Chapter VIII: Introduction (5)

But these are qualities engrossed, it seems, by the _proprietary_ party. For they say, "the _wiser_ and _better_ part of the province had far different notions of this measure: they considered, that the moment they put their hands to these petitions they might be surrendering up their birthright." I felicitate them on the _honour_ they have thus bestowed upon themselves; on the _sincere_ compliments thus given and accepted; and on their having with such noble freedom discarded the snivelling pretence to modesty, couched in that threadbare form of words, "though we say it, that should not say it." But is it not surprising, that, during the seven weeks recess of the assembly, expressly to consult their constituents on the expediency of this measure, and during the fourteen days the house sat deliberating on it after they met again, these their wisdoms and betternesses should never be so kind as to communicate the least scrap of their prudence, their knowledge, or their consideration, to their rash, ignorant, and inconsiderate representatives? Wisdom in the mind is not like money in the purse, diminished by communication to others: they might have lighted up our farthing candles for us, without lessening the blaze of their own flambeaux. But they suffered our representatives to go on in the dark till the fatal deed was done; and the petition sent to the king, praying him to take the government of this province into his immediate care: whereby, if it succeeds, "our glorious plan of public liberty and charter of privileges is to be bartered away," and we are to be made slaves for ever! Cruel parsimony! to refuse the charity of a little understanding, when God had given you so much, and the assembly begged it as an alms! O that you had but for once remembered and observed the counsel of that wise poet Pope, where he says,

Be niggards of advice on no pretence;
For the worst avarice is that of sense.

In the constitution of our government, and in that of one more, there still remains a particular thing that none of the other American governments have; to wit, the appointment of a governor by the _proprietors_, instead of an appointment by the _crown_. This particular in government has been found inconvenient; attended with contentions and confusions wherever it existed; and has therefore been gradually taken away from colony after colony, and every where greatly to the satisfaction and happiness of the people. Our wise first proprietor and founder was fully sensible of this; and being desirous of leaving his people happy, and preventing the mischiefs that he foresaw must in time arise from that circumstance if it was continued, he determined to take it away, if possible, during his own lifetime. They accordingly entered into a contract for the sale of the proprietary right of government to the crown, and actually received a sum in part of the consideration. As he found himself likely to die before that contract (and with it, his plan for the happiness of his people) could be completed, he carefully made it a part of his last will and testament; devising the right of the government to two noble lords, in trust, that they should release it to the crown. Unfortunately for us, this has never yet been done. And this is merely what the assembly now desire to have done. Surely he that formed our constitution, must have understood it. If he had imagined, that all our privileges depended on the proprietary government; will any one suppose, that he would himself have meditated the change; that he would have taken such effectual measures, as he thought them, to bring it about speedily, whether he should live or die? Will any of those, who now extol him so highly, charge him at the same time with the baseness of endeavouring thus to defraud his people of all the liberties and privileges he had promised them, and by the most solemn charters and grants assured to them, when he engaged them to assist him in the settlement of his province? Surely none can be so inconsistent!--And yet this proprietary right of governing or appointing a governor has all of a sudden changed its nature; and the preservation of it become of so much importance to the welfare of the province, that the assembly's only petitioning to have their venerable founder's will executed, and the contract he entered into for the good of his people completed, is stiled, an "attempt to violate the constitution for which our fathers planted a wilderness; to barter away our glorious plan of public liberty and charter privileges; a risquing of the whole constitution; an offering up of our whole charter rights; a wanton sporting with things sacred, &c."

Pleasant surely it is to hear the proprietary partizans, of all men, bawling for the constitution, and affecting a terrible concern for our liberties and privileges. They, who have been these twenty years cursing our constitution, declaring that it was no constitution, or worse than none; and that things could never be well with us till it was new modelled, and made exactly conformable to the British constitution: they, who have treated our distinguishing privileges as so many illegalities and absurdities; who have solemnly declared in print, that though such privileges might be proper in the infancy of a colony to encourage its settlement, they became unfit for it in its grown state, and ought to be taken away: they, who by numberless falshoods, propagated with infinite industry in the mother country, attempted to procure an act of parliament for the actual depriving a very great part of the people of their privileges: they too, who have already deprived the whole people of some of their most important rights, and are daily endeavouring to deprive them of the rest: are these become patriots and advocates for our constitution? Wonderful change! astonishing conversion! Will the wolves then protect the sheep, if they can but persuade them to give up their dogs? Yes; the assembly would destroy all their own rights, and those of the people; and the proprietary partizans are become the champions for liberty! Let those who have faith now make use of it: for if it is rightly defined, the evidence of things not seen, certainly never was there more occasion for such evidence, the case being totally destitute of all other.

It has been long observed, that men are with that party, angels or demons, just as they happen to concur with or oppose their measures. And I mention it for the comfort of _old sinners_, that in politics, as well as in religion, repentance and amendment, though late, shall obtain forgiveness, and procure favour. Witness the late speaker, Mr. Norris; a steady and constant opposer of all the proprietary encroachments; and whom, for thirty years past, they have been therefore continually abusing, allowing him no one virtue or good quality whatsoever: but now, as he shewed some unwillingness to engage in this present application to the crown, he is become all at once the "faithful servant;"--but let me look at the text, to avoid mistakes--and indeed I was mistaken--I thought it had been "faithful servant of the public," but I find it is only "of the house." Well chosen that expression, and prudently guarded. The former, from a proprietary pen, would have been praise too much, only for disapproving the _time_ of the application. Could _you_, much respected [Mr. Norris], go but a little farther, and disapprove the application itself? Could you but say, the proprietary government is a good one, and ought to be continued; then might all your political offences be done away, and your scarlet sins become as snow and wool; then might you end your course with (proprietary) honour. P---- should preach your funeral sermon, and S----, the poisoner of other characters, embalm your memory. But those honours you will never receive; for with returning health and strength you will be found in your old post, firm for your country.

There is encouragement too for _young sinners_. Mr. Dickenson, whose speech our prefacer has introduced to the world, (though long hated by some, and disregarded by the rest of the proprietary faction) is at once, for the same reason as in Mr. Norris's case, become a sage in the law, and an oracle in matters relating to our constitution. I shall not endeavour to pluck so much as a leaf from these the young gentleman's laurels. I would only advise him carefully to preserve the panegyrics with which they have adorned him: in time they may serve to console him, by balancing the calumny they shall load him with, when he does not go through with them in all their measures: he will not probably do the one, and they will then assuredly do the other. There are mouths that can blow hot as well as cold, and blast on your brows the bays their hands have placed there. "Experto crede Roberto." Let but the moon of _proprietary_ favour withdraw its shine for a moment, and that "great number of the _principal gentlemen_ of Philadelphia," who applied to you for the copy of your speech, shall immediately despise and desert you.

"Those principal gentlemen!" What a pity it is that their names were not given us in the preface, together with their admirable letter! We should then have known, where to run for advice on all occasions. We should have known, who to choose for our future representatives: for undoubtedly these were they that are elsewhere called "the _wiser_ and _better_ part of the province." None but their wisdoms could have known before-hand, that a speech which they never heard, and a copy of which they had never seen, but were then requesting to see, was "a spirited defence," and "of our charter privileges," and that "the publication of it would be of great utility, and give general satisfaction." No inferior sagacity could discover, that the appointment of a governor by the proprietor was one of our "charter privileges," and that those who opposed the application for a royal government were therefore patriot members, appearing on the side of our privileges and our charter!

Utterly to _confound the assembly_, and show the excellence of proprietary government, the prefacer has extracted from their own votes, the _praises_ they have from time to time bestowed on the _first_ proprietor, in their addresses to his sons. And though addresses are not generally the best repositories of historical truth, we must not in this instance deny their authority.

* * * * *

What then avails it to the honour of the present proprietors, that our founder and their father gave us privileges, if they, the sons, will not permit the use of them, or forcibly rend them from us? David may have been a man after God's own heart, and Solomon the wisest of proprietors and governors; but if Rehoboam will be a tyrant and a ----, who can secure him the affections of the people? The virtue and merit of his ancestors may be very great, but his presumption in depending upon those alone may be much greater.

I lamented, a few pages ago, that we were not acquainted with the names of those "principal gentlemen, the wiser and better part of the province." I now rejoice that we are likely, some time or other, to know them; for a copy of a _petition to the king_ is now before me; which, from its similarity with their _letter_, must be of their inditing, and will probably be recommended to the people, by their leading up the signing.

On this petition I shall take the liberty of making a few _remarks_, as they will save me the necessity of following farther the preface; the sentiments of this and that being nearly the same.

It begins with a formal quotation from the [assembly's] petition, which they own they have not seen, and of words that are not in it; and after relating very imperfectly and unfairly the fact relating to their application for a copy of it, which is of no importance, proceeds to set forth, "that as we and all your American subjects must be governed by persons authorised and approved by your Majesty, on the best recommendation that can be obtained of them; we cannot perceive our condition in this respect to be _different_ from our fellow-subjects around us, or that we are thereby less under your majesty's particular care and protection than they are; since there can be no _governors_ of this province without your majesty's _immediate approbation_ and authority." Such a declaration from the wiser part of the province is really a little surprising. What! when disputes concerning matters of property are daily arising between you and your proprietaries, cannot your wisdoms perceive the least difference between having the judges of those disputes appointed by a _royal_ governor, who has no interest in the cause, and having them appointed by the _proprietaries_ themselves, the principal parties against you; and _during their pleasure_ too? When supplies are necessary to be raised for your defence, can you perceive no difference between having a royal governor, free to promote his majesty's service by a ready assent to your laws; and a proprietary governor, shackled by instructions, forbidding him to give that assent, unless some private advantage is obtained, some profit got, or unequal exemption gained for their estate, or some privilege wrested from you? When prerogative, that in other governments is only used for the good of the people, is here strained to the extreme, and used to their prejudice, and the proprietaries benefit, can you perceive no difference? When the direct and immediate rays of majesty benignly and mildly shine on all _around_ us, but are transmitted and thrown upon _us_ through the burning-glass of proprietary government, can your sensibilities feel no difference? Sheltered perhaps in proprietary offices, or benumbed with expectations, it may be you cannot. But surely you might have known better than to tell his majesty, "that there can be no governors of this province, without his immediate approbation." Don't you know, who know so much, that by our blessed constitution the _proprietors_ themselves, whenever they please, may govern us in _person_, without such approbation?

The petition proceeds to tell his majesty, "that the particular mode of government which we enjoy, under your majesty, is held in the _highest estimation_ by good men of all denominations among us; and hath _brought multitudes_ of industrious people from various parts of the world," &c. Really! Can this be from proprietary partizans? That constitution, which they were for ever censuring as defective in a legislative council, defective in government powers, too popular in many of its modes, is it now become so excellent? Perhaps, as they have been tinkering it these twenty years, till they have stripped it of some of its most valuable privileges, and almost spoiled it, they now begin to like it. But then it is not surely this _present_ constitution, that brought hither those multitudes. They came before. At least it was not that particular in our constitution (the proprietary power of appointing a governor) which attracted them, that single particular, which alone is now in question, which our venerable founder first, and now the assembly, are endeavouring to change. As to the remaining valuable part of our constitution, the assembly have been equally full and strong in expressing their regard for it, and perhaps stronger and fuller; for _their_ petition, in that respect, is in the nature of a petition of right: it lays claim, though modestly and humbly, to those privileges on the foundation of royal grants, on laws confirmed by the crown, and on justice and equity, as the grants were the consideration offered to induce them to settle, and which they have in a manner purchased and paid for, by executing that settlement without putting the crown to any expence. Whoever would know what our constitution was, when it was so much admired, let him peruse that elegant farewell speech of Mr. Hamilton, father of our late governor, when, as speaker, he took his leave of the house, and of public business, in 1739; and then let him compare that constitution with the present. The power of _appointing public officers_ by the representatives of the people, which he so much extols, where is it now? Even the bare naming to the governor in a bill, a trivial officer to receive a light-house duty (which could be considered as no more than a mere recommendation) is, in a late message, styled, "an encroachment on the prerogative of the crown!" The sole power of _raising and disposing of public money_, which he says was then lodged in the assembly, that inestimable privilege, what is become of it? Inch by inch they have been wrested from us in times of public distress; and the rest are going the same way. I remember to have seen, when governor Hamilton was engaged in a dispute with the assembly on some of those points, a copy of that speech, which then was intended to be reprinted, with a dedication to that honourable gentleman, and this motto from John Rogers's verses in the Primer:

We send you here a little book,
For you to look upon;
That you may see your father's face,
Now he is dead and gone.

Many a such little book has been sent by our assemblies to the present proprietaries: but they do not like to see their father's face; it puts their own out of countenance.

The petition proceeds to say, "that such disagreements as have arisen in this province, we have beheld with sorrow; but as others around us are not exempted from the _like misfortunes_, we can by no means conceive them incident to the nature of our government, which hath _often_ been administered with remarkable harmony: and your majesty, before whom our late disputes have been laid, can be at no loss, in your great wisdom, to discover, whether they proceed from the above cause, or should be ascribed to some others." The disagreements in question are proprietary disagreements in government, relating to proprietary private interests. And are not the _royal_ governments around us exempt from _these_ misfortunes? Can you really, gentlemen, by no means conceive, that proprietary government disagreements are incident to the nature of proprietary governments? If your wisdoms are so hard to conceive, I am afraid they will never bring forth. But then our government "hath _often_ been administered with remarkable harmony." Very true; as often as the assembly have been able and willing to purchase that harmony, and pay for it, the mode of which has already been shown. And yet that word _often_ seems a little unluckily chosen: the flame that is often put out, must be as often lit. If our government hath often been administered with remarkable harmony, it hath as often been administered with remarkable discord: one often is as numerous as the other. And his majesty, if he should take the trouble of looking over our disputes (to which the petitioners, to save themselves a little pains, modestly and decently refer him) where will he, for twenty years past, find any but _proprietary_ disputes concerning proprietary interests; or disputes that have been connected with and arose from them?

The petition proceeds to assure his majesty, "that this province (except from the Indian ravages) enjoys the _most perfect internal tranquillity_!"--Amazing! what! the most perfect tranquillity! when there have been three atrocious riots within a few months! when in two of them, horrid murders were committed on twenty innocent persons; and in the third, no less than one hundred and forty like murders were meditated, and declared to be intended, with as many more as should be occasioned by any opposition! when we know that these rioters and murderers have none of them been punished, have never been prosecuted, have not even been apprehended! when we are frequently told, that they intend still to execute their purposes, as soon as the protection of the king's forces is withdrawn! Is our tranquillity more perfect now, than it was between the first riot and the second, or between the second and the third? And why "except the Indian ravages," is a _little intermission_ to be denominated "the most perfect tranquillity?" For the Indians too have been quiet lately. Almost as well might ships in an engagement talk of the most perfect tranquillity between two broadsides. But "a spirit of riot and violence is foreign to the general temper of the inhabitants." I hope and believe it is; the assembly have said nothing to the contrary. And yet is there not too much of it? Are there not pamphlets continually written, and daily sold in our streets, to justify and encourage it? Are not the mad armed mob in those writings instigated to embrue their hands in the blood of their fellow-citizens, by first applauding their murder of the Indians, and then representing the assembly and their friends as worse than Indians, as having privately stirred up the Indians to murder the white people, and armed and rewarded them for that purpose? LIES, gentlemen, villanous as ever the malice of hell invented, and which, to do you justice, not one of you believes, though you would have the mob believe them.

But your petition proceeds to say, "that where such disturbances have happened, they have been _speedily quieted_." By whom were they quieted? The _two first_, if they can be said to be quieted, were quieted only by the rioters themselves going home quietly (that is, without any interruption) and remaining there till their next insurrection, without any pursuit, or attempt to apprehend any of them. And the _third_, was it quieted, or was the mischief they intended prevented, or could it have been prevented, without the aid of the king's troops, marched into the province for that purpose?--"The civil powers have been supported," in some sort. We all know how they were supported; but have they been _fully_ supported? Has the government sufficient strength, even with all its supports, to venture on the apprehending and punishment of those notorious offenders? If it has not, why are you angry at those who would strengthen its hands by a more immediate royal authority? If it has, why is not the thing done? Why will the government, by its conduct, strengthen the suspicions (groundless no doubt) that it has come to a private understanding with those murderers, and that impunity for their past crimes is to be the reward of their future political services?--O! but says the petition, "there are perhaps cases in all governments where it may _not be possible speedily to discover offenders_." Probably; but is there any case in any government where it is not possible to _endeavour_ such a discovery? There may be cases where it is not safe to do it: and perhaps the best thing our government can say for itself is, that that is our case. The only objection to such an apology must be, that it would justify that part of the assembly's petition to the crown, which relates to the _weakness_ of our present government.[68]

Still, if there is any _fault_, it must be _in the assembly_; for, says the petition, "if the executive part of our government should seem in any case too weak, we conceive it is the duty of the assembly, and in _their_ power, to strengthen it." This weakness, however, you have just denied. "Disturbances you say _have_ been speedily quieted, and the civil power supported," and thereby you have deprived your insinuated charge against the assembly of its only support. But is it not a fact known to you all, that the assembly _did_ endeavour to strengthen the hands of the government? That, at his honour's instance, they prepared and passed in a few hours a bill for extending hither the act of parliament for dispersing rioters? That they also passed and presented to him a militia bill, which he refused, unless powers were thereby given him over the lives and properties of the inhabitants, which the public good did not require; and which their duty to their constituents would not permit them to trust in the hands of any proprietary governor? You know the points, gentlemen: they have been made public. Would you have had your representatives give up those points? Do _you_ intend to give them up, when at the next election _you_ are made assemblymen? If so, tell it us honestly beforehand, that we may know what we are to expect when we are about to choose you?

I come now to the last clause of your petition, where, with the same wonderful sagacity with which you in another case discovered the excellency of a speech you never heard, you undertake to _characterise a petition_ [_from the_ assembly] _you own you never saw_; and venture to assure his majesty, that it is "exceeding grievous in its nature, that it by no means contains a proper representation of the state of this province, and is repugnant to the general sense of his numerous and loyal subjects in it." Are then his majesty's "numerous and loyal subjects" in this province all as great wizards as yourselves, and capable of knowing, without seeing it, that a petition is repugnant to their general sense? But the inconsistence of your petition, gentlemen, is not so much to be wondered at; the _prayer_ of it is _still more_ extraordinary, "We therefore most humbly pray, that your majesty would be graciously pleased _wholly to disregard_ the said petition of the assembly." What! without enquiry! without examination! without a hearing of what the assembly might say in support of it! "wholly disregard" the petition of your representatives in assembly, accompanied by other petitions, signed by thousands of your fellow-subjects as loyal, if not as wise and as good, as yourselves! Would you wish to see your great and amiable prince act a part that could not become a dey of Algiers? Do you, who are Americans, pray for a _precedent_ of such contempt in the treatment of an American assembly! such "total disregard" of their humble applications to the throne? Surely your wisdoms here have overshot yourselves.--But as wisdom shows itself not only in doing what is right, but in confessing and _amending_ what is wrong, I recommend the latter particularly to your present attention; being persuaded of this consequence, that though you have been mad enough to sign such a petition, you never will be fools enough to present it.

There is one thing mentioned in the preface, which I find I omitted to take notice of as I came along, _the refusal of the house to enter Mr. Dickinson's protest_ on their minutes. This is mentioned in such a manner there and in the newspapers, as to insinuate a charge of some partiality and injustice in the assembly. But the _reasons_ were merely these, that though protesting may be a practice with the lords of parliament, there is no instance of it in the house of commons, whose proceedings are the model followed by the assemblies of America; that there is no precedent of it on our votes, from the beginning of our present constitution; and that the introducing such a practice would be attended with inconveniences, as the representatives in assembly are not, like the lords in parliament, unaccountable to any constituents, and would therefore find it necessary for their own justification, if the reasons of the minority for being against a measure were admitted in the votes, to put there likewise the reasons that induced the majority to be for it: whereby the votes, which were intended only as a register of propositions and determinations, would be filled with the disputes of members with members, and the public business be thereby greatly retarded, if ever brought to a period.

As that protest was a mere abstract of Mr. Dickinson's speech, every particular of it will be found answered in the following speech of Mr. Galloway, from which it is fit that I should no longer detain the reader.[69]

FOOTNOTES:

[59] As I am very much unacquainted with the history and principles of these provincial politics, I shall confine myself to some imperfect anecdotes concerning the parties, &c. A speech, which Mr. Dickinson had delivered in the Pensylvania assembly against the abolition of the proprietary government, having been published, and a preface having been written to it, as I think by a Dr. Smith, Mr. Galloway's speech was held forth as a proper answer to that speech, while the preface to it appeared balanced by the above preface from Dr. Franklin. Mr. Galloway's speech, or probably the advertisement that attended it, urged, I believe, Mr. Dickinson first to a challenge, and then to a printed reply.--The controversy was quickly republished in England, or at least the principal parts of it; and it is from the English edition of Mr. Galloway's speech (printed in London by Nichols in 1765) that I have copied the above.

These several gentlemen however seem, for a time, to have better agreed in their subsequent opinions concerning American taxation by Great Britain; Mr. Dickinson, in particular, having taken a very spirited line in the Farmer's Letters and other pieces, which procured him considerable reputation. The congress declaration, nevertheless, for independence, was reported not to have given perfect satisfaction at first, either to himself or to Mr. Galloway. And in the event, Mr. Galloway thought proper to come over to General Howe, and afterwards to embark for England. B. V.

[60] This act is intitled, An Act for granting to his Majesty the Sum of One Hundred Thousand Pounds: striking the same in Bills of Credit, and sinking the Bills by a Tax on all Estates real and personal.

[61] i. e. In England, I suppose, when the laws were brought home to receive the king's assent. B. V.

[62] Possibly this word _where_, means _wherever_. B. V.

[63] This would have been done, and the money all sunk in the hands of the people, if the agents, Benjamin Franklin, and Robert Charles, had not interposed, and voluntarily, without authority from the assembly so to do, but at their own risque, undertaken, that these amendments should be made, or that they themselves would indemnify the proprietaries from any damages they might sustain for want thereof. An action which, as the prefacer says in another case, "posterity perhaps may find a name for."

[64] It is not easy to guess from what source our proprietaries have drawn their principles. Those who study law and justice as a science have established it a maxim in equity, "Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus." And so consistent is this with the common sense of mankind, that even our lowest untaught coblers and porters feel the force of it in their own maxim (which they are honest enough never to dispute) "Touch pot, touch penny."

[65] For a fuller account of this dispute the reader is referred to the newspapers and votes of assembly.

[66] These words, "by completing the agreement," &c. are omitted by the honest prefacer, in his account of the resolve, that they might not interfere with his insinuation of the measure's being impracticable, "have the proprietors, by any act of theirs, forfeited the least tittle of what was granted them by his Majesty's royal ancestors? Or can they be _deprived_ of their charter rights without their consent?" &c. Sensible that these questions are impertinent, if those rights are already sold.

[67] The prefacer, with great art, endeavours to represent this number as insignificant. He says the petitioners were but 3500, and that the province contains near three hundred thousand _souls_! His reader is to imagine, that _two hundred and ninety six thousand five hundred_ of them were applied to, and refused to sign it. The truth is, that his number of souls is vastly exaggerated. The dwelling-houses in the province in 1752 did not exceed 20,000. Political arithmeticians reckon generally but five souls to a house, one house with another; and therefore, allowing for houses since built, there are not probably more than an hundred and ten thousand souls in the province; that of these, scarce twenty two thousand could with any propriety be petitioners. And considering the scattered settlement of the province; the general inattention of mankind, especially in new countries, to public affairs; and the indefatigable pains taken by the proprietaries' new allies the presbyterian clergy of Philadelphia, (who wrote circular letters to every congregation in the county, to deter them from petitioning, by dutiful intimations, that if we were reduced to a royal government, it would be the "ruin of the province;") it is a wonder the number (near a sixth part) was so great as it was. But if there had been no such petitions, it would not have been material to the point. The _assembly_ went upon another foundation. They had adjourned to consult their constituents; they returned satisfied that the measure was agreeable to them, and _nothing appeared to the contrary_.

[68] The assembly being called upon by the governor for their advice on that occasion did, in a message, advise his sending for and examining the magistrates of Lancaster county and borough, where the murders were committed, in order to discover the actors; but neither that nor any of the other measures recommended were ever taken. Proclamations indeed were published, but soon discontinued.

[69] Mr. Galloway's speech is of course omitted here. _Editor._

_Remarks on a late Protest against the Appointment of Mr. Franklin
as Agent for this Province_ [of Pensylvania].

I have generally passed over, with a silent disregard, the _nameless_ abusive pieces that have been written against me; and though this paper, called a _protest_, is signed by some respectable names, I was, nevertheless, inclined to treat it with the same indifference; but, as the assembly is therein reflected on upon my account, it is thought more my duty to make some remarks upon it.

I would first observe then, that this mode of _protesting_ by the minority, with a string of reasons against the proceedings of the majority of the house of assembly, is quite new among us; the present is the second we have had of the kind, and both within a few months. It is unknown to the practice of the house of commons, or of any house of representatives in America, that I have heard of; and seems an affected imitation of the lords in parliament, which can by no means become assemblymen of America. Hence appears the absurdity of the complaint, that the house refused the protest an _entry_ on their minutes. The protesters know, that they are not, by any custom or usage, intitled to such an entry; and that the practice here is not only useless in itself, but would be highly inconvenient to the house, since it would probably be thought necessary for the majority also to enter their reasons, to justify themselves to their constituents; whereby the minutes would be incumbered and the public business obstructed. More especially will it be found inconvenient, if such protests are made use of as a new form of libelling, as the vehicles of personal malice, and as means of giving to private abuse the appearance of a sanction as public acts. Your protest, gentlemen, was therefore properly refused; and since it is no part of the proceedings of assembly, one may with the more freedom examine it.

Your first reason against my appointment is, that you "believe me to be the chief author of the measures pursued by the last assembly, which have occasioned _such uneasiness_ and distraction among the good people of this province." I shall not dispute my share in those measures; I hope they are such as will in time do honour to all that were concerned in them. But you seem mistaken in the order of time: it was the uneasiness and distraction among the good people of the province that occasioned the measures; the province was in confusion before they were taken, and they were pursued in order to prevent such uneasiness and distraction for the future. Make one step farther back, and you will find proprietary injustice supported by proprietary minions and creatures, the original cause of all our uneasiness and distractions.

Another of your reasons is, "that I am, as you are informed, very _unfavourably_ thought of by several of his _majesty's ministers_." I apprehend, gentlemen, that your informer is mistaken. He indeed has taken great pains to give unfavourable impressions of me, and perhaps may flatter himself, that it is impossible so much true industry should be totally without effect. His long success in maiming or murdering all the reputations that stand in his way (which has been the dear delight and constant employment of his life) may likewise have given him some just ground for confidence, that he has, as they call it, _done for me_, among the rest. But, as I said before, I believe he is mistaken. For what have I done, that they should think unfavourably of me? It cannot be my constantly and uniformly promoting the measures of the crown, ever since I had any influence in the province. It cannot, surely, be my promoting the change from a proprietary to a royal government. If indeed I had, by speeches and writings, endeavoured to make his majesty's government universally odious in the province: if I had harangued by the week to all comers and goers, on the pretended injustice and oppressions of royal government, and the slavery of the people under it: if I had written traitorous papers to this purpose, and got them translated into other languages, to give his majesty's foreign subjects here those horrible ideas of it: if I had declared, written, and printed, that "the king's little finger we should find heavier than the proprietor's whole loins," with regard to our liberties; _then indeed_ might the ministers be supposed to think unfavourably of me. But these are not exploits for a man, who holds a profitable office under the crown, and can expect to hold it no longer than he behaves with the fidelity and duty that becomes every good subject. They are only for officers of proprietary appointment, who hold their commissions during his, and not the king's pleasure; and who, by dividing among themselves and their relations, offices of many thousands a year enjoyed by proprietary favour, _feel_ where to place their loyalty. I wish they were as good subjects to his majesty; and perhaps they may be so, when the proprietary interferes no longer.

Another of your reasons is, "that the proposal of me for _an agent_ is extremely disagreeable to a very great number of the most serious and reputable inhabitants of the province; and the _proof_ is, my having been rejected at the last election, though I had represented the city in assembly for fourteen years."

And do those of you, gentlemen, reproach me with this, who, among near four thousand voters, had scarcely a score more than I had? It seems then, that your _elections_ were very near being _rejections_, and thereby furnishing the same proof in your case that you produce in mine, of _your_ being likewise extremely disagreeable to a very great number of the most serious and reputable people. Do you, honourable sir, reproach me with this, who, for almost twice fourteen years have been rejected (if _not being chosen_ is _to be rejected_) by the same people? and (unable, with all your wealth and connections, and the influence they give you, to obtain an election in the county where you reside, and the city where you were born, and are best known) have been obliged to accept a seat from one of the out-counties, the remotest of the province!--It is known, sir, to the persons who proposed me, that I was first chosen against my inclination, and against my entreaties that I might be suffered to remain a private man. In none of the fourteen elections you mention, did I ever appear as a candidate. I never did, directly or indirectly, solicit any man's vote. For six of the years in which I was annually chosen, I was absent, residing in England; during all which time, your secret and open attacks upon my character and reputation were incessant; and yet you gained no ground. And can you really, gentlemen, find matter of triumph in this _rejection_ as you call it? A moment's reflection on the means by which it was obtained must make you ashamed of it.

Not only my duty to the crown, in carrying the post-office act more duly into execution, was made use of to exasperate the ignorant, as if I was encreasing my own profits, by picking their pockets; but my very zeal in opposing the murderers, and supporting the authority of government; and even my humanity, with regard to the innocent Indians under our protection, were mustered among my offences, to stir up against me those religious bigots, who are of all savages the most brutish. Add to this, the numberless falshoods propagated as truths, and the many perjuries procured among the wretched rabble, brought to swear themselves intitled to a vote: And yet so _poor a superiority_ obtained at all this expence of honour and conscience! can this, gentlemen, be matter of triumph? Enjoy it then. Your exultation, however, was short. Your artifices did not prevail every where; nor your double tickets and whole boxes of forged votes. A great majority of the new-chosen assembly were of the old members, and remain uncorrupted. They still stood firm for the people, and will obtain justice from the proprietaries. But what does that avail to you, who are in the proprietary interest? And what comfort can it afford you, when, by the assembly's choice of an agent, it appears that the same, to you obnoxious, man (notwithstanding all your venomous invectives against him) still retains so great a share of the public confidence?

But "this step, you say, gives you the more lively affliction, as it is taken at the _very moment_ when you were informed by a member of the house, that the governor had assured him of his having received instructions from the proprietaries, to give his assent to the taxation of their estates; in the _same manner_ that the estates of other persons are to be taxed; and also _to confirm_, for the public use, the several squares formerly _claimed_ by the city." O the force of friendship! the power of interest! What politeness they infuse into a writer, and what _delicate_ expressions they produce!--The dispute between the proprietaries and us was about the _quantum_, the _rate_ of their taxation, and not about the _manner_; but now, when all the world condemns them for requiring a partial exemption of their estates, and they are forced to submit to an honest equality, it is called "_assenting_ to be taxed in the _same manner_ with the people." Their _restitution_ of five public squares in the plan of the city, which they had near forty years unjustly and dishonourably seized and detained from us, (directing their surveyor to map streets over them, in order to turn them into lots, and their officers to sell a part of them;) this their _disgorging_ is softly called _confirming_ them for the public use; and instead of the plain words "_formerly given_ to the city, by the first proprietary, their father," we have the cautious pretty expression of "formerly _claimed_ by the city:" Yes; not only _formerly_, but _always_ claimed, ever since they were _promised_ and _given_ to encourage the settlers; and ever will be _claimed_, till we are put in actual possession of them. It is pleasant, however, to see how lightly and tenderly you trip over these matters, as if you trod upon eggs. But that "_very moment_," that precious moment! Why was it so long delayed? Why were those healing instructions so long withheld and concealed from the people? They were, it seems, brought over by Mr. Allen:[70] intelligence was received by various hands from London, that orders were sent by the proprietaries, from which great hopes were entertained of an accommodation. Why was the bringing and the delivery of such orders so long _denied_? The reason is easily understood. Messieurs Barclays, friends to both proprietaries and people, wished for that gentleman's happy arrival; hoping his _influence_, added to the _power_ and _commissions_ the proprietaries had vested him with, might prove effectual in restoring harmony and tranquillity among us; but _he_, it seems, hoped his _influence_ might do the business, without those additions. There appeared on his arrival some prospect (from sundry circumstances) of a _change_ to be made in the house by the approaching election. The proprietary friends and creatures knew the heart of their master; and how extremely disagreeable to him that _equal taxation_, that _restitution_, and the other _concessions_ to be made for the sake of a reconciliation, must necessarily be. They hoped therefore to spare him all those mortifications, and thereby secure a greater portion of his favour. Hence the instructions were not produced to the last assembly, though they arrived before the September sitting, when the governor was in town, and actually did business with the house. Nor to the new assembly were they mentioned, till the "_very moment_," the fatal moment, when the house were on the point of choosing that wicked adversary of the proprietary to be an _agent_ for the province in England.

But I have, you say, a "fixed _enmity to the proprietaries_," and "you believe it will _preclude all accommodation_ of our disputes with them, even on just and reasonable terms." And why do you think I have a fixed enmity to the proprietaries? I have never had any personal difference with them. I am no land-jobber; and therefore have never had any thing to do with their land-office or officers; if I had, probably, like others, I might have been obliged to truckle to their measures, or have had like causes of complaint. But our private interests never clashed; and all their resentment against me, and mine to them, has been on the public account. Let them do justice to the people of Pensylvania, act honourably by the citizens of Philadelphia, and become honest men; my enmity, if that's of any consequence, ceases from the "_very moment_;" and, as soon as I possibly can, I promise to love, honour and respect them. In the mean time, why do you "believe it will preclude all _accommodation_ with them on just and reasonable terms?" Do you not boast, that their gracious condescensions are in the hands of the governor; and that "if this had been the usual time for business, his honour would have sent them down in a message to the house." How then can my going to England prevent this accommodation? The governor can call the house when he pleases; and, one would think, that, at least in your opinion, my being out of the way would be a favourable circumstance. For then, by "cultivating the disposition shown by the proprietaries, every _reasonable demand_ that can be made on the part of the people might be obtained: in vigorously insisting on which, you promise to unite most earnestly with the rest of the house." It seems then we have "_reasonable demands_" to make, and, as you call them a little higher, _equitable demands_. This is much for proprietary minions to own; but you are all growing better, in imitation of your master, which is indeed very commendable. And if the accommodation here should fail, I hope, that though you dislike the person a majority of two to one in the house have thought fit to appoint an agent, you will nevertheless, in duty to your country, continue the noble resolution of uniting with the rest of the house, in vigorously insisting on that _equity_ and _justice_, which such an union will undoubtedly obtain for us.