EconlibThe LibraryOther Sites |
Front Page  Titles (by Subject) CCLXIX: THE EXAMINATION OF DR. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IN THE BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS RELATIVE TO THE REPEAL OF THE AMERICAN STAMP ACT, IN 1766 1 - The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. IV Letters and Misc. Writings 1763-1768
Return to Title Page for The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. IV Letters and Misc. Writings 1763-1768The Online Library of LibertyA project of Liberty Fund, Inc.Search this Title:Also in the Library:
CCLXIX: THE EXAMINATION OF DR. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IN THE BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS RELATIVE TO THE REPEAL OF THE AMERICAN STAMP ACT, IN 1766 1 - Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. IV Letters and Misc. Writings 1763-1768 [1904]Edition used:The Works of Benjamin Franklin, including the Private as well as the Official and Scientific Correspondence, together with the Unmutilated and Correct Version of the Autobiography, compiled and edited by John Bigelow (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904). The Federal Edition in 12 volumes. Vol. IV (Letters and Misc. Writings 1763-1768).
About Liberty Fund:Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. Copyright information:The text is in the public domain. Fair use statement:This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
CCLXIXTHE EXAMINATION OF DR. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IN THE BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS
From the journal of the House of Commons, as given by Mr. Vaughan. “February 3, 1766. Benjamin Franklin and a number of other persons ordered to attend the committee of the whole House, to whom it was referred to consider farther the several papers, which were presented to the House by Mr. Secretary Conway. February 13th. Benjamin Franklin, having passed through his examination, was excepted from farther attendance. February 24th. The resolutions of the committee were reported by the chairman, Mr. Fuller; their seventh and last resolution, setting forth that it was their opinion that the House be moved that leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal the Stamp Act.” The account of the examination was first published in 1767, without the name of printer or publisher. It was translated into French, and widely circulated in Europe. It has been frequently reprinted in both the English and French languages.—Editor. Q.What is your name and place of abode? A.Franklin, of Philadelphia. Q.Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes among themselves? A.Certainly, many and very heavy taxes. Q.What are the present taxes in Pennsylvania, laid by the laws of the colony? A.There are taxes on all estates, real and personal; a poll tax; a tax on all offices, professions, trades, and businesses, according to their profits; an excise on all wine, rum, and other spirits; and a duty of ten pounds per head on all negroes imported, with some other duties. Q.For what purposes are those taxes laid? A.For the support of the civil and military establishments of the country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted in the last war. Q.How long are those taxes to continue? A.Those for discharging the debt are to continue till 1772, and longer, if the debt should not be then all discharged. The others must always continue. Q.Was it not expected that the debt would have been sooner discharged? A.It was, when the peace was made with France and Spain. But a fresh war breaking out with the Indians, a fresh load of debt was incurred; and the taxes, of course, continued longer by a new law. Q.Are not all the people very able to pay those taxes? A.No. The frontier counties, all along the continent, having been frequently ravaged by the enemy and greatly impoverished, are able to pay very little tax. And therefore, in consideration of their distresses, our late tax laws do expressly favor those counties, excusing the sufferers; and I suppose the same is done in other governments. Q.Are not you concerned in the management of the post-office in America? A.Yes. I am deputy-postmaster-general of North America. Q.Don’t you think the distribution of stamps by post to all the inhabitants very practicable, if there was no opposition? A.The posts only go along the sea-coasts: they do not, except in a few instances, go back into the country; and, if they did, sending for stamps by post would occasion an expense of postage amounting in many cases to much more than that of the stamps themselves. Q.Are you acquainted with Newfoundland? A.I never was there. Q.Do you know whether there are any post-roads on that island? A.I have heard that there are no roads at all, but that the communication between one settlement and another is by sea only. Q.Can you disperse the stamps by post in Canada? A.There is only a post between Montreal and Quebec. The inhabitants live so scattered and remote from each other in that vast country, that posts cannot be supported among them, and therefore they cannot get stamps per post. The English colonies, too, along the frontiers are very thinly settled. Q.From the thinness of the back settlements would not the Stamp Act be extremely inconvenient to the inhabitants, if executed? A.To be sure it would; as many of the inhabitants could not get stamps when they had occasion for them without taking long journeys, and spending perhaps three or four pounds, that the crown might get sixpence. Q.Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able to pay the stamp duty? A.In my opinion there is not gold and silver enough in the colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year.1 Q.Don’t you know that the money arising from the stamps was all to be laid out in America? A.I know it is appropriated by the act to the American service; but it will be spent in the conquered colonies, where the soldiers are; not in the colonies that pay it. Q.Is there not a balance of trade due from the colonies where the troops are posted, that will bring back the money to the old colonies? A.I think not. I believe very little would come back. I know of no trade likely to bring it back. I think it would come, from the colonies where it was spent, directly to England; for I have always observed, that in every colony the more plenty the means of remittance to England, the more goods are sent for, and the more trade with England carried on. Q.What number of white inhabitants do you think there are in Pennsylvania? A.I suppose there may be about one hundred and sixty thousand. Q.What number of them are Quakers? A.Perhaps a third. Q.What number of Germans? A.Perhaps another third; but I cannot speak with certainty. Q.Have any number of the Germans seen service, as soldiers, in Europe? A.Yes, many of them, both in Europe and America. Q.Are they as much dissatisfied with the stamp duty as the English? A.Yes, and more; and with reason, as their stamps are, in many cases, to be double.1 Q.How many white men do you suppose there are in North America? A.About three hundred thousand, from sixteen to sixty years of age.1 Q.What may be the amount of one year’s imports into Pennsylvania from Britain? A.I have been informed that our merchants compute the imports from Britain to be above five hundred thousand pounds. Q.What may be the amount of the produce of your province exported to Britain? A.It must be small, as we produce little that is wanted in Britain. I suppose it cannot exceed forty thousand pounds. Q.How then do you pay the balance? A.The balance is paid by our produce carried to the West Indies, and sold in our own islands, or to the French, Spaniards, Danes, and Dutch; by the same produce carried to other colonies in North America, as to New England, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Carolina, and Georgia; by the same, carried to different parts of Europe, as Spain, Portugal, and Italy. In all which places we receive either money, bills of exchange, or commodities that suit for remittance to Britain; which, together with all the profits on the industry of our merchants and mariners, arising in those circuitous voyages, and the freights made by their ships, centre finally in Britain to discharge the balance, and pay for British manufactures continually used in the provinces, or sold to foreigners by our traders. Q.Have you heard of any difficulties lately laid on the Spanish trade? A.Yes; I have heard that it has been greatly obstructed by some new regulations, and by the English men-of-war and cutters stationed all along the coast in America. Q.Do you think it right that America should be protected by this country and pay no part of the expense? A.That is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed, and paid, during the last war, near twenty-five thousand men, and spent many millions. Q.Were you not reimbursed by Parliament? A.We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent. Pennsylvania, in particular, disbursed about five hundred thousand pounds, and the reimbursements, in the whole, did not exceed sixty thousand pounds. Q.You have said that you pay heavy taxes in Pennsylvania; what do they amount to in the pound? A.The tax on all estates, real and personal, is eighteen pence in the pound, fully rated; and the tax on the profits of trades and professions, with other taxes, do, I suppose, make full half a crown in the pound. Q.Do you know any thing of the rate of exchange in Pennsylvania, and whether it has fallen lately? A.It is commonly from one hundred and seventy to one hundred and seventy-five. I have heard that it has fallen lately from one hundred and seventy-five to one hundred and sixty-two and a half; owing, I suppose, to their lessening their orders for goods; and when their debts to this country are paid, I think the exchange will probably be at par. Q.Do you not think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp duty, if it was moderated? A.No, never, unless compelled by force of arms. Q.Are not the taxes in Pennsylvania laid on unequally, in order to burden the English trade; particularly the tax on professions and business? A.It is not more burdensome in proportion than the tax on lands. It is intended and supposed to take an equal proportion of profits. Q.How is the assembly composed? Of what kinds of people are the members; landholders or traders? A.It is composed of landholders, merchants, and artificers. Q.Are not the majority landholders? A.I believe they are. Q.Do not they, as much as possible, shift the tax off from the land, to ease that, and lay the burden heavier on trade? A.I have never understood it so. I never heard such a thing suggested. And indeed an attempt of that kind could answer no purpose. The merchant or trader is always skilled in figures, and ready with his pen and ink. If unequal burdens are laid on his trade, he puts an additional price on his goods; and the consumers, who are chiefly landholders, finally pay the greatest part, if not the whole. Q.What was the temper of America towards Great Britain before the year 1763?1 A.The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the government of the crown, and paid, in their courts, obedience to the acts of Parliament. Numerous as the people are in the several old provinces, they cost you nothing in forts, citadels, garrisons, or armies to keep them in subjection. They were governed by this country at the expense only of a little pen, ink, and paper; they were led by a thread. They had not only a respect, but an affection for Great Britain; for its laws, its customs and manners, and even a fondness for its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce. Natives of Britain were always treated with particular regard. To be an Old-England man was, of itself, a character of some respect, and gave a kind of rank among us. Q.And what is their temper now? A.O, very much altered. Q.Did you ever hear the authority of Parliament to make laws for America questioned till lately? A.The authority of Parliament was allowed to be valid in all laws, except such as should lay internal taxes. It was never disputed in laying duties to regulate commerce. Q.In what proportion hath population increased in America? A.I think the inhabitants of all the provinces together, taken at a medium, double in about twenty-five years. But their demand for British manufactures increases much faster, as the consumption is not merely in proportion to their numbers, but grows with the growing abilities of the same numbers to pay for them. In 1723 the whole importation from Britain to Pennsylvania was about fifteen thousand pounds sterling. It is now near half a million. Q.In what light did the people of America use to consider the Parliament of Great Britain? A.They considered the Parliament as the great bulwark and security of their liberties and privileges, and always spoke of it with the utmost respect and veneration. Arbitrary ministers, they thought, might possibly at times attempt to oppress them; but they relied on it that the Parliament, on application, would always give redress. They remembered, with gratitude, a strong instance of this when a bill was brought into Parliament with a clause to make royal instructions laws in the colonies, which the House of Commons would not pass, and it was thrown out. Q.And have they not still the same respect for Parliament? A.No, it is greatly lessened. Q.To what cause is that owing? A.To a concurrence of causes; the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps, taking away at the same time trials by juries, and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions. Q.Don’t you think they would submit to the Stamp Act, if it was modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and the duty reduced to some particulars of small moment? A.No, they will never submit to it. Q.What do you think is the reason the people in America increase faster than in England? A.Because they marry younger, and more generally. Q.Why so? A.Because any young couple that are industrious, may easily obtain land of their own, on which they can raise a family. Q.Are not the lower ranks of people more at their ease in America than in England? A.They may be so, if they are sober and diligent, as they are better paid for their labor. Q.What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same principle with that of the Stamp Act? How would the Americans receive it? A.Just as they do this. They would not pay it. Q.Have not you heard of the resolutions of this House, and of the House of Lords, asserting the right of Parliament relating to America, including a power to tax the people there? A.Yes, I have heard of such resolutions. Q.What will be the opinion of the Americans on those resolutions? A.They will think them unconstitutional and unjust. Q.Was it an opinion in America before 1763, that the Parliament had no right to lay taxes and duties there? A.I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties to regulate commerce; but the right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in Parliament, as we are not represented there. Q.On what do you found your opinion, that the people in America made any such distinction? A.I know that whenever the subject has occurred in conversation where I have been present, it has appeared to be the opinion of every one, that we could not be taxed by a Parliament wherein we were not represented. But the payment of duties laid by an act of Parliament, as regulations of commerce, was never disputed. Q.But can you name any act of assembly, or public act of any of your governments, that made such distinction? A.I do not know that there was any; I think there was never an occasion to make any such act, till now that you have attempted to tax us; that has occasioned resolutions of assembly, declaring the distinction, in which I think every assembly on the continent, and every member in every assembly, have been unanimous. Q.What, then, could occasion conversations on that subject before that time? A.There was in 1754 a proposition made, (I think it came from hence,) that in case of a war, which was then apprehended, the governors of the colonies should meet, and order the levying of troops, building of forts, and taking every other measure for the general defence; and should draw on the treasury here for the sums expended, which were afterwards to be raised in the colonies by a general tax, to be laid on them by act of Parliament. This occasioned a good deal of conversation on the subject; and the general opinion was, that the Parliament neither would nor could lay any tax on us, till we were duly represented in Parliament; because it was not just, nor agreeable to the nature of an English constitution. Q.Don’t you know there was a time in New York, when it was under consideration to make an application to Parliament to lay taxes on that colony, upon a deficiency arising from the assembly’s refusing or neglecting to raise the necessary supplies for the support of the civil government? A.I never heard of it. Q.There was such an application under consideration in New York; and do you apprehend they could suppose the right of Parliament to lay a tax in America was only local, and confined to the case of a deficiency in a particular colony, by a refusal of its assembly to raise the necessary supplies? A.They could not suppose such a case, as that the assembly would not raise the necessary supplies to support its own government. An assembly that would refuse it must want common sense; which cannot be supposed. I think there was never any such case at New York, and that it must be a misrepresentation, or the fact must be misunderstood. I know there have been some attempts, by ministerial instructions from hence, to oblige the assemblies to settle permanent salaries on governors, which they wisely refused to do; but I believe no assembly of New York, or any other colony, ever refused duly to support government by proper allowances, from time to time, to public officers. Q.But, in case a governor, acting by instruction, should call on an assembly to raise the necessary supplies, and the assembly should refuse to do it, do you not think it would then be for the good of the people of the colony, as well as necessary to government, that the Parliament should tax them? A.I do not think it would be necessary. If an assembly could possibly be so absurd, as to refuse raising the supplies requisite for the maintenance of government among them, they could not long remain in such a situation; the disorders and confusion occasioned by it must soon bring them to reason. Q.If it should not, ought not the right to be in Great Britain of applying a remedy? A.A right, only to be used in such a case, I should have no objection to; supposing it to be used merely for the good of the people of the colony. Q.But who is to judge of that, Britain or the colony? A.Those that feel can best judge. Q.You say the colonies have always submitted to external taxes, and object to the right of Parliament only in laying internal taxes; now can you show that there is any kind of difference between the two taxes to the colony on which they may be laid? A.I think the difference is very great. An external tax is a duty laid on commodities imported; that duty is added to the first cost and other charges on the commodity, and, when it is offered 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 and such sums; and thus it is intended to extort our money from us, or ruin us by the consequences of refusing to pay it. Q.But supposing the external tax or duty to be laid on the necessaries of life imported into your colony, will not that be the same thing in its effects as an internal tax? A.I do not know a single article imported into the northern colonies, but what they can either do without, or make themselves. Q.Don’t you think cloth from England absolutely necessary to them. A.No, by no means absolutely necessary; with industry and good management they may 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 meanwhile suffer greatly? A.I think not. They have made a surprising progress already. And I am of opinion that before their old clothes are worn out they will have new ones of their own making. Q.Can they possibly find wool enough in North America. A.They have taken steps to increase the wool. They entered into general combinations to eat no more lamb; and very few lambs were killed last year. This course, persisted in, will soon make a prodigious difference in the quantity of wool. And the establishing of great manufactories, like those in the clothing towns here, is not necessary, as it is where the business is to be carried on for the purposes of trade. The people will all spin and work for themselves in their own houses. Q.Can there be wool and manufacture enough in one or two years? A.In three years, I think there may. Q.Does not the severity of the winter, in the northern colonies, occasion the wool to be of bad quality? A.No; the wool is very fine and good. Q.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. 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,1as 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 ever hear that Maryland, during the last war, had refused to furnish a quota towards the common defence? A.Maryland has been much misrepresented in this 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 represented 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 then 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, nor 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.1 Q.What is the present opinion there of that law? Is it as unpopular as it was at first? A.I 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 controlling 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 chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one. Q.If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the 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 a very little of your manufactures in a short time. Q.Is it in their power to do without them? A.The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries, mere conveniences, or superfluities. The first, as cloth, &c., with a little industry they can make at home; the second they can do without, till they are able to provide them among themselves; and the last, which are much the greatest part, they will strike off immediately. They are mere articles of fashion, purchased and consumed because the fashion in a respected country; but will now be detested and rejected. The people have already struck off, by general agreement, the use of all goods fashionable in mournings, and many thousand pounds’ worth are sent back as unsalable. 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 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 a tax; how would they receive it? A.I think it would be objected to. Q.Then no regulation with a tax would be submitted to? A.Their opinion is, that, when aids to the crown are wanted, they are to be asked of the several assemblies, according to the old established usage; who will, as they always have done, grant them freely. And that their money ought not to be given away, without their consent, by persons at a distance, unacquainted with their circumstances and abilities. The granting aids to the crown is the only means they have of recommending themselves to their sovereign; and they think it extremely hard and unjust, that a body of men, in which they have no representatives, should make a merit to itself of giving and granting what is not its own, but theirs; and deprive 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 choose to receive the service. A man may still, as before the act, send his letter by a servant, a special messenger, or a friend, if he thinks it cheaper and safer. Q.But do they not consider the regulations of the 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 to them by no others whatsoever, whom they have not empowered for that purpose. Q.You say they do not object to the right of Parliament, in laying duties on goods to be paid on their importation; now, is there any kind of difference between a duty on the importation of goods, and an excise on their consumption? A.Yes, a very material one; an excise, for the reasons I have just mentioned, they think you can have no right to lay within their country. But the sea is yours; you maintain, by your fleets, the safety of navigation in it, and keep it clear of pirates; you may have, therefore, a natural and equitable right to some toll or duty on merchandises carried through that part of your dominions, towards defraying the expense you are at in ships to maintain the safety of that carriage. Q.Does this reasoning hold in the case of a duty laid on the produce of their lands exported? And would they not then object to such a duty? A.If it tended to make the produce so much dearer abroad, as to lessen the demand for it, to be sure they would object to such a duty; not to your right of laying it, but they would complain of it as a burden, and petition you to lighten it. Q.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 Williamsburg 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 twenty thousand pounds sterling. Q.Supposing the Stamp Act continued and enforced, do you imagine that ill-humor will induce the Americans to give as much for worse manufactures of their own, and use them, preferable to better of ours? A.Yes, I think so. People will pay as freely to gratify one passion as another, their resentment as their pride. Q.Would the people at Boston discontinue their trade? A.The merchants are a very small number compared with the body of the people, and must discontinue their trade if nobody will buy their goods. Q.What are the body of the people in the colonies? A.They are farmers, husbandmen, or planters. Q.Would they suffer the produce of their lands to rot? A.No; but they would not raise so much. They would manufacture more and plough less. Q.Would they live without the administration of justice in civil matters, and suffer all the inconveniences of such a situation for any considerable time, rather than take the stamps, supposing the stamps were protected by a sufficient force, where every one might have them? A.I think the supposition impracticable, that the stamps should be so protected as that every one might have them. The act requires sub-distributors to be appointed in every county town, district, and village, and they would be necessary. But the principal distributors, who were to have had a considerable profit on the whole, have not thought it worth while to continue in the office; and I think it impossible to find sub-distributors fit to be trusted, who, for the trifling profit that must come to their share, would incur the odium and run the hazard that would attend it; and, if they could be found, I think it impracticable to protect the stamps in so many distant and remote places. Q.But in places where they could be protected, would not the people use them rather than remain in such a situation, unable to obtain any right, or recover by law any debt? A.It is hard to say what they would do. I can only judge what other people will think, and how they will act by what I feel within myself. I have a great many debts due to me in America, and I had rather they should remain unrecoverable by any law than submit to the Stamp Act. They will be debts of honor. It is my opinion the people will either continue in that situation, or find some way to extricate themselves; perhaps by generally agreeing to proceed in the courts without stamps. Q.What do you think a sufficient military force to protect the distribution of the stamps in every part of America? A.A very great force, I can’t say what, if the disposition of America is for a general resistance. Q.What is the number of men in America able to bear arms, or of disciplined militia? A.There are, I suppose, at least . . . [Question objected to. He withdrew. Called in again.] Q.Is the American Stamp Act an equal tax on the country? A.I think not. Q.Why so? A.The greatest part of the money must arise from lawsuits for the recovery of debts, and be paid by the lower sort of people, who were too poor easily to pay their debts. It is, therefore, a heavy tax on the poor, and a tax upon them for being poor. Q.But will not this increase of expense be a means of lessening the number of lawsuits? A.I think not; for as the costs all fall upon the debtor, and are to be paid by him, they would be no discouragement to the creditor to bring his action. Q.Would it not have the effect of excessive usury? A.Yes; as an oppression of the debtor. Q.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 ten thousand hogsheads of flaxseed, 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 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 ever hear that a great quantity of stockings were contracted for, for the army, during the war, and manufactured in Philadelphia? A.I have heard so. Q.If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would not the Americans think they could oblige the Parliament to repeal every external tax law now in force? A.It is hard to answer questions of what people at such a distance will think. Q.But what do you imagine they will think were the motives of repealing the act? A.I suppose they will think that it was repealed from a conviction of its inexpediency; and they will rely upon it, that, while the same inexpediency subsists, you will never attempt to make such another. Q.What do you mean by its inexpediency? A.I mean its inexpediency on several accounts; the poverty and inability of those who were to pay the tax, the general discontent it has occasioned, and the impracticability of enforcing it. Q.If the act should be repealed, and the legislature should show its resentment to the opposers of the Stamp Act, would the colonies acquiesce in the authority of the legislature? What is your opinion they would do? A.I don’t doubt at all that if the legislature repeal the Stamp Act, the colonies will acquiesce in the authority. Q.But if the legislature should think fit to ascertain its rights 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 taken no measures for opposition by force, they have not built a fort, raised a man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to such opposition. The ringleaders of riots, they think ought to be punished; they would punish them themselves, if they could. Every sober, sensible man, would wish to see rioters punished, as, otherwise, peaceable people have no security of person or estate; but as to an internal tax, how small soever, laid by the legislature here on the people there, while they have no representatives in this legislature, I think it will never be submitted to; they will oppose it to the last; they do not consider it as at all necessary for you to raise money on them by your taxes; because they are, and always have been, ready to raise money by taxes among themselves, and to grant large sums, equal to their abilities, upon requisition from the crown. They have not only granted equal to their abilities, but, during all the last war, they granted far beyond their abilities, and beyond their proportion with this country (you yourselves being judges), to the amount of many hundred thousand pounds; and this they did freely and readily, only on a sort of promise, from the Secretary of State, that it should be recommended to Parliament to make them compensation. It was accordingly recommended to Parliament, in the most honorable 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 an immense expense for their defence, and refusing to bear any part of that expense. The colonies raised, paid, and clothed near twenty-five thousand men during the last war; a number equal to those sent from Britain, and far beyond their proportion; they went deeply into debt in doing this, and all their taxes and estates are mortgaged for many years to come, for discharging that debt. Government here was at the same 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 vigor with which his faithful subjects in North America had exerted themselves, in defence of his Majesty’s just rights and possessions, recommend 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 two hundred thousand pounds annually to the crown, to be distributed in such compensation to the colonies. This is the strongest of all proofs, that the colonies, far from being unwilling to bear a share of the burden, did exceed their proportion; for if they had done less, or had only equalled their proportion, there would have been no room or reason for compensation. Indeed, the sums reimbursed them were by no means adequate to the expense they incurred beyond their proportion; but they never murmured at that. They esteemed their sovereign’s approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and the approbation of this House, far beyond any other kind of compensation; therefore there was no occasion for this act, to force money from a willing people. They had not refused giving money for the purposes of the act; no requisition had been made; they were always willing and ready to do what could reasonably be expected from them, and in this light they wish to be considered. Q.But suppose Great Britain should be engaged in a war in Europe, would North America contribute to the support of it? A.I do think they would as far as their circumstances would permit. They consider themselves as a part of the British empire, and as having one common interest with it; they may be looked on here as foreigners, but they do not consider themselves as such. They are zealous for the honor and prosperity of this nation; and, while they are well used, will always be ready to support it, as far as their little power goes. In 1739 they were called upon to assist in the expedition against Carthagena, and they sent three thousand men to join your army. It is true, Carthagena is in America, but as remote from the northern colonies as if it had been in Europe. They make no distinction of wars, as to their duty of assisting in them. I know the last war is commonly spoken of here, as entered into for the defence, or for the sake, of the people in America. I think it is quite misunderstood. It began about the limits between Canada and Nova Scotia; about territories to which the crown indeed laid claim, but which were not claimed by any British colony; none of the lands had been granted to any colonist; we had therefore no particular concern or interest in that dispute. As to the Ohio, the contest there began about your right of trading in the Indian country, a right you had by the treaty of Utrecht, which the French infringed; they seized the traders and their goods, which were your manufactures; they took a fort which a company of your merchants, and their factors and correspondents, had erected there to secure that trade. Braddock was sent with an army to retake that fort (which was looked on here as another encroachment on the King’s territory,) and to protect your trade. It was not till after his defeat, that the colonies were attacked.1 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 manufacturers, 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 was rather a consequence or remains of the former war, the Indians not having been thoroughly pacified; and the Americans bore by much the greatest share of the expense. It was put an end to by the army under General Bouquet: there were not above three hundred regulars in that army, and above one thousand Pennsylvanians. Q.Is it not necessary to send troops to America, to defend the Americans against the Indians? A.No, by no means; it never was necessary. They defended themselves when they were but a handful, and the Indians much more numerous. They continually gained ground, and have driven the Indians over the mountains, without any troops sent to their assistance from this country. And can it be thought necessary now to send troops for their defence from those diminished Indians tribes, when the colonies have 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 that there were not more than three hundred 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.Supposing 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 then obey it? A.The people will pay no internal tax; and, I think, an act to oblige the assemblies to make compensation is unnecessary; for I am of opinion, that, as soon as the present heats are abated, they will take the matter into consideration, and if it is right to be done, they will do it of themselves. Q.Do not letters often come into the post-offices in America, directed to some inland town where no post goes? A.Yes. Q.Can any private person take up those letters and carry them as directed? A.Yes; any friend of the person may do it, paying the postage that has accrued. Q.But must not he pay an additional postage for the distance to such inland town? A.No. Q.Can the 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 receivable at the place to which the letter is directed? A.Yes; the office cannot demand postage for a letter that it does not carry, or farther than it does carry it. Q.Are not ferry-men in America obliged, by act of Parliament, to carry over the posts without pay? A.Yes. Q.Is not this a tax on the ferry-men? 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 had always done, so they should always think it their duty, to grant such aids to the crown as were suitable to their circumstances and abilities, whenever called upon for that purpose, in the usual constitutional manner; and I had the honor of communicating this instruction to that honorable gentleman then minister.1 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 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 recomending 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 make it. Q.If the Parliament should repeal the Stamp Act, will the assembly of Pennsylvania rescind their resolutions? A.I think not. Q.Before there was any thought of the Stamp Act, did they wish for a representation in Parliament? A.No. Q.Don’t you know that there is in the Pennsylvania charter an express reservation of the right of Parliament to lay taxes there? A.I know there is a clause in the charter by which the King grants that he will levy no taxes on the inhabitants, unless it be with the consent of the assembly or by act of Parliament. Q.How, then, could the assembly of Pennsylvania assert that laying a tax on them by the Stamp Act was an infringement of their rights? A.They understand it thus: by the same charter, and otherwise, they are entitled to all 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 color 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 show 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 assembly 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 their 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 colony 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 taxed. 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 favored in our tax laws. Q.Can we, at this distance, be competent judges of what favors 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.Are there no means of obliging them to erase those resolutions? A.None that I know of; they will never do it, unless compelled by force of arms. Q.Is there a power on earth that can force them to erase them? A.No power, how great soever, can force men to change their opinions. Q.Do they consider the 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 fifteen months since. Q.When did you communicate that instruction to the minister? A.Soon after my arrival, while the stamping of America was under consideration, and before the bill was brought in. Q.Would it be most for the interest of Great Britain to employ the hands of Virginia in tobacco, or in manufactures? A.In tobacco, to be sure. Q.What used to be the pride of the Americans? A.To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great Britain. Q.What is now their pride? A.To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make new ones. [Withdrew.] This examination was published in 1767, without the name of printer or of publisher, and the following remarks upon it are contained in the Gentleman’s Magazine for July of that year: “From this examination of Dr. Franklin, the reader may form a clearer and more comprehensive idea of the state and disposition in America, of the expediency or inexpediency of the measure in question, and of the character and conduct of the minister who proposed it, than from all that has been written upon the subject in newspapers and pamphlets, under the titles of essays, letters, speeches, and considerations, from the first moment of its becoming the subject of public attention till now. The questions in general are put with great subtlety and judgment, and they are answered with such deep and familiar knowledge of the subject, such precision and perspicuity, such temper and yet such spirit, as do the greatest honor to Dr. Franklin, and justify the general opinion of his character and abilities.” 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. This statement of Franklin concerning the preceding examination belongs to the history of the examination. For the further elucidation of the matter this statement of Franklin himself is reprinted in full. These curious remarks first appeared in Walsh’s “Life of Franklin,” which was published in Delaplaine’s Repository. They were transcribed from a manuscript which purports to have been written by Dr. Franklin in reply to a friend who desired to know by whom the several questions were put. These remarks are as follows: “I have numbered the questions,” says Dr. Franklin, “for the sake of making reference to them. “Qu. 1, is a question of form, asked of every one that is examined.—Qu. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, were asked by Mr. Hewitt, a member for Coventry, a friend of ours, and were designed to draw out the answers that follow; being the substance of what I had before said to him on the subject, to remove a common prejudice, that the Colonies paid no taxes, and that their governments were supported by burdening the people here; Qu. 7, was particularly intended to show by the answer that Parliament could not properly and equally lay taxes in America, as they could not, by reason of their distance, be acquainted with such circumstances as might make it necessary to spare particular parts.—Qu. 8 to 13, asked by Mr. Huske, another friend, to show the impracticability of distributing the Stamps in America.—Qu. 14, 15, 16, by one of the late administration, an adversary.—Qu. 17 to 26, by Mr. Huske again. His questions about the Germans, and about the number of people, were intended to make the opposition to the Stamp Act in America appear more formidable. He asked some others here that the clerk has omitted, particularly one, that I remember. There had been a considerable party in the House for saving the honor and right of Parliament, by retaining the Act, and yet making it tolerable to America, by reducing it to a stamp on commissions for profitable offices, and on cards and dice. I had, in conversation with many of them, objected to this, as it would require an establishment for the distributors, which would be a great expense, as the stamps would not be sufficient to pay them, and so the odium and contention would be kept up for nothing. The notion of amending, however, still continued, and one of the most active of the members for promoting it told me, he was sure I could, if I would, assist them to amend the Act in such a manner, that America should have little or no objection to it. ‘I must confess,’ says I, ‘I have thought of one amendment; if you will make it, the Act may remain, and yet the Americans will be quieted. It is a very small amendment, too; it is only the change of a single word.’ ‘Ay,’ says he, ‘what is that?’ ‘It is in that clause where it is said, “that from and after the first day of November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty-five, there shall be paid,” &c. The amendment I would propose is, for one read two, and then all the rest of the Act may stand as it does. I believe it will give nobody in America any uneasiness.’ Mr. Huske had heard of this, and, desiring to bring out the same answer in the House, asked me whether I could not propose a small amendment, that would make the Act palatable. But, as I thought the answer he wanted too light and ludicrous for the House, I evaded the question. Qu. 27, 28, 29, I think these were by Mr. Grenville, but I am not certain.—Qu. 30, 31, I know not who asked them.—Qu. 32 to 35, asked by Mr. Nugent, who was against us. His drift was to establish a notion he had entertained, that the people in America had a crafty mode of discouraging the English trade by heavy taxes on merchants.—Qu. 36 to 42, most of these by Mr. Cooper and other friends, with whom I had discoursed, and were intended to bring out such answers as they desired and expected from me.—Qu. 43, uncertain by whom.—Qu. 44, 45, 46, by Mr. Nugent again, who I suppose intended to infer that the poor people in America were better able to pay taxes than the poor in England.—Qu. 47, 48, 49, by Mr. Prescott, an adversary. Qu. 50 to 58, by different members, I cannot recollect who.—Qu. 59 to 78, chiefly by the former ministry.—Qu. 79 to 82, by friends.—Qu. 83, by one of the late ministry.—Qu. 84, by Mr. Cooper.—Qu. 85 to 90, by some of the late ministry.—Qu. 91, 92, by Mr. Grenville.—Qu. 93 to 98, by some of the late ministry.—Qu. 99, 100, by some friend, I think Sir George Saville.—Qu. 101 to 106, by several of the late ministry.—Qu. 107 to 114, by friends.—Qu. 115 to 117, by Mr. A. Bacon.—Qu. 118 to 120, by some of the late ministry.—Qu. 121, by an adversary.—Qu. 122, by a friend.—Qu. 123, 124, by Mr. Charles Townshend.—Qu. 125, by Mr. Nugent.—Qu. 126, by Mr. Grenville.—Qu. 127, by one of the late ministry.—Qu. 128, by Mr. G. Grenville.—Qu. 129, 130, 131, by Mr. Wellbore Ellis, late Secretary of War.—Qu. 132 to 135, uncertain.—Qu. 136 to 142, by some of the late ministry, intending to prove that it operated where no service was done, and therefore it was a tax.—Qu. 143, by a friend, I forget who.—Qu. 144, 145, by C. Townshend.—Qu. 146 to 151, by some of the late ministry.—Qu. 152 to 157, by Mr. Prescott, and others of the same side.—Qu. 158 to 162, by Charles Townshend.—Qu. 163, 164, by a friend, I think Sir George Saville.—Qu. 165, by some friend.—Qu. 166, 167, by an adversary.—Qu. 168 to 174, by friends. Mr. Nugent made a violent speech next day upon this examination, in which he said: ‘We have often experienced Austrian ingratitude, and yet we assisted Portugal; we experienced Portuguese ingratitude, and yet we assisted America. But what is Austrian ingratitude, what is the ingratitude of Portugal compared to this of America? We have fought, bled, and ruined ourselves, to conquer for them; and now they come and tell us to our noses, even at the bar of this House, that they are not obliged to us,’ &c. But his clamor was very little minded.” A few years since the editor stumbled upon an original edition of this Examination, in a pamphlet form, and bearing the following title: THE EXAMINATION OF DOCTOR BENJAMIN FRANKLIN relative to the repeal of the american stamp act in mdcclxvi. mdcclxvii. Price One Shilling. No publisher’s imprint is given. In the margin, however, and in a chirography which seems more recent than the printed text, are written what purport to be the “names of the interrogators.” When or by whom, or upon what authority, this list was made, there are no indications; but the fact that the list differs so widely from that given in Delaplaine’s, and the further fact that Franklin so frequently confesses his inability to recall the names of some of his interrogators, seem to justify me in giving this anonymous list here for what it is worth. As Grenville is always spelt Greenwille, and Burke Bourke, the presumption is that all the names were written by a foreigner, who had taken them from the lips of his informant.
In this list we do not find the names of Nugent, Ellis, Bacon, Saville, or Prescott, while in the other list we do not find the names of Lord Clare, Burke, Marquis of Granby, Lord North, or Thurlow.—Editor. [1 ]As soon as the Stamp Act was promulgated in the colonies, a cloud of petitions from their various assemblies was showered upon the Parliament for its repeal. The stamped paper was rejected as if it were poisoned; vessels were forbidden to land it; the distributors were compelled to resign their commissions; Hughes dared not show himself on the streets, nor did Franklin entirely escape. A caricature of the period represents the Devil whispering in his ear: “Ben, you shall be my agent throughout my dominions.” His house and family even were supposed at one time to be in peril from the mob, as appears by the following extract from a letter written him by his wife on the 22d September: [1 ]The Stamp Act said: “that the Americans shall have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each other, neither purchase, nor grant, nor recover debts; they shall neither marry nor make their wills, unless they pay such and such sums” in specie for the stamps which must give validity to the proceedings. The operation of such a tax, had it obtained the consent of the people, appeared inevitable; and its annual productiveness, on its introduction, was estimated, by its proposer in the House of Commons at the committee for supplies, at one hundred thousand pounds sterling. The colonies being already reduced to the necessity of having paper money, by sending to Britain the specie they collected in foreign trade, in order to make up for the deficiency of their other returns for British manufactures, there were doubts whether there could remain specie sufficient to answer the tax.—B. V. [1 ]The Stamp Act provided that a double duty should be laid “where the instrument, proceedings, &c., shall be engrossed, written, or printed within the said colonies and plantations, in any other than the English language.” This measure, it is presumed, appeared to be suggested by motives of convenience, and the policy of assimilating persons of foreign to those of British descent, and preventing their interference in the conduct of law business till this change should be affected. It seems, however, to have been deemed too precipitate, immediately to extend this clause to newly conquered countries. An exemption therefore was granted, in this particular, with respect to Canada and Grenada, for the space of five years, to be reckoned from the commencement of the duty. See the Stamp Act.—B. V. [1 ]Strangers excluded, some parts of the northern colonies doubled their numbers in fifteen or sixteen years; to the southward they were longer; but, taking one with another, they had doubled, by natural generation only, once in twenty-five years. Pennsylvania, including strangers, had doubled in about sixteen years.—B. V. [1 ]In the year 1733, “for the welfare and prosperity of our sugar colonies in America,” and “for remedying discouragement of planters,” duties were “given and granted” to George the Second upon all rum, spirits, molasses, syrups, sugar, and paneles of foreign growth, produce, and manufacture, imported into the colonies. This regulation of trade, for the benefit of the general empire was acquiesced in, notwithstanding the introduction of the novel terms “give and grant.” But the act, which was made only for the term of five years, and had been several times renewed in the reign of George the Second, and once in the reign of George the Third, was renewed again in the year 1763, in the reign of George the Third, and extended to other articles upon new and altered grounds. It was stated in the preamble to this act, “that it was expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this kingdom”; that it “was just and necessary that a revenue should be raised in America for defending, protecting, and securing the same”; and that the Commons of Great Britain, desirous of making some provision towards raising the said revenue in America, have resolved to give and grant to his Majesty the several rates and duties,” &c. Mr. Mauduit, agent for Massachusetts Bay, tells us, that he was instructed in the following terms to oppose Mr. Grenville’s taxing system. “You are to remonstrate against these measures, and, if possible, to obtain a repeal of the Sugar Act, and prevent the imposition of any further duties or taxes on the colonies. Measures will be taken that you may be joined by all the other agents. Boston, June 14th, 1764.” [1 ]Afterwards expressed in the Declaratory Act.—B. V. [1 ]See “Remarks and Facts Relative to the American Paper Money,” in Spark’s Works of Franklin, vol. ii., p. 340. [1 ]When this army was in the utmost distress, from the want of wagons, &c., our author and his son voluntarily traversed the country, in order to collect a sufficient quantity; and they had zeal and address enough to effect their purpose, upon pledging themselves, to the amount of many thousand pounds, for payment. It was just before Dr. Franklin’s last return from England to America, that the accounts in this transaction were passed at the British treasury.—B. V. [1 ]I take the following to be the history of this transaction. Until 1763, and the years following, whenever Great Britain wanted supplies directly from the colonies, the Secretary of State, in his Majesty’s name, sent them a letter of requisition, in which the occasion for supplies was expressed; and the colonies returned a free gift, the mode of levying which they wholly prescribed. At this period, a chancellor of the exchequer (Mr. George Grenville) steps forth, and says to the House of Commons: “We must call for money from the colonies in the way of a tax”; and to the colony agents: “Write to your several colonies, and tell them if they dislike a duty upon stamps, and prefer any other method of raising the money themselves, I shall be content, provided the amount be but raised.” “That is,” observed the colonies, when commenting upon his terms, “if we do not tax ourselves, as we may be directed, the Parliament will tax us.” Dr. Franklin’s instructions, spoken of above, related to this gracious option. As the colonies could not choose “another tax,” while they disclaimed every tax, the Parliament passed the Stamp Act. |
