Chapter CDXLV: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (42)

The first stern note of defiance came from Virginia. Patrick
Henry had lately been elected to the colonial assembly. Having
waited in vain for the older leaders of the house to move in
the matter of expressing the feeling of the colony on the
subject, on the 29th of May, when the session was within three
days of its expected close, "Mr. Henry introduced his
celebrated resolutions on the stamp act. I will not withhold
from the reader a note of this transaction from the pen of Mr.
Henry himself. It is a curiosity, and highly worthy of
preservation. After his death, there was found among his
papers one sealed, and thus endorsed: 'Enclosed are the
resolutions of the Virginia assembly in 1765, concerning the
stamp act. Let my executors open this paper.' Within was found
the following copy of the resolutions, in Mr. Henry's
handwriting:—'Resolved, That the first adventurers and
settlers of this, his majesty's colony and dominion, brought
with them, and transmitted to their posterity, and all other
his majesty's subjects, since inhabiting in this, his
majesty's said colony, all the privileges, franchises, and
immunities, that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and
possessed by the people of Great Britain. Resolved, That by
two royal charters, granted by King James I., the colonists,
aforesaid, are declared entitled to all the privileges,
liberties, and immunities of denizens and natural-born
subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been
abiding and born within the realm of England. Resolved, That
the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen
by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes
the people are able to bear, and the easiest mode of raising
them, and are equally affected by such taxes themselves, is
the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, and
without which the ancient constitution cannot subsist.
{3188}
Resolved, That his majesty's liege people of this most ancient
colony, have uninterruptedly enjoyed the right of being thus
governed by their own assembly, in the article of their taxes
and internal police, and that the same hath never been
forfeited, or any other way given up, but hath been constantly
recognised by the king and people of Great Britain. Resolved,
therefore, That the general assembly of this colony have the
sole right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the
inhabitants of this colony; and that every attempt to vest
such power in any person or persons whatsoever, other than the
general assembly aforesaid, has a manifest tendency to destroy
British as well as American freedom.' On the back of the paper
containing these resolutions, is the following endorsement,
which is also in the handwriting of Mr. Henry himself:—'The
within resolutions passed the house of burgesses in May, 1765.
They formed the first opposition to the stamp act, and the
scheme of taxing America by the British parliament. All the
colonies, either through fear, or want of opportunity to form
an opposition, or from influence of some kind or other, had
remained silent. I had been for the first time elected a
burgess, a few days before, was young, inexperienced,
unacquainted with the forms of the house, and the members that
composed it. Finding the men of weight averse to opposition,
and the commencement of the tax at hand, and that no person
was likely to step forth, I determined to venture, and alone,
unadvised, and unassisted, on a blank leaf of an old law-book
wrote the within. Upon offering them to the house, violent
debates ensued. Many threats were uttered, and much abuse cast
on me, by the party for submission. After a long and warm
contest, the resolutions passed by a very small majority,
perhaps of one or two only. The alarm spread throughout
America with astonishing quickness, and the ministerial party
were overwhelmed. The great point of resistance to British
taxation was universally established in the colonies. This
brought on the war, which finally separated the two countries,
and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a
blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make
of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If
they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a
contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness
alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! whoever thou art,
remember this; and in thy sphere, practise virtue thyself, and
encourage it in others.—P. Henry.' Such is the short, plain,
and modest account which Mr. Henry has left of this
transaction. … It is not wonderful that even the friends of
colonial rights who knew the feeble and defenceless situation
of this country should be startled at a step so bold and
daring. That effect was produced; and the resolutions were
resisted, not only by the aristocracy of the house, but by
many of those who were afterward distinguished among the
brightest champions of American liberty. The following is Mr.
Jefferson's account of this transaction: 'Mr. Henry moved and
Mr. Johnston seconded these resolutions successively. They
were opposed by Messrs. Randolph, Bland, Pendleton, Wythe, and
all the old members, whose influence in the house had, till
then, been unbroken. They did it, not from any question of our
rights, but on the ground that the same sentiments had been,
at their preceding session, expressed in a more conciliatory
form, to which the answers were not yet received. But torrents
of sublime eloquence from Henry, backed by the solid reasoning
of Johnston, prevailed. The last, however, and strongest
resolution was carried but by a single vote. The debate on it
was most bloody. I was then but a student, and stood at the
door of communication between the house and the lobby (for as
yet there was no gallery) during the whole debate and vote;
and I well remember that, after the numbers on the division
were told and declared from the chair, Peyton Randolph (the
attorney-general) came out at the door where I was standing,
and said, as he entered the lobby: "By God, I would have given
500 guineas for a single vote": for one would have divided the
house, and Robinson was in the chair, who he knew would have
negatived the resolution. Mr. Henry left town that evening;
and the next morning, before the meeting of the house, Colonel
Peter Randolph, then of the council, came to the hall of
burgesses, and sat at the clerk's table till the house-bell
rang, thumbing over the volumes of journals, to find a
precedent for expunging a vote of the house. … Some of the
timid members, who had voted for the strongest resolution, had
become alarmed; and as soon as the house met, a motion was
made and carried to expunge it from the journals.' … The
manuscript journal of the day is not to be found; whether it
was suppressed, or casually lost, must remain a matter of
uncertainty; it disappeared, however, shortly after the
session. … In the interesting fact of the erasure of the fifth
resolution, Mr. Jefferson is supported by the distinct
recollection of Mr. Paul Carrington, late a judge of the court
of appeals of Virginia. and the only surviving member, it is
believed, of the house of burgesses of 1765. The statement is
also confirmed, if indeed further confirmation were necessary,
by the circumstance that instead of the five resolutions, so
solemnly recorded by Mr. Henry, as having passed the house,
the journal of the day exhibits only … four. … 'By these
resolutions,' says Mr. Jefferson, 'and his manner of
supporting them, Mr. Henry took the lead out of the hands of
those who had, theretofore, guided the proceedings of the
house; that is to say, of Pendleton, Wythe, Bland, Randolph.'
It was, indeed, the measure which raised him to the zenith of
his glory. He had never before had a subject which entirely
matched his genius, and was capable of drawing out all the
powers of his mind. … It was in the midst of this magnificent
debate, while he was descanting on the tyranny of the
obnoxious act, that he exclaimed in a voice of thunder, and
with the look of a god: 'Cesar had his Brutus—Charles the
First, his Cromwell—and George the Third—('Treason!' cried the
speaker—'Treason, treason!' echoed from every part of the
house. It was one of those trying moments which is decisive of
character. Henry faltered not for an instant; but rising to a
loftier attitude, and fixing on the speaker an eye of the most
determined fire, he finished his sentence with the firmest
emphasis)—may profit by their example. If this be treason,
make the most of it.' This was the only expression of defiance
which escaped him during the debate. He was, throughout life,
one of the most perfectly and uniformly decorous speakers that
ever took the floor of the house. … From the period of which
we have been speaking, Mr. Henry became the idol of the people
of Virginia; nor was his name confined to his native state.
His light and heat were seen and felt throughout the
continent; and he was every where regarded as the great
champion of colonial liberty."

_W. Wirt,
Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry,
section 2._

{3189}

"The publication of Mr. Henry's resolutions against the Stamp
Act created a widespread and intense excitement. They were
hailed as the action of the oldest, and hitherto the most
loyal of the colonies; and as raising a standard of resistance
to the detested Act. Mr. Otis pronounced them treasonable, and
this was the verdict of the Government party. But, treasonable
or not, they struck a chord which vibrated throughout America.
Hutchinson declared that, 'nothing extravagant appeared in the
papers till an account was received of the Virginia resolves.'
Soon the bold exclamation of Mr. Henry in moving them was
published, and he was hailed as the leader raised up by
Providence for the occasion. The 'Boston Gazette' declared:
'The people of Virginia have spoken very sensibly, and the
frozen politicians of a more northern government say they have
spoken treason.' But the people were no longer to be held down
by 'the frozen politicians,' north or south. They commenced to
form secret societies pledged to the resistance of the Act by
all lawful means, which we called 'The Sons of Liberty.'"

_W. W. Henry,
Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches,
volume 1, pages 93-94._

At New York, "in May articles began to appear in the papers
congratulating the public on the patriotic and frugal spirit
that was beginning to reign in the Province of New York. The
principal gentlemen of the city clad themselves in country
manufactures or 'turned clothes.' Weyman printed in large type
in his paper, the New York Gazette, the patriotic motto 'It is
better to wear a homespun coat than lose our liberty.'
Spinning was daily in vogue; materials being more wanting than
industrial hands; a need the farmers were endeavoring to
remedy by sewing more flax seed and keeping more sheep, and
finally we notice the odd statement 'that little lamb came to
market as no true lovers of their country or whose sympathetic
breasts feel for its distresses will buy it, and that
sassafras, balm and sage were greatly in use instead of tea
and allowed to be more wholesome.' Funerals and mourning,
which were then expensive luxuries, were modified and their
extravagance curtailed. The Society for promoting Arts and
Manufactures resolved to establish a bleaching field and to
erect a flax spinning school where the poor children of the
city should be taught the art. They also ordered large numbers
of spinning wheels to be made and loaned to all who would use
them. In September we find it announced that women's shoes
were made, cheaper and better than the renowned Hoses,' by
Wells, Lasher, Bolton, and Davis, and that there was a good
assortment on hand; that boots and men's shoes were made, in
every quarter of the city, better than the English made for
foreign sale; wove thread stockings in sundry places; the
making of linen, woolen, and cotton stuffs was fast
increasing; gloves, hats, carriages, harness and cabinet work
were plenty. The people were now self dependent; cards now
appeared recommending that no true friend of his country
should buy or import English goods, and the dry goods men were
warned that their importations would lie on hand to their cost
and ruin. There being now a sufficiency of home made goods it
was proposed on the 19th October to establish a market for all
kinds of Home Manufactures; and a market was opened under the
Exchange in Broad Street on the 23d. From the shortness of the
notice the design was not sufficiently known in the country
and there was neither plenty nor variety; but numbers of
buyers appeared and everything went off readily at good
prices. The gentlemen merchants of the city, as they were
styled, were not behind any class in patriotism or sacrifice.
A meeting was called for Monday 28th October at Jones' house
in the Fields, 'The Freemasons Arms,' but the attendance,
owing to the short notice, not being sufficient to enter upon
business, they were again summoned on the 30th October to meet
the next day at four o'clock at Mr. Burns' long room at the
City Arms to fall upon such methods as they shall then think
most advisable for their reciprocal interest. On the 31st
there was a general meeting of the principal merchants at this
tavern, which was known under the various names of the City
Arms, the Province Arms, the New York Arms, and stood on the
upper corner of Broadway and Stone, now Thames street, on the
site later occupied by the City Hotel. Resolutions were
adopted and subscribed by upwards of two hundred of the
principal merchants; 1st, to accompany all orders to Great
Britain for goods or merchandize of any nature kind or quality
whatever with instructions that they be not shipped unless the
Stamp Act be repealed; 2nd, to countermand all outstanding
orders unless on the conditions mentioned in the foregoing
resolution; 3rd, not to vend any goods sent on commission,
shipped after the 1st January succeeding, unless upon the same
condition. In consequence of these resolutions the retailers
of goods subscribed a paper obliging themselves not to buy any
goods, wares or merchandize after the 1st January unless the
Stamp Act were repealed. This was the first of the famous Non
Importation Agreement, the great commercial measure of offense
and defense against Great Britain. It punished friends and
foes alike and plunged a large portion of the English people
into the deepest distress; at the same time it taught the
Colonies the value and extent of their own resources."

_J. A. Stevens,
The Stamp Act in New York
(Magazine of American History, June, 1877)._

The Stamp Act was reprinted in New York "with a death's-head
upon it in place of the royal arms, and it was hawked about
the streets under the title of 'The Folly of England and the
Ruin of America.' In Boston, the church-bells were tolled, and
the flags on the shipping put at half-mast. But formal
defiance came first from Virginia." Patrick Henry had just
been elected to the colonial assembly. "In a committee of the
whole house, he drew up a series of resolutions, declaring
that the colonists were entitled to all the liberties and
privileges of natural-born subjects, and that 'the taxation of
the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves
to represent them, … is the distinguishing characteristic of
British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot
exist.'
{3190}
It was further declared that any attempt to vest the power of
taxation in any other body than the colonial assembly was a
menace to British no less than to American freedom; that the
people of Virginia were not bound to obey any law enacted in
disregard of these fundamental principles; and that anyone who
should maintain the contrary should be regarded as a public
enemy. It was in the lively debate which ensued upon these
resolutions, that Henry uttered those memorable words
commending the example of Tarquin and Cæsar and Charles I. to
the attention of George III. Before the vote had been taken
upon all the resolutions, Governor Fauquier dissolved the
assembly; but the resolutions were printed in the newspapers,
and hailed with approval all over the country. Meanwhile, the
Massachusetts legislature, at the suggestion of Otis, had
issued a circular letter to all the colonies, calling for a
general congress, in order to concert measures of resistance
to the Stamp Act. The first cordial response came from South
Carolina, at the instance of Christopher Gadsden, a wealthy
merchant of Charleston and a scholar learned in Oriental
languages, a man of rare sagacity and most liberal spirit. …
The first announcement of the Stamp Act had called into
existence a group of secret societies of workingmen known as
'Sons of Liberty,' in allusion to a famous phrase in one of
Colonel Barre's speeches. These societies were solemnly
pledged to resist the execution of the obnoxious law. On the
14th of August, the quiet town of Boston witnessed some
extraordinary proceedings. …

See LIBERTY TREE.

Twelve days after, a mob sacked the splendid house of Chief
Justice Hutchinson, threw his plate into the street, and
destroyed the valuable library which he had been thirty years
in collecting, and which contained many manuscripts, the loss
of which was quite irreparable. As usual with mobs, the
vengeance fell in the wrong place, for Hutchinson had done his
best to prevent the passage of the Stamp Act. In most of the
colonies, the stamp officers were compelled to resign their
posts. Boxes of stamps arriving by ship were burned or thrown
into the sea. … In New York, the presence of the troops for a
moment encouraged the lieutenant-governor, Colden, to take a
bold stand in behalf of the law. He talked of firing upon the
people, but was warned that if he did so he would be speedily
hanged on a lamp-post, like Captain Porteous of Edinburgh. A
torchlight procession, carrying images of Colden and of the
devil, broke into the governor's coach-house, and, seizing his
best chariot, paraded it about town with the images upon it,
and finally burned up chariot and images on the Bowling Green,
in full sight of Colden and the garrison, who looked on from
the Battery, speechless with rage, but afraid to interfere.
Gage did not dare to have the troops used, for fear of
bringing on a civil war; and the next day the discomfited
Colden was obliged to surrender all the stamps to the common
council of New York, by whom they were at once locked up in
the City Hall. Nothing more was needed to prove the
impossibility of carrying the Stamp Act into effect."

_J. Fiske,
The American Revolution,
volume 1, chapter 1._

In Connecticut the stamp agent, Mr. Ingersoll, was compelled
by a body of armed citizens to resign.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1765.

ALSO IN:
_D. R. Goodloe,
The Birth of the Republic,
chapter 1,
(a compilation of accounts of proceedings in the
several colonies)._

_W. Tudor,
Life of James Otis,
chapter 14._

_W. V. Wells,
Life of Samuel Adams,
volume 1, chapter 2._

_I. W. Stuart,
Life of Jonathan Trumbull,
chapters. 7-8._

_T. Hutchinson,
History of Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774,
pages 117-141. _

_H. S. Randall,
Life of Jefferson,
volume 1, chapter 2._

_M. C. Tyler,
Patrick Henry,
chapter 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
The Stamp Act Congress.

The delegates chosen, on the invitation of Massachusetts, to
attend a congress for consultation on the circumstances of the
colonies, met, October 7, 1765, in the City Hall at New York.
"In no place were the Sons of Liberty more determined, or were
their opponents more influential. It was the headquarters of
the British force in America, the commander of which, General
Gage, wielded the powers of a viceroy. A fort within the city
was heavily mounted with cannon. Ships of war were moored near
the wharves. The executive, Lieutenant-governor Colden, was
resolved to execute the law. When the Massachusetts delegates
called on him, he remarked that the proposed congress would be
unconstitutional, and, unprecedented, and he should give it no
countenance. The congress consisted of twenty-eight delegates
from nine of the colonies; four, though sympathizing with the
movement, not choosing representatives. Here several of the
patriots, who had discussed the American question in their
localities, met for the first time. James Otis stood in this
body the foremost speaker. His pen, with the pens of the
brothers Robert and Phillip Livingston, of New York, were
summoned to service in a wider field. John Dickinson, of
Pennsylvania, was soon to be known through the colonies by
'The Farmer's Letters.' Thomas McKean and Cæsar Rodney were
pillars of the cause in Delaware. Edward Tilghman was an
honored name in Maryland. South Carolina, in addition to the
intrepid Gadsden, had, in Thomas Lynch and John Rutledge, two
patriots who appear prominently in the subsequent career of
that colony. Thus this body was graced by large ability,
genius, learning, and common sense. It was calm in its
deliberations, seeming unmoved by the whirl of the political
waters. The congress organized by the choice, by one vote, of
Timothy Ruggles, a Tory,—as the chairman,—and John Cotton,
clerk. The second day of its session, it took into
consideration the rights, privileges, and grievances of the
British American colonists.' After eleven days' debate, it
agreed—each colony having one vote—upon a declaration of
rights and grievances and ordered it to be inserted in the
journal. [The following is the 'Declaration': 'The members of
this congress, sincerely devoted, with the warmest sentiments
of affection and duty, to his majesty's person and government,
inviolably attached to the present happy establishment of the
protestant succession, and with minds deeply impressed by a
sense of the present and impending misfortunes of the British
colonies on this continent; having considered, as maturely as
time will permit, the circumstances of the said colonies,
esteem it our indispensable duty to make the following
declarations of our humble opinion, respecting the most
essential rights and liberties of the colonists, and of the
grievances under which they labor by reason of several late
acts of parliament.

{3191}

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.