Chapter CDXLVI: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (43)

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.

Q. But if the legislature should think fit to ascertain its
right to lay taxes, by any act laying a small tax, contrary to
their opinion, would they submit to pay the tax?
A. The proceedings of the people in America have been
considered too much together. The proceedings of the
assemblies have been very different from those of the mobs,
and should be distinguished, as having no connection with each
other. The assemblies have only peaceably resolved what they
take to be their rights; they have not built a fort, raised a
man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to such
opposition. The ringleaders of riot they think ought to be
punished; they would punish them themselves, if they could.
Every sober, sensible man would wish to see rioters punished,
as otherwise peaceable people have no security of person or
estate. But as to an internal tax, how small soever, laid by
the legislature here on the people there, while they have no
representatives in this legislature, I think it will never be
submitted to.—They will oppose it to the last.—They do not
consider it as at all necessary for you to raise money on them
by your taxes, because they are, and always have been, ready
to raise money by taxes among themselves, and to grant large
sums, equal to their abilities, upon requisition from the
crown.—They have not only granted equal to their abilities,
but, during all the last war, they granted far beyond their
abilities, and beyond their proportion with this country, you
yourselves being judges, to the amount of many hundred
thousand pounds, and this they did freely and readily, only on
a sort of promise from the secretary of state, that it should
be recommended to parliament to make them compensation. It was
accordingly recommended to parliament, in the most honourable
manner, for them. America has been greatly misrepresented and
abused here, in papers, and pamphlets, and speeches, as
ungrateful, and unreasonable, and unjust, in having put this
nation to immense expense for their defence, and refusing to
bear any part of that expense. The colonies raised, paid, and
clothed, near 25,000 men during the last war, a number equal
to those sent from Britain, and far beyond their proportion;
they went deeply into debt in doing this, and all their taxes
and estates are mortgaged, for many years to come, for
discharging that debt. Government here was at that time very
sensible of this; The colonies were recommended to parliament.
Every year the King sent down to the House a written message
to this purpose, That his Majesty, being highly sensible of
the zeal and vigour with which his faithful subjects in North
America had exerted themselves, in defence of his Majesty's
just rights and possessions, recommended it to the House to
take the same into consideration, and enable him to give them
a proper compensation. You will find those messages on your
own journals every year of the war to the very last, and you
did accordingly give 200,000_l_. annually to the crown,
to be distributed in such compensation to the colonies. This
is the strongest of all proofs that the colonies, far from
being unwilling to bear a share of the burden, did exceed
their proportion; for if they had done less, or had only
equalled their proportion, there would have been no room or
reason for compensation. Indeed the sums reimbursed them, were
by no means adequate to the expense they incurred beyond their
proportion; but they never murmured at that; they esteemed
their sovereign's approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and
the approbation of this House, far beyond any other kind of
compensation; therefore there was no occasion for this act, to
force money from a willing people; they had not refused giving
money for the purposes of the act; no requisition had been
made: they were al ways willing and ready to do what could
reasonably be expected from them, and in this light they wish
to be considered.

Q. But suppose Great Britain should be engaged in a war in
Europe, would North America contribute to the support of it?
A. I do think they would, as far as their circumstances would
permit. They consider themselves as a part of the British
empire, and as having one common interest with it; they may be
looked on here as foreigners, but they do not consider
themselves as such. They are zealous for the honour and
prosperity of this nation, and while they are well used, will
always be ready to support it, as far as their little power
goes. In 1739 they were called upon to assist in the
expedition against Carthagena, and they sent 3,000 men to join
your army. It is true Carthagena is in America, but as remote
from the northern colonies as if it had been in Europe. They
make no distinction of wars, as to their duty of assisting in
them.
{3199}
I know the last war is commonly spoke of here as entered into
for the defence, or for the sake of the people of America. I
think it is quite misunderstood. It began about the limits
between Canada and Nova Scotia, about territories to which the
crown indeed laid claim, but were not claimed by any British
colony; none of the lands had been granted to any colonist; we
had therefore no particular concern or interest in that
dispute. As to the Ohio, the contest there began about your
right of trading in the Indian country, a right you had by the
treaty of Utrecht, which the French infringed; they seized the
traders and their goods, which were your manufactures; they
took a fort which a company of your merchants, and their
factors and correspondents, had erected there to secure that
trade. Braddock was sent with an army to re-take that fort
(which was looked on here as another incroachment on the
King's territory) and to protect your trade. It was not till
after his defeat that the colonies were attacked. They were
before in perfect peace with both French and Indians; the
troops were not therefore sent for their defence. The trade
with the Indians, though carried on in America, is not an
American interest. The people of America are chiefly farmers
and planters; scarce any thing that they raise or produce is
an article of commerce with the Indians. The Indian trade is a
British interest; it is carried on with British manufactures,
for the profit of British merchants and manufacturers;
therefore the war, as it commenced for the defence of
territories of the crown, the property of no American, and for
the defence of a trade purely British, was really a British
war—and yet the people of America made no scruple of
contributing their utmost towards carrying it on, and bringing
it to a happy conclusion.

Q. Do you think then that the taking possession of the King's
territorial rights, and strengthening the frontiers, is not an
American interest?
A. Not particularly, but conjointly a British and an American
interest.

Q. You will not deny that the preceding war, the war with
Spain, was entered into for the sake of America; was it not
occasioned by captures made in the American seas?
A. Yes; captures of ships carrying on the British trade there,
with British manufactures.

Q. Was not the late war with the Indians, since the peace with
France, a war for America only?
A. Yes: it was more particularly for America than the former,
but it was rather a consequence or remains of the former war,
the Indians not having been thoroughly pacified, and the
Americans bore by much the greatest share of the expense. It
was put an end to by the army under general Bouquet; there
were not above 300 regulars in that army, and above 1,000
Pennsylvanians.

Q. Is it not necessary to send troops to America, to defend
the Americans against the Indians?
A. No, by no means; it never was necessary. They defended
themselves when they were but a handful, and the Indians much
more numerous. They continually gained ground, and have driven
the Indians over the mountains, without any troops sent to
their assistance from this country. And can it be thought
necessary now to send troops for their defence from those
diminished Indian tribes, when the colonies are become so
populous, and so strong? There is not the least occasion for
it; they are very able to defend themselves.

Q. Do you say there were no more than 300 regular troops
employed in the late Indian war?
A, Not on the Ohio, or the frontiers of Pennsylvania, which
was the chief part of the war that affected the colonies.
There were garrisons at Niagara, Fort Detroit, and those
remote posts kept for the sake of your trade; I did not reckon
them, but I believe that on the whole the number of Americans,
or provincial troops, employed in the war, was greater than
that of the regulars. I am not certain, but I think so.

Q. Do you think the assemblies have a right to levy money on
the subject there, to grant to the crown?
A. I certainly think so; they have always done it.

Q. Are they acquainted with the Declaration of Rights; and do
they know that by that statute, money is not to be raised on
the subject but by consent of parliament?
A. They are very well acquainted with it.

Q. How then can they think they have a right to levy money for
the crown, or for any other than local purposes?
A. They understand that clause to relate to subjects only
within the realm; that no money can be levied on them for the
crown, but by consent of parliament. The colonies are not
supposed to be within the realm; they have assemblies of their
own, which are their parliaments, and they are, in that
respect, in the same situation with Ireland. When money is to
be raised for the crown upon the subject in Ireland, or in the
colonies, the consent is given in the parliament of Ireland,
or in the assemblies of the colonies. They think the
parliament of Great Britain cannot properly give that consent
till it has representatives from America; for the Petition of
Right expressly says, it is to be by common consent in
parliament, and the people of America have no representatives
in parliament, to make a part of that common consent.

Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, and an act should
pass, ordering the assemblies of the colonies to indemnify the
sufferers by the riots, would they obey it?
A. That is a question I cannot answer.

Q. Suppose the King should require the colonies to grant a
revenue, and the parliament should be against their doing it,
do they think they can grant a revenue to the King, without
the consent of the parliament of Great Britain?
A. That is a deep question. As to my own opinion I should
think myself at liberty to do it, and should do it, if I liked
the occasion.

Q, When money has been raised in the colonies, upon
requisitions, has it not been granted to the King?
A. Yes, always; but the requisitions have generally been for
some service expressed, as to raise, clothe, and pay troops,
and not for money only.

Q. If the act should pass, requiring the American Assemblies
to make compensation to the sufferers, and they should disobey
it, and then the parliament should, by another act, lay an
internal tax, would they obey it?
A. The people will pay no internal tax: and I think an act to
oblige the assemblies to make compensation is unnecessary, for
I am of opinion, that as soon as the present heats are abated,
they will take the matter into consideration, and if it is
right to be done, they will do it of themselves.

{3200}

Q. Do not letters often come into the post offices in America,
directed into some inland town where no post goes?
A. Yes.

Q. Can any private person take up those letters, and carry
them as directed?
A. Yes; any friend of the person may do it, paying the postage
that has accrued.

Q. But must not he pay an additional postage for the distance
to such an inland town?
A. No.

Q. Can the post-master answer delivering the letter, without
being paid such additional postage?
A. Certainly he can demand nothing, where he does no service.

Q. Suppose a person, being far from home, finds a letter in a
post office directed to him, and he lives in a place to which
the post generally goes, and the letter is directed to that
place, will the post-master deliver him the letter, without
his paying the postage received at the place to which the
letter is directed?
A. Yes; the office cannot demand postage for a letter that it
does not carry, or farther than it does carry it.

Q. Are not ferrymen in America obliged, by act of parliament,
to carry over the posts without pay?
A. Yes.

Q. Is not this a tax on the ferrymen?
A. They do not consider it as such, as they have an advantage
from persons travelling with the post.

Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, and the crown should
make a requisition to the colonies for a sum of money, would
they grant it?
A. I believe they would.

Q. Why do you think so?
A. I can speak for the colony I live in; I had it in
instruction from the assembly to assure the ministry, that as
they always had done, so they should always think it their
duty to grant such aids to the crown as were suitable to their
circumstances and abilities, whenever called upon for the
purpose, in the usual constitutional manner; and I had the
honour of communicating this instruction to that honorable
gentleman then minister.

Q. Would they do this for a British concern; as suppose a war
in some part of Europe, that did not affect them?
A. Yes, for any thing that concerned the general interest.
They consider themselves as a part of the whole.

Q. What is the usual constitutional manner of calling on the
colonies for aids?
A. A letter from the secretary of state.

Q. Is this all you mean, a letter from the secretary of state?
A. I mean the usual way of requisition, in a circular letter
from the secretary of state, by his Majesty's command,
reciting the occasion, and recommending it to the colonies to
grant such aids as became their loyalty, and were suitable to
their abilities.

Q. Did the secretary of state ever write for money for the
crown?
A. The requisitions have been to raise clothe, and pay men,
which cannot be done without money.

Q. Would they grant money alone, if called on?
A. In my opinion they would, money as well as men, when they
have money, or can procure it.

Q. If the parliament should repeal the Stamp Act, will the
assembly of Pennsylvania rescind their resolutions?
A. I think not.

Q. Before there was any thought of the Stamp Act, did they
wish for a representation in parliament?
A. No.

Q. Don't you know that there is, in the Pennsylvania charter,
an express reservation of the right of parliament to lay taxes
there?
A. I know there is a clause in the charter, by which the King
grants that he will levy no taxes on the inhabitants, unless
it be with the consent of the assembly, or by an act of
parliament.

Q. How then could the assembly of Pennsylvania assert, that
laying a tax on them by the Stamp Act was an infringement of
their rights?
A. They understand it thus: by the same charter, and
otherwise, they are entitled to all the privileges and
liberties of Englishmen; they find in the Great Charters, and
the Petition and Declaration of Rights, that one of the
privileges of English subjects is, that they are not to be
taxed but by their common consent; they have therefore relied
upon it, from the first settlement of the province, that the
parliament never would, nor could, by colour of that clause in
the charter, assume a right of taxing them, till it had
qualified itself to exercise such right, by admitting
representatives from the people to be taxed, who ought to make
a part of that common consent.

Q. Are there any words in the charter that justify that
construction?
A. The common rights of Englishmen, as declared by Magna
Charta, and the Petition of Right, all justify it.

Q. Does the distinction between internal and external taxes
exist in the words of the charter?
A. No, I believe not.

Q. Then may they not, by the same interpretation, object to
the parliament's right of external taxation?
A. They never have hitherto. Many arguments have been lately
used here to shew them that there is no difference, and that
if you have no right to tax them internally, you have none to
tax them externally, or make any other law to bind them. At
present they do not reason so, but in time they may possibly
be convinced by these arguments.

Q. Do not the resolutions of the Pennsylvania assemblies say,
all taxes?
A. If they do, they mean only internal taxes; the same words
have not always the same meaning here and in the colonies. By
taxes they mean internal taxes; by duties they mean customs;
these are the ideas of the language.

Q. Have you not seen the resolutions of the Massachusetts Bay
assembly?
A. I have.

Q. Do they not say, that neither external nor internal taxes
can be laid on them by parliament?
A. I don't know that they do; I believe not.

Q. If the same tax should say neither tax nor imposition could
be laid, does not that province hold the power of parliament
can lay neither?
A. I suppose that by the word imposition, they do not intend
to express duties to be laid on goods imported, as regulations
of commerce.

Q. What can the colonies mean then by imposition as distinct
from taxes?
A. They may mean many things, as impressing of men, or of
carriages, quartering troops on private houses, and the like;
there may be great impositions that are not properly taxes.

Q. Is not the post-office rate an internal tax laid by act of
parliament?
A. I have answered that.

Q. Are all parts of the colonies equally able to pay taxes?
A. No, certainly; the frontier parts, which have been ravaged
by the enemy, are greatly disabled by that means, and
therefore, in such cases, are usually favoured in our tax
laws.

{3201}

Q. Can we, at this distance, be competent judges of what
favours are necessary?
A. The parliament have supposed it, by claiming a right to
make tax laws for America; I think it impossible.

Q. Would the repeal of the Stamp Act be any discouragement of
your manufactures? Will the people that have begun to
manufacture decline it?
A. Yes, I think they will; especially if, at the same time,
the trade is opened again, so that remittances can be easily
made. I have known several instances that make it probable. In
the war before last, tobacco being low, and making little
remittance, the people of Virginia went generally into family
manufactures. Afterwards, when tobacco bore a better price,
they returned to the use of British manufactures. So fulling
mills were very much disused in the last war in Pennsylvania,
because bills were then plenty, and remittances could easily
be made to Britain for English cloth and other goods.

Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would it induce the
assemblies of America to acknowledge the right of parliament
to tax them, and, would they erase their resolutions?
A. No, never.

Q. Is there no means of obliging them to erase those
resolutions?
A. None, that I know of; they will never do it, unless
compelled by force of arms.

Q. Is there a power on earth that can force them to erase
them?
A. No power, how great soever, can force men to change their
opinions.

Q. Do they consider the post office as a tax, or as a
regulation?
A. Not as a tax, but as a regulation and conveniency; every
assembly encouraged it, and supported it in its infancy, by
grants of money, which they would not otherwise have done; and
the people have always paid the postage.

Q. When did you receive the instructions you mentioned?
A. I brought them with me, when I came to England, about 15
months since.

Q. When did you communicate that instruction to the minister?
A. Soon after my arrival, while the stamping of America was
under consideration, and before the Bill was brought in.

Q. Would it be most for the interest of Great Britain, to
employ the hands of Virginia in tobacco, or in manufactures?
A. In tobacco, to be sure.

Q. What used to be the pride of the Americans?
A. To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great
Britain.

Q. What is now their pride?
A. To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make
new ones.

Withdrew.

_Parliamentary History of England,
volume 16, pages 138-160._

"Mr. Sparks very justly says that there was no event in
Franklin's life more creditable to his talents and character,
or which gave him so much celebrity, as this examination
before the House of Commons. His further statement, however,
that Franklin's answers were given without premeditation and
without knowing beforehand the nature or form of the question
that was to be put, is a little too sweeping. In a memorandum
which Franklin gave to a friend who wished to know by whom the
several questions were put, he admitted that many were put by
friends to draw out in answer the substance of what he had
before said upon the subject."

_J. Bigelow,
Life of Benjamin Franklin,
volume 1, page 507, foot-note._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
The repeal of the Stamp Act and passage of the
Declaratory Act.
Speech of Pitt.

"The Grenville Ministry had fallen in July [1765], and had
been succeeded by that of Rockingham; and Conway, who had been
one of the few opponents of the Stamp Act, was now Secretary
of State for the Colonies. … The Stamp Act had contributed
nothing to the downfall of Grenville; it attracted so little
attention that it was only in the last days of 1765 or the
first days, of 1766 that the new ministers learnt the views of
Pitt upon the subject; it was probably a complete surprise to
them to learn that it had brought the colonies to the verge of
rebellion, and in the first months of their power they appear
to have been quite uncertain what policy they would pursue. …
Parliament met on December 17, 1765, and the attitude of the
different parties was speedily disclosed. A powerful
Opposition, led by Grenville and Bedford, strenuously urged
that no relaxation or indulgence should be granted to the
colonists. … Pitt, on the other hand, rose from his sick-bed,
and in speeches of extraordinary eloquence, and which produced
an amazing effect on both sides of the Atlantic, he justified
the resistance of the colonists."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 12 (volume 3)._

The following is the main part of the speech delivered by Pitt
(not yet made Lord Chatham) on the 14th of January, 1766, as
imperfectly reported: "It is my opinion, that this kingdom has
no right to lay a tax upon the colonies. At the same time, I
assert the authority of this kingdom over the colonies to be
sovereign and supreme, in every circumstance of government and
legislation whatsoever. They are the subjects of this kingdom;
equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural rights of
mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen; equally
bound by its laws, and equally participating in the
constitution of this free country, The Americans are the sons,
not the bastards of England! Taxation is no part of the
governing or legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary gift
and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation the three
estates of the realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence
of the peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to
clothe it with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the
Commons alone. … When … in this House, we give and grant, we
give and grant what is our own. But in an American tax, what
do we do? 'We, your Majesty's Commons for Great Britain, give
and grant to your Majesty'—what? Our own property! No! 'We
give and grant to your Majesty' the property of your Majesty's
Commons of America! It is an absurdity in terms. … There is an
idea in some that the colonies are virtually represented in
the House. I would fain know by whom an American is
represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the
shire, in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that
respectable representation was augmented to a greater number!
Or will you tell him that he is represented by any
representative of a borough? a borough which, perhaps, its own
representatives never saw! This is what is called the rotten
part of the Constitution. It cannot continue a century. If it
does not drop, it must be amputated. The idea of a virtual
representation of America in this House is the most
contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man. It
does not deserve a serious refutation. The Commons of America
represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in the
possession of this, their constitutional right, of giving and
granting their own money.
{3202}
They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it! At the
same time, this kingdom, as the supreme governing and
legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her laws,
by her regulations, and restrictions in trade, in navigation,
in manufactures, in every thing, except that of taking their
money out of their pockets without their consent. Here I would
draw the line. … Gentlemen, sir, have been charged with giving
birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their
sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that
freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty
of speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation
shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise.
No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a
liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have
profited. He ought to have desisted from his project. The
gentleman tells us America is obstinate; America almost in
open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three
millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as
voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit
instruments to make slaves of the rest. … Since the accession
of King William, many ministers, some of great, others of more
moderate abilities, have taken the lead of government. … None
of these thought or even dreamed, of robbing the colonies of
their constitutional rights. That was reserved to mark the era
of the late administration. Not that there were wanting some,
when I had the honor to serve his Majesty, to propose to me to
burn my fingers with an American stamp act. With the enemy at
their back, with our bayonets at their breasts, in the day of
their distress, perhaps the Americans would have submitted to
the imposition; but it would have been taking an ungenerous,
an unjust advantage. The gentleman boasts of his bounties to
America! Are not these bounties intended finally for the
benefit of this kingdom? If they are not, he has misapplied
the national treasures! I am no courtier of America. I stand
up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a
right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over
the colonies is sovereign and supreme. I would advise every
gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that
country. When two countries are connected together like
England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one
must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But
she must so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental
principles that are common to both. … The gentleman asks, When
were the colonies emancipated? I desire to know, when were
they made slaves? But I dwell not upon words. When I had the
honor of serving his Majesty, I availed myself of the means of
information which I derived from my office. I speak,
therefore, from knowledge. My materials were good. I was at
pains to collect, to digest, to consider them; and I will be
bold to affirm, that the profits to Great Britain from the
trade of the colonies through all its branches, is two
millions a year. This is the fund that carried you
triumphantly through the last war. The estates that were
rented at two thousand pounds a year, three-score years ago,
are at three thousand at present. Those estates sold then from
fifteen to eighteen years purchase; the same may now be sold
for thirty. You owe this to America. This is the price America
pays you for her protection. And shall a miserable financier
come with a boast, that he can bring 'a pepper-corn' into the
exchequer by the loss of millions to the nation? I dare not
say how much higher these profits may be augmented. … I am
convinced on other grounds that the commercial system of
America may be altered to advantage. You have prohibited where
you ought to have encouraged. You have encouraged where you
ought to have prohibited. Improper restraints have been laid
on the continent in favor of the islands. You have but two
nations to trade with in America. Would you had twenty! Let
acts of Parliament in consequence of treaties remain; but let
not an English minister become a custom-house officer for
Spain, or for any foreign power. Much is wrong! Much may be
amended for the general good of the whole! … A great deal has
been said without doors of the power, of the strength of
America. It is a topic that ought to be cautiously meddled
with. In a good cause, on a sound bottom, the force of this
country can crush America to atoms. I know the valor of your
troops. I know the skill of your officers. There is not a
company of foot that has served in America, out of which you
may not pick a man of sufficient knowledge and experience to
make a governor of a colony there. But on this ground, on the
Stamp Act, which so many here will think a crying injustice, I
am one who will lift up my hands against it. In such a cause
your success would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would
fall like the strong man; she would embrace the pillars of the
State, and pull down the Constitution along with her. Is this
your boasted peace—not to sheathe the sword in its scabbard,
but to sheathe it in the bowels of your countrymen? … The
Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and
temper: they have been wronged: they have been driven to
madness by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you
have occasioned? Rather let prudence and temper come first
from this side. I will undertake for America that she will
follow the example. … Upon the whole I will beg leave to tell
the House what is my opinion. It is that the Stamp Act be
repealed absolutely, totally and immediately. That the reason
for the repeal be assigned, viz., because it was founded on an
erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign
authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as
strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every
point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade,
confine their manufactures, and exercise every power
whatsoever except that of taking their money out of their
pockets without their consent."

_Representative British Orations,
pages 98-119._