_Q._ Did you ever hear the authority of Parliament to make laws for
America questioned till lately?
_A._ The authority of Parliament was allowed to be valid in all laws,
except such as should lay internal taxes. It was never disputed in
laying duties to regulate commerce.
_Q._ In what proportion had population increased in America?
_A._ I think the inhabitants of all the provinces together, taken at a
medium, double in about twenty-five years. But their demand for British
manufactures increases much faster; as the consumption is not merely in
proportion to their numbers, but grows with the growing abilities of the
same numbers to pay for them. In 1723, the whole importation from
Britain to Pennsylvania was but about L15,000 sterling; it is now near
half a million.
_Q._ In what light did the people of America use to consider the
Parliament of Great Britain?
_A._ They considered the Parliament as the great bulwark and security of
their liberties and privileges, and always spoke of it with the utmost
respect and veneration. Arbitrary ministers, they thought, might
possibly, at times, attempt to oppress them; but they relied on it that
the Parliament, on application, would always give redress. They
remembered, with gratitude, a strong instance of this, when a bill was
brought into Parliament, with a clause to make royal instructions laws
in the colonies, which the House of Commons would not pass, and it was
thrown out.
_Q._ And have they not still the same respect for Parliament?
_A._ No, it is greatly lessened.
_Q._ To what cause is that owing?
_A._ To a concurrence of causes; the restraints lately laid on their
trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the
colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among
themselves,[19] and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps,
taking away, at the same time, trials by juries, and refusing to receive
and hear their humble petitions.
_Q._ Don't you think they would submit to the stamp-act if it was
modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and the duty reduced to some
particulars of small moment?
_A._ No, they will never submit to it.
_Q._ What do you think is the reason that the people in America increase
faster than in England?
_A._ Because they marry younger and more generally.
_Q._ Why so?
_A._ Because any young couple that are industrious may easily obtain
land of their own, on which they can raise a family.
_Q._ Are not the lower rank of people more at their ease in America than
in England?
_A._ They may be so if they are sober and diligent, as they are better
paid for their labour.
_Q._ What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same principle
with that of the stamp-act? How would the Americans receive it?
_A._ Just as they do this. They would not pay it.
_Q._ Have you not heard of the resolutions of this house and of the
House of Lords, asserting the right of Parliament relating to America,
including a power to tax the people there?
_A._ Yes, I have heard of such resolutions.
_Q._ What will be the opinion of the Americans on those resolutions?
_A._ They will think them unconstitutional and unjust.
_Q._ Was it an opinion in America before 1763, that the Parliament had
no right to lay taxes and duties there?
_A._ I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties to
regulate commerce, but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed
to be in Parliament, as we are not represented there.
_Q._ On what do you found your opinion, that the people in America made
any such distinction?
_A._ I know that whenever the subject has occurred in conversation where
I have been present, it has appeared to be the opinion of every one,
that we could not be taxed by a Parliament wherein we were not
represented. But the payment of duties laid by an act of Parliament as
regulations of commerce was never disputed.
_Q._ But can you name any act of Assembly, or public act of any of your
governments, that made such distinction?
_A._ I do not know that there was any; I think there was never an
occasion to make any such act, till now that you have attempted to tax
us: _that_ has occasioned resolutions of Assembly declaring the
distinction, in which I think every Assembly on the continent, and every
member in every Assembly, have been unanimous. * * * *
_Q._ 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 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 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 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._ Considering the resolution of Parliament[20] _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._ 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
consequence?
_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 everything.
_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 their own, but
theirs; and deprive them of a right they esteem of the utmost
importance, as it is the security of all their other rights.
_Q._ But is not the postoffice, 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 postoffice, 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 empowered
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 merchandises
carried through that part of your dominions, towards defraying the
expense 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 burden, and
petition you to lighten it. * * *
_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 preferable 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 plough less.
_Q._ Would they live without the administration of justice in civil
matters, and suffer all the inconveniences 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 lawsuits 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 expense be a means Of lessening the
number of lawsuits?
_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._ Are there any _slitting-mills_ in America?
_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 connexion 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
ringleaders 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
expense for their defence, and refusing to bear any part of that
expense. 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 L200,000 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
burden, 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 expense 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?
_A._ I do think they would, as far as their circumstances would 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. 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 Utrecht, 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 retake that fort (which was
looked on here as another encroachment on the king's territory) and to
protect your trade. It was not till after his defeat that the colonies
were attacked.[21] 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 anything 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 expense. 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 Pennsylvanians.
_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 a 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 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 do 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 requisition, 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
themselves.
_Q._ Do not letters often come into the postoffices 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 postmaster 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
postoffice 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
postmaster 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 have 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.
_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 anything 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 aid 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
Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania 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 entitled 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._ 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 open 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. Afterward, 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 Pennsylvania,
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 postoffice as a tax or as a regulation?
_A._ Not as a tax, but as a regulation and convenience; _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.
Feb. 13. Benjamin Franklin, Esq., having passed through his examination,
was exempted from farther attendance.
_He withdrew._
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 recommitting this
resolution was negatived by 240 votes to 133.--_Journals of the House of
Commons._
* * * * *
_Narrative of the Massacre of Friendly Indians in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, 1764._
THESE Indians were the remains of a tribe of the Six Nations, settled at
Conestogo, and thence called Conestogo Indians. On the first arrival of
the English in Pennsylvania, messengers from this tribe came to welcome
them, with presents of venison, corn, and skins; and the whole tribe
entered into a treaty of friendship with the first proprietor, William
Penn, which was to last "as long as the sun should shine, or the waters
run in the rivers."
This treaty has been since frequently renewed, and the chain brightened,
as they express it, from time to time. It has never been violated, on
their part or ours, till now. As their lands by degrees were mostly
purchased, and the settlements of the white people began to surround
them, the proprietor assigned them lands on the manor of Conestogo,
which they might not part with; there they have lived many years in
friendship with their white neighbours, who loved them for their
peaceable, inoffensive behaviour.
It has always been observed, that Indians settled in the neighbourhood
of white people do not increase, but diminish continually. This tribe
accordingly went on diminishing, till there remained in their town on
the manor but twenty persons, viz., seven men, five women, and eight
children, boys and girls.
Of these, Shehaes was a very old man, having assisted at the second
treaty held with them, by Mr. Penn, in 1701, and ever since continued a
faithful and affectionate friend to the English. He is said to have been
an exceeding good man, considering his education, being naturally of a
most kind, benevolent temper.
Peggy was Shehaes's daughter; she worked for her aged father, continuing
to live with him, though married, and attended him with filial duty and
tenderness.
John was another good old man; his son Harry helped to support him.
George and Will Soc were two brothers, both young men.
John Smith, a valuable young man of the Cayuga nation, who became
acquainted with Peggy, Shehaes's daughter, some few years since, married
and settled in that family. They had one child, about three years old.
Betty, a harmless old woman; and her son Peter, a likely young lad.
Sally, whose Indian name was Wyanjoy, a woman much esteemed by all that
knew her, for her prudent and good behaviour in some very trying
situations of life. She was a truly good and an amiable woman, had no
children of her own; but, a distant relation dying, she had taken a
child of that relation's to bring up as her own, and performed towards
it all the duties of an affectionate parent.
The reader will observe that many of their names are English. It is
common with the Indians, that have an affection for the English, to give
themselves and their children the names of such English persons as they
particularly esteem.
This little society continued the custom they had begun, when more
numerous, of addressing every new governor and every descendant of the
first proprietor, welcoming him to the province, assuring him of their
fidelity, and praying a continuance of that favour and protection they
had hitherto experienced. They had accordingly sent up an address of
this kind to our present governor on his arrival; but the same was
scarce delivered when the unfortunate catastrophe happened which we are
about to relate.
On Wednesday, the 14th of December, 1763, fifty-seven men from some of
our frontier townships, who had projected the destruction of this little
commonwealth, came, all well mounted, and armed with firelocks, hangers,
and hatchets, having travelled through the country in the night, to
Conestogo manor. There they surrounded the small village of Indian huts,
and just at break of day broke into them all at once. Only three men,
two women, and a young boy were found at home, the rest being out among
the neighbouring white people, some to sell the baskets, brooms, and
bowls they manufactured, and others on other occasions. These poor
defenceless creatures were immediately fired upon, stabbed, and
hatcheted to death! The good Shehaes, among the rest, cut to pieces in
his bed. All of them were scalped and otherwise horribly mangled. Then
their huts were set on fire, and most of them burned down. When the
troop, pleased with their own conduct and bravery, but enraged that any
of the poor Indians had escaped the massacre, rode off, and in small
parties, by different roads, went home.
The universal concern of the neighbouring white people on hearing of
this event, and the lamentations of the younger Indians when they
returned and saw the desolation, and the butchered, half-burned bodies
of their murdered parents and other relations, cannot well be expressed.
The magistrates of Lancaster sent out to collect the remaining Indians,
brought them into the town for their better security against any farther
attempt, and, it is said, condoled with them on the misfortune that had
happened, took them by the hand, comforted, and promised them
protection. They were all put into the workhouse, a strong building as
the place of greatest safety.
When the shocking news arrived in town, a proclamation was issued by the
governor, detailing the particulars of this horrible outrage, and
calling earnestly upon the people of the province to use all possible
means to apprehend and bring to condign punishment its savage
perpetrators.
Notwithstanding this proclamation, those cruel men again assembled
themselves, and, hearing that the remaining fourteen Indians were in the
workhouse at Lancaster, they suddenly appeared in that town on the 27th
of December. Fifty of them, armed as before, dismounting, went directly
to the workhouse, and by violence broke open the door, and entered with
the utmost fury in their countenances. When the poor wretches saw they
had no protection nigh, nor could possibly escape, and being without the
least weapon for defence, they divided into their little families, the
children clinging to the parents; they fell on their knees, protested
their innocence, declared their love to the English, and that, in their
whole lives, they had never done them injury; and in this posture they
all received the hatchet! Men, women, and little children were every one
inhumanly murdered in cold blood!
The barbarous men who committed the atrocious fact, in defiance of
government, of all laws human and divine, and to the eternal disgrace of
their country and colour, then mounted their horses, huzzaed in triumph,
as if they had gained a victory, and rode off _unmolested_!
The bodies of the murdered were then brought out and exposed in the
street, till a hole could be made in the earth to receive and cover
them.
But the wickedness cannot be covered; the guilt will lie on the whole
land, till justice is done on the murderers. The blood of the innocent
will cry to Heaven for vengeance.
It is said that Shehaes, being before told that it was to be feared some
English might come from the frontier into the country and murder him and
his people, he replied, "It is impossible; there are Indians, indeed, in
the woods, who would kill me and mine, if they could get at us, for my
friendship to the English; but the English will wrap me in their
matchcoat and secure me from all danger." How unfortunately was he
mistaken!
Another proclamation has been issued, offering a great reward for
apprehending the murderers.
But these proclamations have as yet produced no discovery; the murderers
having given out such threatenings against those that disapprove their
proceedings, that the whole country seems to be in terror, and no one
dares speak what he knows; even the letters from thence are unsigned, in
which any dislike is expressed of the rioters.
There are some (I am ashamed to hear it) who would extenuate the
enormous wickedness of these actions, by saying, "The inhabitants of the
frontiers are exasperated with the murder of their relations by the
enemy Indians in the present war." It is possible; but, though this
might justify their going out into the woods to seek for those enemies,
and avenge upon them those murders, it can never justify their turning
into the heart of the country to murder their friends.
If an Indian injures me, does it follow that I may revenge that injury
on all Indians? It is well known that Indians are of different tribes,
nations, and languages, as well as the white people. In Europe, if the
French, who are white people, should injure the Dutch, are they to
revenge it on the English, because they too are white people? The only
crime of these poor wretches seems to have been, that they had a
reddish-brown skin and black hair; and some people of that sort, it
seems, had murdered some of our relations. If it be right to kill men
for such a reason, then, should any man with a freckled face and red
hair kill a wife or child of mine, it would be right for me to revenge
it by killing all the freckled, red-haired men, women, and children I
could afterward anywhere meet with.
But it seems these people think they have a better justification;
nothing less than the Word of God. With the Scriptures in their hands
and mouths, they can set at naught that express command, _Thou shalt do
no murder_; and justify their wickedness by the command given Joshua to
destroy the heathen. Horrid perversion of Scripture and of religion! To
father the worst of crimes on the God of peace and love! Even the Jews,
to whom that particular commission was directed, spared the Gibeonites
on account of their faith once given. The faith of this government has
been frequently given to those Indians, but that did not avail them with
people who despise government.
We pretend to be Christians, and, from the superior light we enjoy,
ought to exceed heathens, Turks, Saracens, Moors, negroes, and Indians
in the knowledge and practice of what is right. I will endeavour to
show, by a few examples from books and history, the sense those people
have had of such actions.
Homer wrote his poem, called the _Odyssey_, some hundred years before
the birth of Christ. He frequently speaks of what he calls not only the
duties, but the sacred rites of hospitality, exercised towards strangers
while in our house or territory, as including, besides all the common
circumstances of entertainment, full safety and protection of person
from all danger of life, from all injuries, and even insults. The rites
of hospitality were called _sacred_, because the stranger, the poor, and
the weak, when they applied for protection and relief, were, from the
religion of those times, supposed to be sent by the Deity to try the
goodness of men, and that he would avenge the injuries they might
receive, where they ought to have been protected. These sentiments,
therefore, influenced the manners of all ranks of people, even the
meanest; for we find, that when Ulysses came as a poor stranger to the
hut of Eumaeus the swineherd, and his great dogs ran out to tear the
ragged man, Eumaeus drove them away with stones; and
"'Unhappy stranger!' (thus the faithful swain
Began, with accent gracious and humane),
'What sorrow had been mine, if at _my_ gate,
Thy reverend age had met a shameless fate!
But enter this my homely roof, and see
Our woods not void of hospitality.'
He said, and seconding the kind request,
With friendly step precedes the unknown guest;
A shaggy goat's soft hide beneath him spread,
And with fresh rushes heaped an ample bed.
Joy touched the hero's tender soul, to find
So just reception from a heart so kind;
And 'Oh, ye gods, with all your blessings grace'
(He thus broke forth) 'this friend of human race!'
The swain replied: 'It never was our guise
To slight the poor, or aught humane despise.
For Jove unfolds the hospitable door,
'Tis Jove that sends the strangers and the poor.'"
These heathen people thought that, after a breach of the rites of
hospitality, a curse from Heaven would attend them in everything they
did, and even their honest industry in their callings would fail of
success. Thus when Ulysses tells Eumaeus, who doubted the truth of what
he related, "If I deceive you in this, I should deserve death, and I
consent that you should put me to death;" Eumaeus rejects the proposal,
as what would be attended with both infamy and misfortune, saying
ironically,
"Doubtless, oh guest, great laud and praise were mine,
If, after social rites and gifts bestowed,
I stained my hospitable hearth with blood.
How would the gods my righteous toils succeed,
And bless the hand that made a stranger bleed?
No more."
Even an open enemy, in the heat of battle, throwing down his arms,
submitting to the foe, and asking life and protection, was supposed to
acquire an immediate right to that protection. Thus one describes his
being saved when his party was defeated:
"We turned to flight; the gathering vengeance spread
On all parts round, and heaps on heaps lie dead.
The radiant helmet from my brows unlaced,
And lo, on earth my shield and javelin cast,
I meet the monarch with a suppliant's face,
Approach his chariot, and his knees embrace.
He heard, he saved, he placed me at his side;
My state he pitied, and my tears he dried;
Restrained the rage the vengeful foe expressed,
And turned the deadly weapons from my breast.
Pious to guard the hospitable rite,
And fearing Jove, whom mercy's works delight."
The suiters of Penelope are, by the same ancient poet, described as a
set of lawless men, who were regardless of the sacred rites of
hospitality. And, therefore, when the queen was informed they were
slain, and that by Ulysses, she, not believing that Ulysses was
returned, says,
"Ah no! some god the suiters' deaths decreed,
Some god descends, and by his hand they bleed;
Blind, to contemn the stranger's righteous cause
And violate all hospitable laws!
... The powers they defied;
But Heaven is just, and by a god they died."
Thus much for the sentiments of the ancient heathens. As for the Turks,
it is recorded in the Life of Mohammed, the founder of their religion,
that Khaled, one of his captains, having divided a number of prisoners
between himself and those that were with him, he commanded the hands of
his own prisoners to be tied behind them, and then, in a most cruel and
brutal manner, put them to the sword; but he could not prevail on his
men to massacre _their_ captives, because, in fight, they had laid down
their arms, submitted, and demanded protection. Mohammed, when the
account was brought to him, applauded the men for their humanity; but
said to Khaled, with great indignation, "Oh Khaled, thou butcher, cease
to molest me with thy wickedness. If thou possessedst a heap of gold as
large as Mount Obod, and shouldst expend it all in God's cause, thy
merit would not efface the guilt incurred by the murder of the meanest
of these poor captives."
Among the Arabs or Saracens, though it was lawful to put to death a
prisoner taken in battle, if he had made himself obnoxious by his former
wickedness, yet this could not be done after he had once eaten bread or
drunk water while in their hands. Hence we read in the history of the
wars of the Holy Land, that when the Franks had suffered a great defeat
from Saladin, and among the prisoners were the King of Jerusalem, and
Arnold, a famous Christian captain, who had been very cruel to the
Saracens; these two being brought before the sultan, he placed the king
on his right hand and Arnold on his left, and then presented the king
with a cup of water, who immediately drank to Arnold; but when Arnold
was about to receive the cup, the sultan interrupted, saying, "I will
not suffer this wicked man to drink, as that, according to the laudable
and generous custom of the Arabs, would secure him his life."
That the same laudable and generous custom still prevails among the
Mohammedans, appears from the account, but last year published, of his
travels by Mr. Bell, of Antermony, who accompanied the Czar, Peter the
Great, in his journey to Derbent, through Daggestan. "The religion of
the Daggestans," says he, "is generally Mohammedan, some following the
sect of Osman, others that of Haly. Their language, for the most part,
is Turkish, or, rather, a dialect of the Arabic, though many of them
speak also the Persian language. One article I cannot omit concerning
their laws of hospitality, which is, if their greatest enemy comes under
their roof for protection, the landlord, of what condition soever, is
obliged to keep him safe from all manner of harm or violence during his
abode with him, and even to conduct him safely through his territories
to a place of security."
From the Saracens this same custom obtained among the Moors of Africa;
was by them brought into Spain, and there long sacredly observed. The
Spanish historians record with applause one famous instance of it. While
the Moors governed there, and the Spanish mixed with them, a Spanish
cavalier, in a sudden quarrel, slew a young Moorish gentleman, and fled.
His pursuers soon lost sight of him, for he had, unperceived, thrown
himself over a garden wall. The owner, a Moor, happening to be in his
garden, was addressed by the Spaniard on his knees, who acquainted him
with his case, and implored concealment. "Eat this," said the Moor,
giving him half a peach; "you now know that you may confide in my
protection." He then locked him up in his garden apartment, telling him
that, as soon as it was night, he would provide for his escape to a
place of more safety. The Moor then went into his house, where he had
scarce seated himself when a great crowd, with loud lamentations, came
to the gate bringing the corpse of his son, that had just been killed by
a Spaniard. When the first shock of surprise was a little over, he
learned, from the description given, that the fatal deed was done by the
person then in his power. He mentioned this to no one; but, as soon as
it was dark, retired to his garden apartment, as if to grieve alone,
giving orders that none should follow him. There accosting the Spaniard,
he said, "Christian, the person you have killed is my son; his body is
in my house. You ought to suffer; but you have eaten with me, and I have
given you my faith, which must not be broken. Follow me." He then led
the astonished Spaniard to his stables, mounted him on one of his
fleetest horses, and said, "Fly far while the night can cover you. You
will be safe in the morning. You are, indeed, guilty of my son's blood;
but God is just and good, and I thank him that I am innocent of yours,
and that my faith given is preserved."
The Spaniards caught from the Moors this _punto_ of honour, the effects
of which remain, in a degree, to this day. So that, when there is fear
of a war about to break out between England and Spain, an English
merchant there, who apprehends the confiscation of his goods as the
goods of an enemy, thinks them safe if he can get a Spaniard to take
charge of them; for the Spaniard secures them as his own, and faithfully
redelivers them, or pays the value whenever the Englishman can safely
demand it.
Justice to that nation, though lately our enemies and hardly yet our
cordial friends, obliges me, on this occasion, not to omit mentioning an
instance of Spanish honour, which cannot but be still fresh in the
memory of many yet living. In 1746, when we were in hot war with Spain,
the Elizabeth, of London, Captain William Edwards, coming through the
Gulf from Jamaica, richly laden, met with a most violent storm, in which
the ship sprung a leak, that obliged them, for the saving of their
lives, to run her into the Havana. The captain went on shore, directly
waited on the governor, told the occasion of his putting in, and that he
surrendered his ship as a prize, and himself and his men as prisoners of
war, only requesting good quarter. "No, sir," replied the Spanish
governor; "if we had taken you in fair war at sea, or approaching our
coast with hostile intentions, your ship would then have been a prize,
and your people prisoners. But when, distressed by a tempest, you come
into our ports for the safety of your lives, we, though enemies, being
men, are bound as such, by the laws of humanity, to afford relief to
distressed men who ask it of us. We cannot, even against our enemies,
take advantage of an act of God. You have leave, therefore, to unload
the ship, if that be necessary to stop the leak; you may refit here, and
traffic so far as shall be necessary to pay the charges; you may then
depart, and I will give you a pass, to be in force till you are beyond
Bermuda. If after that you are taken, you will then be a prize; but now
you are only a stranger, and have a stranger's right to safety and
protection." The ship accordingly departed and arrived safe in London.
Will it be permitted me to adduce, on this occasion, an instance of the
like honour in a poor, unenlightened African negro. I find it in Captain
Seagrave's account of his Voyage to Guinea. He relates, that a
New-England sloop, trading there in 1752, left their second mate,
William Murray, sick on shore, and sailed without him. Murray was at the
house of a black, named Cudjoe, with whom he had contracted an
acquaintance during their trade. He recovered, and the sloop being gone,
he continued with his black friend till some other opportunity should
offer of his getting home. In the mean while, a Dutch ship came into the
road, and some of the blacks, going on board her, were treacherously
seized and carried off as slaves. Their relations and friends,
transported with sudden rage, ran to the house of Cudjoe to take revenge
by killing Murray. Cudjoe stopped them at the door, and demanded what
they wanted. "The white men," said they, "have carried away our brothers
and sons, and we will kill all white men; give us the white man you keep
in your house, for we will kill him." "Nay," said Cudjoe, "the white men
that carried away your brothers are bad men; kill them when you can
catch them; but this white man is a good man, and you must not kill
him." "But he is a white man," they cried; "the white men are all bad,
and we will kill them all." "Nay," said he, "you must not kill a man
that has done no harm, only for being white. This man is my friend, my
house is his fort, and I am his soldier. I must fight for him. You must
kill me before you can kill him. What good man will ever come again
under my roof if I let my floor be stained with a good man's blood!" The
negroes, seeing his resolution, and being convinced, by his discourse,
that they were wrong, went away ashamed. In a few days Murray ventured
abroad again with Cudjoe, when several of them took him by the hand, and
told him they were glad they had not killed him; for, as he was a good
(meaning an innocent) man, their God would have been angry, and would
have spoiled their fishing. "I relate this," says Captain Seagrave, "to
show that some among these dark people have a strong sense of justice
and honour, and that even the most brutal among them are capable of
feeling the force of reason, and of being influenced by a fear of God
(if the knowledge of the true God could be introduced among them), since
even the fear of a false God, when their rage subsided, was not without
its good effect."
Now I am about to mention something of Indians, I beg that I may not be
understood as framing apologies for _all_ Indians. I am far from
desiring to lessen the laudable spirit of resentment in my countrymen
against those now at war with us, so far as it is justified by their
perfidy and inhumanity. I would only observe, that the Six Nations, as a
body, have kept faith with the English ever since we knew them, now near
a hundred years; and that the governing part of those people have had
notions of honour, whatever may be the case of the rum-debauched,
trader-corrupted vagabonds and thieves on the Susquehanna and Ohio at
present in arms against us. As a proof of that honour, I shall only
mention one well-known recent fact. When six Catawba deputies, under the
care of Colonel Bull, of Charlestown, went, by permission, into the
Mohawk's country to sue for, and treat of peace for their nation, they
soon found the Six Nations highly exasperated, and the peace at that
time impracticable. They were therefore in fear of their own persons,
and apprehended that they should be killed in their way back to
New-York; which, being made known to the Mohawk chiefs by Colonel Bull,
one of them, by order of the council, made this speech to the Catawbas:
"Strangers and Enemies,
"While you are in this country, blow away all fear out of your breasts;
change the black streak of paint on your cheeks for a red one, and let
your faces shine with bear's grease. You are safer here than if you were
at home. The Six Nations will not defile their own land with the blood
of men that come unarmed to ask for peace. We shall send a guard with
you, to see you safe out of our territories. So far you shall have
peace, but no farther. Get home to your own country, and there take
care of yourselves, for there we intend to come and kill you."
The Catawbas came away unhurt accordingly.
It is also well known, that just before the late war broke out, when our
traders first went among the Piankeshaw Indians, a tribe of the
Twigtwees, they found the principle of giving protection to strangers in
full force; for, the French coming with their Indians to the Piankeshaw
town, and demanding that those traders and their goods should be
delivered up, the Piankeshaws replied, the English were come there upon
their invitation, and they could not do so base a thing. But the French
insisting on it, the Piankeshaws took arms in defence of their guests,
and a number of them, with their old chief, lost their lives in the
cause; the French at last prevailing by superior force only.
I will not dissemble that numberless stories have been raised and spread
abroad, against not only the poor wretches that are murdered, but also
against the hundred and forty Christianized Indians still threatened to
be murdered; all which stories are well known, by those who know the
Indians best, to be pure inventions, contrived by bad people, either to
excite each other to join in the murder, or, since it was committed, to
justify it, and believed only by the weak and credulous. I call thus
publicly on the makers and venders of these accusations to produce their
evidence. Let them satisfy the public that even Will Soc, the most
obnoxious of all that tribe, was really guilty of those offences against
us which they lay to his charge. But, if he was, ought he not to have
been fairly tried? He lived under our laws, and was subject to them; he
was in our hands, and might easily have been prosecuted; was it English
justice to condemn and execute him unheard? Conscious of his own
innocence, he did not endeavour to hide himself when the door of the
workhouse, his sanctuary, was breaking open. "I will meet them," says
he, "for they are my brothers." These brothers of his shot him down at
the door, while the word "brothers" was between his teeth.
But if Will Soc was a bad man, what had poor old Shehaes done? What
could he or the other poor old men and women do? What had little boys
and girls done! What could children of a year old, babes at the breast,
what could they do, that they too must be shot and hatcheted? Horrid to
relate! And in their parents' arms! This is done by no civilized nation
in Europe. Do we come to America to learn and practise the manners of
barbarians? But this, barbarians as they are, they practice against
their enemies only, not against their friends. These poor people have
been always our friends. Their fathers received ours, when strangers
here, with kindness and hospitality. Behold the return we have made
them! When we grew more numerous and powerful, they put themselves under
our protection. See, in the mangled corpses of the last remains of the
tribe, how effectually we have afforded it to them.
Unhappy people! to have lived in such times and by such neighbours. We
have seen that they would have been safer among the ancient heathens,
with whom the rites of hospitality were sacred. They would have been
considered as guests of the public, and the religion of the country
would have operated in their favour. But our frontier people call
themselves Christians! They would have been safer if they had submitted
to the Turks; for ever since Mohammed's reproof to Khaled, even the
cruel Turks never kill prisoners in cold blood. These were not even
prisoners. But what is the example of Turks to Scripture Christians!
They would have been safer, though they had been taken in actual war
against the Saracens, if they had once drank water with them. These were
not taken in war against us, and have drunk with us, and we with them,
for fourscore years. But shall we compare Saracens to Christians?
They would have been safer among the Moors in Spain, though they had
been murderers of sons, if faith had once been pledged to them, and a
promise of protection given. But these have had the faith of the English
given to them many times by the government, and, in reliance on that
faith, they lived among us, and gave us the opportunity of murdering
them. However, what was honourable in Moors may not be a rule to us; for
we are Christians! They would have been safer, it seems, among popish
Spaniards, even if enemies, and delivered into their hands by a tempest.
These were not enemies; they were born among us, and yet we have killed
them all. But shall we imitate idolatrous papists, we that are
enlightened Protestants? They would even have been safer among the
negroes of Africa, where at least one manly soul would have been found,
with sense, spirit, and humanity enough to stand in their defence. But
shall white men and Christians act like a pagan negro? In short, it
appears that they would have been safe in any part of the known world,
except in the neighbourhood of the _Christian white savages_ of
Peckstang and Donegall!
Oh ye unhappy perpetrators of this horrid wickedness! reflect a moment
on the mischief ye have done, the disgrace ye have brought on your
country, on your religion and your Bible, on your families and children.
Think on the destruction of your captivated countryfolks (now among the
wild Indians), which probably may follow, in resentment of your
barbarity! Think on the wrath of the United Five Nations, hitherto our
friends, but now provoked by your murdering one of their tribes, in
danger of becoming our bitter enemies. Think of the mild and good
government you have so audaciously insulted; the laws of your king,
your country, and your God, that you have broken; the infamous death
that hangs over your heads; for justice, though slow, will come at last.
All good people everywhere detest your actions. You have imbrued your
hands in innocent blood; how will you make them clean? The dying shrieks
and groans of the murdered will often sound in your ears. Their spectres
will sometimes attend you, and affright even your innocent children. Fly
where you will, your consciences will go with you. Talking in your sleep
shall betray you; in the delirium of a fever you yourselves shall make
your own wickedness known.
One hundred and forty peaceable Indians yet remain in this government.
They have, by Christian missionaries, been brought over to a liking, at
least, of our religion; some of them lately left their nation, which is
now at war with us, because they did not choose to join in their
depredations; and to show their confidence in us, and to give us an
equal confidence in them, they have brought and put into our hands their
wives and children. Others have lived long among us in Northampton
county, and most of their children have been born there. These are all
now trembling for their lives. They have been hurried from place to
place for safety, now concealed in corners, then sent out of the
province, refused a passage through a neighbouring colony, and returned,
not unkindly, perhaps, but disgracefully, on our hands. Oh Pennsylvania!
Once renowned for kindness to strangers, shall the clamours of a few
mean niggards about the expense of this public hospitality, an expense
that will not cost the noisy wretches sixpence a piece (and what is the
expense of the poor maintenance we afford them, compared to the expense
they might occasion if in arms against us?), shall so senseless a
clamour, I say, force you to turn out of your own doors these unhappy
guests, who have offended their own countryfolks by their affection for
you; who, confiding in your goodness, have put themselves under your
protection? Those whom you have disarmed to satisfy groundless
suspicions, will you leave them exposed to the armed madmen of your
country? Unmanly men! who are not ashamed to come with weapons against
the unarmed, to use the sword against women, and the bayonet against
your children, and who have already given such bloody proofs of their
inhumanity and cruelty.
Let us rouse ourselves for shame, and redeem the honour of our province
from the contempt of its neighbours; let all good men join heartily and
unanimously in support of the laws, and in strengthening the hands of
government, that justice may be done, the wicked punished, and the
innocent protected; otherwise we can, as a people, expect no blessing
from Heaven; there will be no security for our persons or properties;
anarchy and confusion will prevail over all; and violence, without
judgment, dispose of everything.
* * * * *
_Introduction to Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of
Pennsylvania._[22]
To obtain an infinite variety of purposes by a few plain principles, is
the characteristic of nature. As the eye is affected, so is the
understanding; objects at a distance strike us according to their
dimensions, or the quantity of light thrown upon them; near, according
to their novelty or familiarity, as they are in motion or at rest. It
is the same with actions. A battle is all motion, a hero all glare:
while such images are before us, we can attend to nothing else. Solon
and Lycurgus would make no figure in the same scene with the king of
Prussia; and we are at present so lost in the military scramble on the
continent next us, in which, it must be confessed, we are deeply
interested, that we have scarce time to throw a glance towards America,
where we have also much at stake, and where, if anywhere, our account
must be made up at last.
We love to stare more than to reflect; and to be indolently amused at
our leisure rather than commit the smallest trespass on our patience by
winding a painful, tedious maze, which would pay us in nothing but
knowledge.
But then, as there are some eyes which can find nothing marvellous but
what is marvellously great, so there are others which are equally
disposed to marvel at what is marvellously little, and who can derive as
much entertainment from their microscope in examining a mite, as Dr.
---- in ascertaining the geography of the moon or measuring the tail of
a comet.
Let this serve as an excuse for the author of these sheets, if he needs
any, for bestowing them on the transactions of a colony till of late
hardly mentioned in our annals; in point of establishment one of the
last upon the British list, and in point of rank one of the most
subordinate; as being not only subject, in common with the rest, to the
crown, but also to the claims of a proprietary, who thinks he does them
honour enough in governing them by deputy; consequently so much farther
removed from the royal eye, and so much the more exposed to the pressure
of self-interested instructions.
Considerable, however, as most of them for happiness of situation,
fertility of soil, product of valuable commodities, number of
inhabitants, shipping amount of exportations, latitude of rights and
privileges, and every other requisite for the being and well-being of
society, and more considerable than any of them all for the celerity of
its growth, unassisted by any human help but the vigour and virtue of
its own excellent constitution.
A father and his family, the latter united by interest and affection,
the former to be revered for the wisdom of his institutions and the
indulgent use of his authority, was the form it was at first presented
in. Those who were only ambitious of repose, found it here; and as none
returned with an evil report of the land, numbers followed, all partook
of the leaven they found; the community still wore the same equal face;
nobody aspired, nobody was oppressed; industry was sure of profit,
knowledge of esteem, and virtue of veneration.
An assuming landlord, strongly disposed to convert free tenants into
abject vassals, and to reap what he did not sow, countenanced and
abetted by a few desperate and designing dependants on the one side, and
on the other, all who have sense enough to know their rights and spirit
enough to defend them, combined as one man against the said landlord and
his encroachments, is the form it has since assumed.
And surely, to a nation born to liberty like this, bound to leave it
unimpaired, as they received it from their fathers, in perpetuity to
their heirs, and interested in the conservation of it in every appendage
of the British empire, the particulars of such a contest cannot be
wholly indifferent.
On the contrary, it is reasonable to think the first workings of power
against liberty, and the natural efforts of unbiased men to secure
themselves against the first approaches of oppression, must have a
captivating power over every man of sensibility and discernment among
us.
Liberty, it seems, thrives best in the woods. America best cultivates
what Germany brought forth. And were it not for certain ugly
comparisons, hard to be suppressed, the pleasure arising from such a
research would be without alloy.
In the feuds of Florence, recorded by Machiavel, we find more to lament
and less to praise. Scarce can we believe the first citizens of the
ancient republics had such pretensions to consideration, though so
highly celebrated in ancient story. And as to ourselves, we need no
longer have recourse to the late glorious stand of the French
parliaments to excite our emulation.
It is a known custom among farmers to change their corn from season to
season for the sake of filling the bushel; and in case the wisdom of the
age should condescend to make the like experiment in another shape, from
hence we may learn whither to repair for the proper species.
It is not, however, to be presumed, that such as have long been
accustomed to consider the colonies in general as only so many
dependencies on the council-board, the board of trade, and the board of
customs; or as a hotbed for causes, jobs, and other pecuniary
emoluments, and as bound as effectually by instructions as by laws, can
be prevailed upon to consider these patriot rustics with any degree of
respect.
Derision, on the contrary, must be the lot of him who imagines it in the
power of the pen to set any lustre upon them; and indignation theirs for
daring to assert and maintain the independence interwoven in their
constitution, which now, it seems, is become an improper ingredient,
and, therefore, to be excised away.
But how contemptibly soever these gentlemen may talk of the colonies,
how cheap soever they may hold their assemblies, or how insignificant
the planters and traders who compose them, truth will be truth, and
principle principle, notwithstanding.
Courage, wisdom, integrity, and honour are not to be measured by the
sphere assigned them to act in, but by the trials they undergo and the
vouchers they furnish; and, if so manifested, need neither robes nor
titles to set them off.
* * * * *
_Dr. Franklin's motion for Prayers in the Convention assembled at
Philadelphia, 1787, to revise the then existing Articles of
Confederation._
MR. PRESIDENT,
THE small progress we have made after four or five weeks' close
attendance and continual reasonings with each other, our different
sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as
many _Noes_ as _Ayes_, is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the
imperfection of the human understanding. We indeed seem to _feel_ our
own want of political wisdom, since we have been running all about in
search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of
government, and examined the different forms of those republics which,
having been originally formed with the seeds of their own dissolution,
now no longer exist; and we have viewed modern states all round Europe,
but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of this Assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark, to
find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented
to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought
of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our
understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we
were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the
Divine protection! Our prayers, sir, were heard; and they were
graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must
have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our
favour. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of
consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national
felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we
imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have lived, sir, a long
time: and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this
truth, _That_ GOD _governs in the affairs of men_! And if a sparrow
cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an
empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the
Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the house, they labour in
vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe, that
without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building
no better than the building of Babel: we shall be divided by our little
partial local interests, our projects will be confounded, and we
ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And,
what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance,
despair of establishing government by human wisdom, and leave it to
chance, war, and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move,
That henceforth prayers, imploring the assistance of Heaven and its
blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning
before we proceed to business; and that one or more of the clergy of
this city be requested to officiate in that service.
[Note by Dr. Franklin.]--"_The Convention, except three or four persons,
thought prayers unnecessary!!_"
* * * * *
END OF VOL. I.
FOOTNOTES:
[18] The following appears to be the history of this celebrated Act:
Until 1763, whenever Great Britain wanted supplies directly from the
colonies, the secretary of state, in the king'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 the chancellor of the exchequer
(Mr. George Grenville) 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.
This act declared that the Americans should 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, its annual
productiveness, on its introduction, was estimated by its proposer in
the House of Commons 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 whether there could remain _specie_ sufficient to answer the tax.
[19] Some of the colonies had been reduced to the necessity of
bartering, from the want of a medium of traffic.
[20] Afterward expressed in the Declaratory Act.
[21] When this army was in the utmost distress from the want of wagons,
&c., our author and his son voluntarily traversed the country, in order
to collect a sufficient quantity; and effected their purpose, by
pledging himself to the amount of many thousand pounds, for payment. It
was but just before Dr. Franklin's last return from England to America
that the accounts in this transaction were passed at the British
treasury.
[22] The publication of this work by Doctor Franklin was made in London
during the war that begun in 1773. The introduction is a model of vivid
style and sound wisdom. It is written as in London.
* * * * *
[Transcriber's Notes:
The transcriber made these changes to the text to correct obvious
errors:
1. p 35 obnoxions --> obnoxious
2. p. 53 expcetations --> expectations
3. p. 84 fifteeen --> fifteen
4. p. 105 6. Moderation. --> 9. Moderation.
5. p. 125 retailiating --> retaliating
6. p. 162 Virnia --> Virginia
7. p. 226 with with more lustre --> with more lustre
8. p. 250 obejct --> object
9. p. 275 aleak --> a leak
10. p. 280 perpretrators --> perpetrators
11. p. 285 dependancies --> dependencies
12. p. 287 succed --> succeed
End of Transcriber's Notes]