reason of this combination of agencies, besides his
own personal capacity and prestige, Franklin seemed to become in the
eyes of the English the representative of all America. In spite of the
unpopularity attaching to the American cause, the position was one of
some dignity, greatly enhanced by the respect inspired by the ability
with which Franklin filled it, ability which was recognized no less by
the enemies than by the friends of the provinces. It was also a position
of grave responsibility; and it ought to have been one of liberal
emolument, but it was not. The sum of his four salaries should have been
£1200; but only Pennsylvania and New Jersey actually paid him.
Massachusetts would have paid, but the bills making the appropriations
were obstinately vetoed by the royalist governor.[26]
[Note 26: Franklin's _Works_, iv. 88.]
Yet this matter of income was important to him, and it was at no slight
personal sacrifice that he was now serving his country. He had a
moderate competence, but his expenses were almost doubled by living thus
apart from his family, while his affairs suffered by reason of his
absence. For a while he was left unmolested in the post-mastership, and
in view of all the circumstances it must be confessed that the ministry
behaved very well to him in this particular. Rumors which occasionally
reached his ears made him uncomfortably aware how precarious his tenure
of this position really was. His prolonged absence certainly gave an
abundantly fair pretext for his removal; still advantage was not taken
of it. Some of his enemies, as he wrote in December, 1770, by plentiful
abuse endeavored to provoke him to resign; but they found him sadly
"deficient in that Christian virtue of resignation." It was not until
1774, after the episode of the Hutchinson letters and the famous hearing
before the privy council, that he was actually displaced. If this
forbearance of the ministry was attributable to magnanimity, it stands
out in prominent inconsistence with the general course of official life
in England at that time. Probably no great injustice would be done in
suggesting a baser motive. The ministry doubtless aimed at one or both
of two things: to keep a certain personal hold upon him, which might,
insensibly to himself, mollify his actions; and to discredit him among
his countrymen by precisely such fleers as had been cast against him in
the Massachusetts Assembly. More than once they sought to seduce him by
offers of office; it was said that he could have been an under-secretary
of state, had he been willing to qualify himself for the position by
modifying his views on colonial questions. More than once, too, gossip
circulated in America that some such bargain had been struck, a slander
which was cruel and ignoble indeed, when the opportunity and temptation
may be said to have been present any and every day during many years
without ever receiving even a moment of doubtful consideration. Yet for
this the English ministry are believed not to have been wholly
responsible, since some of these tales are supposed to have been the
unworthy work of Arthur Lee of Virginia. This young man, a student at
one of the Inns of Court in London, was appointed by the Massachusetts
Assembly as a successor to fill Franklin's place whenever the latter
should return to Pennsylvania. For at the time it was anticipated that
this return would soon occur; but circumstances interfered and prolonged
Franklin's usefulness abroad during several years more. The heir
apparent, who was ambitious, could not brook the disappointment of this
delay; and though kindly treated and highly praised by the unsuspicious
Franklin, he gave nothing but malice in return. It is perhaps not fully
proved, yet it is certainly well suspected by historians, that his
desire to wreak injury upon Franklin became such a passion as caused him
in certain instances to forget all principles of honor, to say nothing
of honesty.