Chapter IX: Front Matter (9)

1. That his majesty's subjects in these colonies owe the same
allegiance to the crown of Great Britain that is owing from
his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination
to that august body the parliament of Great Britain.
2. That his majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are
entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his
natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.
3. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a
people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes
be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given
personally, or by their representatives.
4. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their
local circumstances cannot be, represented in the house of
commons of Great Britain.
5. That the only representatives of these colonies are persons
chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been
or can be constitutionally imposed upon them, but by their
respective legislatures.
6. That all supplies to the crown being free gifts from the
people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the
principles and spirit of the British constitution for the
people of Great Britain to grant to his majesty the property
of the colonists.
7. That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of
every British subject in these colonies.
8. That the late act of parliament entitled 'an act for
granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties,
in the British colonies and plantations in America,' &c., by
imposing taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies; and the
said act, and several other acts, by extending the
jurisdiction of the court of admiralty beyond its ancient
limits, have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and
liberties of the colonists.
9. That the duties imposed by several late acts of parliament,
from the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, will be
extremely burdensome and grievous; and from the scarcity of
specie, the payment of them absolutely impracticable.
10. That as the profits of the trade of these colonies
ultimately center in Great Britain, to pay for the
manufactures which they are obliged to take from thence, they
eventually contribute very largely to all supplies granted to
the crown.
11. That the restrictions imposed by several late acts of
parliament on the trade of these colonies, will render them
unable to purchase the manufactures of Great Britain.
12. That the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these
colonies depend on the full and free enjoyment of their rights
and liberties, and an intercourse with Great Britain mutually
affectionate and advantageous.
13. That it is the right of the British subjects in these
colonies to petition the king, or either house of parliament.
14. That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies, to
the best of sovereigns, to the mother country, and to
themselves, to endeavor, by a loyal and dutiful address to his
majesty, and humble application to both houses of parliament,
to procure the repeal of the act for granting and applying
certain stamp duties, of all clauses of any other acts of
parliament whereby the jurisdiction of the admiralty is
extended as aforesaid, and of the other late acts for the
restriction of American commerce.'] …

The delegates present from only six of the colonies—except
Ruggles and Ogden—signed the petition; those from New York,
Connecticut, and South Carolina not being authorized to sign.
On the 25th of October, the congress adjourned. Special
measures were taken to transmit the proceedings to the
unrepresented colonies. The several assemblies, on meeting,
heartily approved of the course of their delegates who
concurred in the action of congress; but Ruggles, of
Massachusetts, was reprimanded by the speaker, in the name of
the House, and Ogden, of New Jersey, was hung in effigy by the
people. The action of the assemblies was announced in the
press. Meanwhile the Sons of Liberty, through their committees
of correspondence, urged a continental Union; pledged a mutual
support in case of danger; in some instances stated the
numbers of armed men that might be relied on; and thus evinced
a common determination to resist the execution of the Stamp
Act."

_R. Frothingham,
Rise of the Republic of the United States,
chapter 5._

ALSO IN:
_T. Pitkin,
History of the United States,
volume 1, appendices 5-9._

_H. Niles,
Principles and Acts of the Revolution (edition of 1876),
pages 155-168._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
Treaties with the Indians at German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
Cession of Iroquois claims to western Pennsylvania,
West Virginia and Kentucky.
The drawing of the Indian boundary line.

"After the success of Bradstreet and Bouquet [see PONTIAC'S
WAR], there was no difficulty in concluding a treaty with all
the Western Indians; and late in April, 1765, Sir William
Johnson, at the German Flats, held a conference with the
various nations, and settled a definite peace. At this meeting
two propositions were made; the one to fix some boundary line,
west of which the Europeans should not go; and the savages
named, as this line, the Ohio or Alleghany and Susquehannah;
but no definite agreement was made, Johnson not being
empowered to act. The other proposal was, that the Indians
should grant to the traders, who had suffered in 1763, a tract
of land in compensation for the injuries then done them, and
to this the red men agreed. … During the very year that
succeeded the treaty of German Flats, settlers crossed the
mountains and took possession of lands in western Virginia and
along the Monongahela. The Indians, having received no pay for
these lands, murmured, and once more a border war was feared.
… And not only were frontier men thus passing the line tacitly
agreed on, but Sir William himself was even then meditating a
step which would have produced, had it been taken, a general
Indian war again. This was the purchase and settlement of an
immense tract south of the Ohio River, where an independent
colony was to be formed. How early this plan was conceived we
do not learn, but, from Franklin's letters, we find that it
was in contemplation in the spring of 1766. At that time
Franklin was in London, and was written to by his son,
Governor Franklin of New Jersey, with regard to the proposed
colony. The plan seems to have been to buy of the Six Nations
the lands south of the Ohio, a purchase which it was not
doubted Sir William might make, and then to procure from the
King a grant of as much territory as the Company which it was
intended to form would require. Governor Franklin,
accordingly, forwarded to his father an application for a
grant, together with a letter from Sir William, recommending
the plan to the ministry; all of which was duly communicated
to the proper department. But at that time there were various
interests bearing upon this plan of Franklin. The old Ohio
Company [see OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754] was still suing,
through its agent, Colonel George Mercer, for a perfection of
the original grant. …
{3192}
General Lyman, from Connecticut we believe, was soliciting a
new grant similar to that now asked by Franklin; and the
ministers themselves were divided as to the policy and
propriety of establishing any settlements so far in the
interior,—Shelburne being in favor of the new colony,
Hillsborough opposed to it. The Company was organized,
however, and the nominally leading man therein being Mr.
Thomas' Walpole, a London banker of eminence, it was known as
the Walpole Company. … Before any conclusion was come to, it
was necessary to arrange definitely that boundary line which
had been vaguely talked of in 1765, and with respect to which
Sir William Johnson had written to the ministry, who had
mislaid his letters and given him no instructions. The
necessity of arranging this boundary was also kept in mind by
the continued and growing irritation of the Indians, who found
themselves invaded from every side. … Franklin, the father,
all this time, was urging the same necessity upon the
ministers in England; and about Christmas of 1767, Sir
William's letters on the subject having been found, orders
were sent him to complete the proposed purchase from the Six
Nations, and settle all differences. But the project for a
colony was for the time dropped, a new administration coming
in which was not that way disposed. Sir William Johnson having
received, early in the spring, the orders from England
relative to a new treaty with the Indians, at once took steps
to secure a full attendance. Notice was given to the various
colonial governments, to the Six Nations, the Delawares, and
the Shawanese, and a Congress was appointed to meet at Fort
Stanwix during the following October. It met upon the 24th of
that month, and was attended by representatives from New
Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; by Sir William and his
deputies; by the agents of those traders who had suffered in
the war of 1763; and by deputies from all of the Six Nations,
the Delawares, and the Shawanese. The first point to be
settled was the boundary line which was to determine the
Indian lands of the West from that time forward; and this line
the Indians, upon the 1st of November, stated should begin on
the Ohio at the mouth of the Cherokee (or Tennessee) river;
thence go up the Ohio and Alleghany to Kittaning; thence
across to the Susquehannah, &c.; whereby the whole country
south of the Ohio and Alleghany, to which the Six Nations had
any claim, was transferred to the British. One deed, for a
part of this land, was made on the 3d of November to William
Trent, attorney for twenty-two traders, whose goods had been
destroyed by the Indians in 1763. The tract conveyed by this
was between the Kenhawa and Monongahela, and was by the
traders named 'Indiana.' Two days afterward, a deed for the
remaining western lands was made to the King, and the price
agreed on paid down. These deeds were made upon the express
agreement, that no claim should ever be based upon previous
treaties, those of Lancaster, Logstown, &c.; and they were
signed by the chiefs of the Six Nations, for themselves, their
allies and dependents, the Shawanese, Delawares, Mingoes of
Ohio, and others; but the Shawanese and Delaware deputies
present did not sign them. Such was the treaty of Stanwix,
whereon rests the title by purchase to Kentucky, western
Virginia, and Pennsylvania. It was a better foundation,
perhaps, than that given by previous treaties, but was
essentially worthless; for the lands conveyed were not
occupied or hunted on by those conveying them. In truth, we
cannot doubt that this immense grant was obtained by the
influence of Sir William Johnson, in order that the new
colony, of which he was to be governor, might be founded
there. … The white man could now quiet his conscience when
driving the native from his forest home, and feel sure that an
army would back his pretensions. … Meantime more than one bold
man had ventured for a little while into the beautiful valleys
of Kentucky, and, on the 1st of May, 1769, there was one going
forth from his 'peaceable habitation on the Yadkin river in
North Carolina,' whose name has since gone far and wide over
this little planet of ours, he having become the type of his
class. This was Daniel Boone. He crossed the mountains, and
spent that summer and the next winter in the West. But, while
he was rejoicing in the abundance of buffalo, deer, and
turkeys among the cane-brakes, longer heads were meditating
still that new colony, the plan of which had been lying in
silence for two years and more. The Board of Trade was again
called on to report upon the application, and Lord
Hillsborough, the President, reported against it. This called
out Franklin's celebrated 'Ohio Settlement,' a paper written
with so much ability, that the King's Council put by the
official report, and granted the petition, a step which
mortified the noble lord so much that he resigned his official
station. The petition now needed only the royal sanction,
which was not given until August 14th, 1772; but in 1770, the
Ohio Company was merged in Walpole's, and, the claims of the
soldiers of 1756 being acknowledged both by the new Company
and by government, all claims were quieted. Nothing was ever
done, however, under the grant to Walpole, the Revolution soon
coming upon America. After the Revolution, Mr. Walpole and his
associates petitioned Congress respecting their lands, called
by them 'Vandalia,' but could get no help from that body. What
was finally done by Virginia with the claims of this and other
companies, we do not find written, but presume their lands
were all looked on as forfeited."

_J. H. Perkins,
English Discoveries in the Ohio Valley
(North American Review, July, 1839)._

ALSO IN:
_W. L. Stone,
Life and Times of Sir William Johnson,
volume 2, chapter 16._

_B. Franklin, Works,
(edited by Sparks),
volume 4, pages 233-241, and 302-380._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
Examination of Dr. Franklin before Parliament.

On the 28th of January, 1766, while the bill for the repeal of
the Stamp Act was pending in Parliament, Dr. Franklin was
examined before the House of Commons, in Committee. The
questions and answers of this very interesting examination, as
reported in the Parliamentary History, were as follows:

Q. What is your name, and place of abode?
A. Franklin, of Philadelphia.

Q. Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes among
themselves?
A. Certainly many, and very heavy taxes.

Q. What are the present taxes in Pennsylvania,
laid by the laws of the colony?
A. There are taxes on all estates real and personal, a
poll-tax, a tax on all offices, professions, trades, and
businesses, according to their profits; an excise on all wine,
rum, and other spirit; and a duty of ten pounds per head on all
negroes imported, with some other duties.

{3193}

Q. For what purposes are those taxes laid?
A. For the support of the civil and military establishments
of the country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted
in the last war.

Q. How long are those taxes to continue?
A. Those for discharging the debt are to continue till 1772,
and longer, if the debt should not be then all discharged. The
others must always continue.

Q. Was it not expected that the debt would have been sooner
discharged?
A. It was, when the peace was made with France and Spain; but
a fresh war breaking out with the Indians, a fresh load of
debt was incurred, and the taxes, of course, continued longer
by a new law.

Q. Are not all the people very able to pay those taxes?
A. No. The frontier counties, all along the continent, having
been frequently ravaged by the enemy, and greatly
impoverished, are able to pay very little tax. And therefore,
in consideration of their distresses, our late tax laws do
expressly favour those counties, excusing the sufferers; and I
suppose the same is done in other governments.

Q. Are not you concerned in the management of the post office
in America?
A. Yes; I am deputy post-master general of North America.

Q. Don't you think the distribution of stamps, by post, to all
the inhabitants, very practicable, if there was no opposition?
A. The posts only go along the sea coasts; they do not, except
in a few instances, go back into the country; and if they did,
sending for stamps by post would occasion an expense of
postage, amounting, in many cases, to much more than that of
the stamps themselves.

Q. Are you acquainted with Newfoundland?
A. I never was there.

Q. Do you know whether there are any post-roads on that
island?
A. I have heard that there are no roads at all; but that the
communication between one settlement and another is by sea
only.

Q. Can you disperse the stamps by post in Canada?
A. There is only a post between Montreal and Quebec. The
inhabitants live so scattered and remote from each other, in
that vast country, that posts cannot be supported among them,
and therefore they cannot get stamps per post. The English
colonies too, along the frontiers, are very thinly settled.

Q. From the thinness of the back settlements,
would not the Stamp Act be extremely inconvenient
to the inhabitants if executed?
A. To be sure it would; as many of the inhabitants could not
get stamps when they had occasion for them, without taking
long journeys, and spending, perhaps, three or four pounds,
that the crown might get sixpence.

Q. Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able
to pay the stamp duty?
A. In my opinion, there is not gold and silver enough in the
colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year.

Q. Don't you know that the money arising from the stamps was
all to be laid out in America?
A. I know it is appropriated by the act to the American
service; but it will be spent in the conquered colonies, where
the soldiers are, not in the colonies that pay it.

Q. Is there not a balance of trade due from the colonies where
the troops are posted, that will bring back the money to the
old colonies?
A. I think not. I believe very little would come back. I know
of no trade likely to bring it back. I think it would come
from the colonies where it was spent directly to England; for
I have always observed, that in every colony the more plenty
of means of remittance to England, the more goods are sent
for, and the more trade with England carried on.

Q. What number of white inhabitants do you think there are in
Pennsylvania?
A. I suppose there may be about 160,000.

Q. What number of them are Quakers?
A. Perhaps a third.

Q. What number of Germans?
A. Perhaps another third; but I cannot speak with certainty.

Q. Have any number of the Germans seen service, as soldiers,
in Europe?
A. Yes, many of them, both in Europe and America.

Q. Are they as much dissatisfied with the stamp duty as the
English?
A. Yes, and more; and with reason, as their stamps are, in
many cases, to be double.

Q. How many white men do you suppose there are in North
America?
A. About 300,000, from 16 to 60 years of age.

Q. What may be the amount of one year's imports into
Pennsylvania from Britain?
A. I have been informed that our merchants compute the imports
from Britain to be above 500,000_l_.

Q. What may be the amount of the produce of your province
exported to Britain?
A. It must be small, as we produce little that is wanted
in Britain. I suppose it cannot exceed 40,000_l_.

Q. How then do you pay the balance?
A. The balance is paid by our produce carried to the West
Indies, and sold in our own islands, or to the French,
Spaniards, Danes, and Dutch; by the same carried to other
colonies in North America, as to New England, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland, Carolina, and Georgia; by the same carried to
different parts of Europe, as Spain, Portugal and Italy. In
all which places we receive either money, bills of exchange,
or commodities that suit for remittance to Britain; which,
together with all the profits on the industry of our merchants
and mariners, arising in those circuitous voyages, and the
freights made by their ships, centre finally in Britain to
discharge the balance, and pay for British manufactures
continually used in the province, or sold to foreigners by our
traders.

Q. Have you heard of any difficulties lately laid on the
Spanish trade?
A. Yes, I have heard that it has been greatly obstructed by
some new regulations, and by the English men of war and
cutters stationed all along the coast in America.

Q. Do you think it right, that America should be protected by
this country, and pay no part of the expense?
A. That is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed and
paid, during the last war, nearly 25,000 men, and spent many
millions.

Q. Were you not reimbursed by parliament? A. We were only
reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our
proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected from
us; and it was a very small part of what we spent.
Pennsylvania, in particular, disbursed about 500,000_l_,
and the reimbursements, in the whole, did not exceed
60,000_l_.

Q. You have said that you pay heavy taxes in Pennsylvania;
what do they amount to in the pound?
A. The tax on all estates, real and personal, is eighteen
pence in the pound, fully rated; and the tax on the profits of
trades and professions, with other taxes, do, I suppose, make
full half a crown in the pound.

{3194}

Q. Do you know any thing of the rate of exchange in
Pennsylvania, and whether it has fallen lately?
A. It is commonly from 170 to 175. I have heard that it has
fallen lately from 175 to 162 and a half, owing, I suppose, to
their lessening their orders for goods; and when their debts
to this country are paid, I think the exchange will probably
be at par.

Q. Do not you think the people of America would submit to pay
the stamp duty, if it was moderated?
A. No, never, unless compelled by force of arms.

Q. Are not the taxes in Pennsylvania laid on unequally, in
order to burden the English trade, particularly the tax on
professions and business?
A. It is not more burdensome in proportion than the tax on
lands. It is intended, and supposed to take an equal
proportion of profits.

Q. How is the assembly composed? Of what kinds of people are
the members, landholders or traders?
A. It is composed of landholders, merchants, and artificers.

Q. Are not the majority landholders?
A. I believe they are.

Q. Do not they, as much as possible, shift the tax off from
the land, to ease that; and lay the burthen heavier on trade?
A. I have never understood it so. I never heard such a thing
suggested. And indeed an attempt of that kind could answer no
purpose. The merchant or trader is always skilled in figures,
and ready with his pen and ink. If unequal burdens are laid on
his trade, he puts an additional price on his goods; and the
consumers, who are chiefly landholders, finally pay the
greatest part, if not the whole.

Q. What was the temper of America towards Great Britain before
the year 1763?
A. The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the
government of the crown, and paid, in all their courts,
obedience to acts of parliament. Numerous as the people are in
the several old provinces, they cost you nothing in forts,
citadels, garrisons or armies, to keep them in subjection.
They were governed by this country at the expense only of a
little pen, ink, and paper. They were led by a thread. They
had not only a respect, but an affection for Great Britain,
for its laws, its customs and manners, and even a fondness for
its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce. Natives of
Britain were always treated with particular regard; to be an
Old-England man was, of itself, a character of some respect,
and gave a kind of rank among us.

Q. And what is their temper now?
A. O, very much altered.

Q. Did you ever hear the authority of parliament to make laws
for America questioned till lately?
A. The authority of parliament was allowed to be valid in all
laws, except such as should lay internal taxes. It was never
disputed in laying duties to regulate commerce.

Q. In what proportion hath population increased in America?
A. I think the inhabitants of all the provinces together,
taken at a medium, double in about 25 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 15,000_l_. sterling; it is
now near half a million.

Q. In what light did the people of America use to consider the
parliament of Great Britain?
A. They considered the parliament as the great bulwark and
security of their liberties and privileges, and always spoke
of it with the utmost respect and veneration. Arbitrary
ministers, they thought, might possibly, at times, attempt to
oppress them; but they relied on it, that the parliament, on
application, would always give redress. They remembered, with
gratitude, a strong instance of this, when a bill was brought
into parliament, with a clause to make royal instructions laws
in the colonies, which the House of Commons would not pass,
and it was thrown out.

Q. And have they not still the same respect for parliament?
A. No; it is greatly lessened.

Q. To what causes is that owing?
A. To a concurrence of causes; the restraints lately laid on
their trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver
into the colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making
paper money among themselves; and then demand 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 of America
increase faster than in England?
A. Because they marry younger, and more generally.

Q. Why so?
A. Because any young couple that are industrious, may easily
obtain land of their own, on which they can raise a family.

Q. Are not the lower rank of people more at their ease in
America than in England?
A. They may be so, if they are sober and diligent, as they
are better paid for their labour.

Q. What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same
principle with that of the Stamp Act, how would the Americans
receive it?
A. Just as they do this. They would not pay it.

Q. Have not you heard of the resolution of this House, and of
the House of Lords, asserting the right of parliament relating
to America, including a power to tax the people there?
A. Yes, I have heard of such resolutions.

Q. What will be the opinion of the Americans on those
resolutions?
A. They will think them unconstitutional and unjust.

Q. Was it an opinion in America before 1763, that the
parliament had no right to lay taxes and duties there?
A. I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties
to regulate commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was
never supposed to be in parliament, as we are not represented
there.

Q. On what do you found your opinion, that the people in
America made any such distinction?
A. I know that whenever the subject has occurred in
conversation where I have been present, it has appeared to be
the opinion of every one, that we could not be taxed in a
parliament where we were not represented. But the payment of
duties laid by act of parliament, as regulations of commerce,
was never disputed.

{3195}

Q. But can you name any act of assembly, or public act of
any of your governments, that made such distinction?
A. I do not know that there was any; I think there was never
an occasion to make any such act, till now that you have
attempted to tax us: that has occasioned resolutions of
assembly, declaring the distinction, in which I think every
assembly on the continent, and every member in every assembly,
have been unanimous.

Q. What then could occasion conversations on that subject
before that time?
A. There was, in 1754, a proposition made (I think it came
from hence) that in case of a war, which was then apprehended,
the governors of the colonies should meet, and order the
levying of troops, building of forts, and taking every other
necessary measure for the general defence; and should draw on
the treasury here, for the sums expended, which were
afterwards to be raised in the colonies by a general tax, to
be laid on them by act of parliament. This occasioned a good
deal of conversation on the subject, and the general opinion
was, that the parliament neither would, nor could lay any tax
on us, till we were duly represented in parliament, because it
was not just, nor agreeable to the nature of an English
constitution.

Q. Don't you know there was a time in New York, when it was
under consideration to make an application to parliament, to
lay taxes on that colony, upon a deficiency arising from the
assembly's refusing or neglecting to raise the necessary
supplies for the support of the civil government?
A. I never heard of it.

Q. There was such an application under consideration in New
York; and do you apprehend they could suppose the right of
parliament to lay a tax in America was only local, and
confined to the case of a deficiency in a particular colony,
by a refusal of its assembly to raise the necessary supplies?
A. They could not suppose such a case, as that the assembly
would not raise the necessary supplies to support its own
government. An assembly that would refuse it, must want common
sense, which cannot be supposed. I think there was never any
such case at New York, and that it must be a
misrepresentation, or the fact must be misunderstood. I know
there have been some attempts, by ministerial instructions
from hence, to oblige the assemblies to settle permanent
salaries on governors, which they wisely refused to do; but I
believe no assembly of New York, or any other colony, ever
refused duly to support government, by proper allowances, from
time to time, to public officers.

Q. But in case a governor, acting by instruction, should call
on an assembly to raise the necessary supplies, and the
assembly should refuse to do it, do you not think it would
then be for the good of the people of the colony, as well as
necessary to government, that the parliament should tax them?
A. I do not think it would be necessary. If an assembly could
possibly be so absurd as to refuse raising the supplies
requisite for the maintenance of government among them, they
could not long remain in such a situation; the disorders and
confusion occasioned by it, must soon bring them to reason.

Q. If it should not, ought not the right to be in Great
Britain of applying a remedy?
A. A right only to be used in such a case, I should have no
objection to, supposing it to be used merely for the good of
the people of the colony.

Q. But who is to judge of that, Britain or the colony?
A. Those that feel can best judge.

Q. You say the colonies have always submitted to external
taxes, and object to the right of parliament only in laying
internal taxes; now can you shew that there is any kind of
difference between the two taxes to the colony on which they
may be laid?
A. I think the difference is very great. An external tax is a
duty laid on commodities imported; that duty is added to the
first cost, and other charges on the commodity, and when it is
offered to sale, makes a part of the price. If the people do
not like it at that price, they refuse it: they are not
obliged to pay it. But an internal tax is forced from the
people without their consent, if not laid by their own
representatives. The Stamp Act says, we shall have no
commerce, make no exchange of property with each other,
neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall
neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay such 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 internal tax or duty to be laid on the
necessaries of life imported into your colony, will not that
be the same thing in its effects as an internal tax?
A. I do not know a single article imported into the northern
colonies, but what they can either do without or make
themselves.

Q. Don't you think cloth from England absolutely necessary to
them?
A. No, by no means absolutely necessary; with industry and
good management, they may very well supply themselves with all
they want.

Q. Will it not take a long time to establish that manufacture
among them; and must they not in the mean while suffer
greatly?
A. I think not. They have made a surprising progress already.
And I am of opinion, that before their old clothes are worn
out, they will have new ones of their own making.

Q. Can they possibly find wool enough in North America?
A. They have taken steps to increase the wool. They entered
into general combination to eat no more lamb, and very few
lambs were killed last year. This course persisted in, will
soon make a prodigious difference in the quantity of wool. And
the establishing of great manufactories, like those in the
clothing towns here, is not necessary, as it is where the
business is to be carried on for the purposes of trade. The
people will all spin and work for themselves, in their own
houses.

Q. Can there be wool and manufacture enough in one or two
years?
A. In three years, I think, there may.

Q. Does not the severity of the winter, in the northern
colonies, occasion the wool to be of bad quality?
A. No, the wool is very fine and good.

Q. In the more southern colonies, as in Virginia, don't you
know that the wool is coarse, and only a kind of hair?
A. I don't know it. I never heard it. Yet I have been
sometimes in Virginia. I cannot say I ever took particular
notice of the wool there, but I believe it is good, though I
cannot speak positively of it; but Virginia, and the colonies
south of it, have less occasion for wool; their winters are
short, and not very severe, and they can very well clothe
themselves with linen and cotton of their own raising for the
rest of the year.

{3196}

Q. Are not the people in the more northern colonies obliged to
fodder their sheep all the winter?
A. In some of the most northern colonies they may be obliged
to do it some part of the winter.

Q. Considering the resolutions of parliament as to the right,
do you think, if the Stamp Act is repealed, that the North
Americans will be satisfied?
A. I believe they will.

Q. Why do you think so?
A. I think the resolutions of right will give them very little
concern, if they are never attempted to be carried into
practice. The colonies will probably consider themselves in
the same situation, in that respect, with Ireland; they know
you claim the same right with regard to Ireland, but you never
exercise it. And they may believe you never will exercise it
in the colonies, any more than in Ireland, unless on some very
extraordinary occasion.

Q. But who are to be the judges of that extraordinary
occasion? Is not the parliament?
A. Though the parliament may judge of the occasion, the people
will think it can never exercise such right, till
representatives from the colonies are admitted into
parliament, and that whenever the occasion arises,
representatives will be ordered.

Q. Did you never hear that Maryland, during the last war, had
refused to furnish a quota towards the common defence?
A. Maryland has been much misrepresented in that matter.
Maryland, to my knowledge, never refused to contribute, or
grant aids to the crown. The assemblies every year, during the
war, voted considerable sums, and formed bills to raise them.
The bills were, according to the constitution of that
province, sent up to the council, or upper house, for
concurrence, that they might be presented to the governor, in
order to be enacted into laws. Unhappy disputes between the
two houses, arising from the defects of that constitution
principally, rendered all the bills but one or two abortive.
The proprietary's council rejected them. It is true, Maryland
did not contribute its proportion, but it was, in my opinion,
the fault of the government, not of the people.

Q. Was it not talked of in the other provinces as a proper
measure to apply to parliament to compel them?
A. I have heard such discourse: but as it was well known that
the people were not to blame, no such application was ever
made, or any step taken towards it.

Q. Was it not proposed at a public meeting?
A. Not that I know of.

Q. Do you remember the abolishing of the paper currency in New
England, by act of assembly?
A. I do remember its being abolished in the Massachusetts Bay.

Q. Was not lieutenant governor Hutchinson principally
concerned in that transaction?
A. I have heard so.

Q. Was it not at that time a very unpopular law?
A. I believe it might, though I can say little about it, as I
lived at a distance from that province.

Q. Was not the scarcity of gold and silver an argument used
against abolishing the paper?
A. I suppose it was.

Q. What is the present opinion there of that law? Is it as
unpopular as it was at first?
A. think it is not
.
Q. Have not instructions from hence been sometimes sent over
to governors, highly oppressive and unpolitical?
A. Yes.

Q. Have not some governors dispensed with them for that
reason?
A. Yes, I have heard so.

Q. Did the Americans ever dispute the controuling
power of parliament to regulate the commerce?
A. No.

Q. Can any thing less than a military force carry the Stamp
Act into execution?
A. I do not see how a military force can be applied to that
purpose.

Q. Why may it not?
A. Suppose a military force sent into America, they
will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do?
They cannot force a man to take stamps who chuses
to do without them. They will not find a rebellion;
they may indeed make one.

Q. If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the
consequences?
A. A total loss of the respect and affection the people of
America bear to this country, and of all the commerce that
depends on that respect and affection.

Q. How can the commerce be affected?
A. You will find, that if the act is not repealed, they will
take very little of your manufactures in a short time.

Q. Is it in their power to do without them?
A. I think they may very well do without them.

Q. Is it their interest not to take them?
A. The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries,
mere conveniencies, or superfluities. The first, as cloth, &c.
with a little industry they can make at home: the second they
can do without, till they are able to provide them among
themselves; and the last, which are much the greatest part,
they will strike off immediately. They are mere articles of
fashion, purchased and consumed, because the fashion in a
respected country, but will now be detested and rejected. The
people have already struck off, by general agreement, the use
of all goods fashionable in mournings, and many thousand
pounds worth are sent back as unsaleable.

Q. Is it their interest to make cloth at home?
A. I think they may at present get it cheaper from Britain, I
mean of the same fineness and neatness of workmanship; but
when one considers other circumstances, the restraints on
their trade, and the difficulty of making remittances, it is
their interest to make every thing.

Q. Suppose an act of internal regulations connected with the
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 have always done,
grant them freely. And that their money ought not to be given
away, without their consent, by persons at a distance,
unacquainted with their circumstances and abilities. The
granting aids to the crown, is the only means they have of
recommending themselves to their sovereign, and they think it
extremely hard and unjust, that a body of men, in which they
have no representatives, should make a merit to itself of
giving and granting what is not its own, but theirs, and
deprives them of a right they esteem of the utmost value and
importance, as it is the security of all their other rights.

Q. But is not the post office, which they have long received,
a tax as well as a regulation?
A. No; the money paid for the postage of a letter is not of
the nature of a tax; it is merely a quantum meruit for a
service done; no person is compellable to pay the money, if he
does not chuse 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.

{3197}

Q. But do they not consider the regulations of the
post-office, by the act of last year, as a tax?
A. By the regulations of last year the rate of postage was
generally abated near thirty per cent. through all America;
they certainly cannot consider such abatement as a tax.

Q. If an excise was laid by parliament, which they might
likewise avoid paying, by not consuming the articles excised,
would they then not object to it?
A. They would certainly object to it, as an excise is
unconnected with any service done, and is merely an aid which
they think ought to be asked of them, and granted by them if
they are to pay it, and can be granted for them, by no others
whatsoever, whom they have not impowered for that purpose.

Q. You say they do not object to the right of parliament, in
laying duties on goods to be paid on their importation; now,
is there any kind of difference between a duty on the
importation of goods and an excise on their consumption?
A. Yes; a very material one; an excise, for the reasons I have
just mentioned, they think you can have no right to lay within
their country. But the sea is yours; you maintain, by your
fleets, the safety of navigation in it, and keep it clear of
pirates; you may have therefore a natural and equitable right
to some toll or duty on merchandizes carried through that part
of your dominions, towards defraying the 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. Is not the duty paid on the tobacco exported a duty of that
kind?
A. That, I think, is only on tobacco carried coastwise from
one colony to another, and appropriated as a fund for
supporting the college at Williamsburgh, in Virginia.

Q. Have not the assemblies in the West Indies the same natural
rights with those in North America?
A. Undoubtedly.

Q. And is there not a tax laid there on their sugars exported?
A. I am not much acquainted with the West Indies, but the duty
of four and a half per cent., on sugars exported, was, I
believe, granted by their own assemblies.

Q. How much is the poll tax in your province laid on unmarried
men?
A. It is, I think, fifteen shillings, to be paid by every
single freeman, upwards of twenty one years old.

Q. What is the annual amount of all the taxes in Pennsylvania?
A. I suppose about 20,000_l_. sterling.

Q. Supposing the Stamp Act continued, and enforced, do you
imagine that ill humour will induce the Americans to give as
much for worse manufactures of their own and use them,
preferably to better of ours?
A. Yes, I think so. People will pay as freely to gratify one
passion as another, their resentment as their pride.

Q. Would the people at Boston discontinue their trade?
A. The merchants are a very small number compared with the
body of the people, and must discontinue their trade, if
nobody will buy their goods.

Q. What are the body of the people in the colonies?
A. They are farmers, husbandmen or planters.

Q. Would they suffer the produce of their lands to rot?
A. No; but they would not raise so much. They would
manufacture more, and plough less.

Q. Would they live without the administration of justice in
civil matters, and suffer all the inconveniencies of such a
situation for any considerable time, rather than take the
stamps, supposing the stamps were protected by a sufficient
force, where everyone might have them?
A. I think the supposition impracticable, that the stamps
should be so protected as that everyone 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 cannot 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 that 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.

{3198}

Q. How many ships are there laden annually in
North America with flax seed for Ireland?
A. I cannot speak to the number of ships, but I know that in
1752, 10,000 hogsheads of flax seed, each containing seven
bushels, were exported from Philadelphia to Ireland. I suppose
the quantity is greatly increased since that time; and it is
understood that the exportation from New York is equal to that
from Philadelphia.

Q. What becomes of the flax that grows with that flax seed?
A. They manufacture some into coarse, and some into a middling
kind of linen.

Q. Are there any slitting mills in America?
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 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. If the Act should be repealed, and the
legislature should shew its resentment to the opposers of the
Stamp Act, would the colonies acquiesce in the authority of
the legislature?

Q. 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.