The Complete Works in Philosophy, Politics and Morals of the late Dr. Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 3 [of 3] · Benjamin Franklin
FOOTNOTE:
_Q._ Did the Americans ever dispute the controling 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 _Q._ If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the consequences?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 _A._ You will find, that if the act is not repealed, they will take very little of your manufactures in a short time. _Q._ Is it in their power to do without them? _A._ I think they may very well do without them. _Q._ Is it their interest not to take them? _A._ The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries, mere 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 unsaleable.
_Q._ Is it their interest to make cloth at home? _A._ I think they may at present get it cheaper from Britain, I mean of the same fineness and neatness of workmanship: but when one considers other circumstances, the restraints on their trade, and the difficulty of making remittances, it is their interest to make every thing. _Q._ Suppose an act of internal regulations connected with 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 for them by no others whatsoever, whom they have not impowered for that purpose.
_Q._ You say, they do not object to the right of parliament, in laying duties on goods to be paid on their importation: now, is there any kind of difference between a duty on the _importation_ of goods, and an excise on their _consumption_? _A._ Yes; a very material one: an excise, for the reasons I have just mentioned, they think you can have no right to lay within their country. But _the sea_ is yours; you maintain, by your fleets, the safety of navigation in it, and keep it clear of pirates; you may have therefore a natural and equitable right to some _toll_ or duty on merchandizes carried through that part of your dominions, towards defraying the expence 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 burthen, 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 coast-wise, from one colony to another, and appropriated as a fund for supporting the college at Williamsburgh, in Virginia. _Q._ Have not the assemblies in the West Indies the same natural rights with those in North America? _A._ Undoubtedly. _Q._ And is there not a tax laid there on their sugars exported? _A._ I am not much acquainted with the West Indies; but the duty of four and a half per cent on sugars exported was, I believe, granted by their own assemblies.[91] _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 Pensylvania? _A._ I suppose about 20,000_l._ sterling. _Q._ Supposing the stamp act continued and enforced, do you imagine that ill-humour will induce the Americans to give as much for worse manufactures of their own, and use them, preferably to better of ours? _A._ Yes, I think so. People will pay as freely to gratify one passion as another, their resentment as their pride. _Q._ Would the people at Boston discontinue their trade? _A._ The merchants are a very small number compared with the body of the people, and must discontinue their trade, if nobody will buy their goods.
_Q._ What are the body of the people in the colonies? _A._ They are farmers, husbandmen, or planters. _Q._ Would they suffer the produce of their lands to rot? _A._ No; but they would not raise so much. They would manufacture more, and plow less. _Q._ Would they live without the administration of justice in civil matters, and suffer all the inconveniencies of such a situation for any considerable time, rather than take the stamps, supposing the stamps were protected by a sufficient force, where 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 honour. It is my opinion the people will either continue in that situation, or find some way to extricate themselves, perhaps by generally agreeing to proceed in the courts without stamps. _Q._ What do you think a sufficient military force to protect the distribution of the stamps in every part of America? _A._ A very great force, I 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 law-suits 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 expence be a means of lessening the number of law-suits? _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 flax-seed, each containing seven bushels, were exported from Philadelphia to Ireland. I suppose the quantity is greatly increased since that time, and it is understood, that the exportation from New York is equal to that from Philadelphia. _Q._ What becomes of the flax that grows with that flax-seed? _A._ They manufacture some into coarse, and some into a middling kind of linen. _Q._ Are there any _slitting-mills_ in America?[92] _A._ I think there are three, but I believe only one at present employed. I suppose they will all be set to work, if the interruption of the trade continues. _Q._ Are there any _fulling-mills_ there? _A._ A great many. _Q._ Did you never hear, that a great quantity of stockings were contracted for, for the army, during the war, and manufactured in Philadelphia?
_A._ I have heard so. _Q._ If the stamp-act should be repealed, would not the Americans think they could oblige the parliament to repeal every external tax-law now in force? _A._ It is hard to answer questions 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 right to lay taxes, by any act laying a small tax, contrary to their opinion, would they submit to pay the tax?
_A._ The proceedings of the people in America have been considered too much together. The proceedings of the assemblies have been very different from those of the mobs, and should be distinguished, as having no connection with each other. The _assemblies_ have only peaceably resolved what they take to be their rights: they have 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 ring-leaders 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 honourable manner for them. America has been greatly misrepresented and abused here, in papers, and pamphlets, and speeches, as ungrateful, and unreasonable, and unjust; in having put this nation to immense expence for their defence, and refusing to bear any part of that expence. 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 that time very sensible of this. The colonies were recommended to parliament.
Every year the king sent down to the house a written message to this purpose, "that his majesty, being highly sensible of the zeal and vigour with which his faithful subjects in North America had exerted themselves, in defence of his majesty's just rights and possessions; recommended it to the house to take the same into consideration, and enable him to give them a proper compensation." You will find those messages on your own journals every year of the war to the very last; and you did accordingly give 200,000_l._ annually to the crown, to be distributed in such compensation to the colonies. This is the strongest of all proofs that the colonies, far from being unwilling to bear a share of the burthen, 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 expence 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 honour and prosperity of this nation; and, while they are well used, will always be ready to support it, as far as their little power goes.--In 1739 they were called upon to assist in the expedition against Carthagena, and they sent three thousand men to join your army.[93] 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 Utretcht, which the French infringed; they seized the traders and their goods, which were your manufactures; they took a fort which a company of your merchants, and their factors and correspondents had erected there, to secure that trade. Braddock was sent with an army to re-take that fort (which was looked on here as another incroachment on the king's territory) and to protect your trade. It was not till after his defeat that the colonies were attacked.[94] They were before in perfect peace with both French and Indians; the troops were not therefore sent for their defence. The trade with the Indians, though carried on in America, is not an _American interest_. The people of America are chiefly farmers and planters, scarce any thing that they raise or produce is an article of commerce with the Indians. The Indian trade is a _British interest_; it is carried on with British manufactures, for the profit of British merchants and manufacturers; therefore the war, as it commenced for the defence of territories of the crown (the property of no American) and for the defence of a trade purely British, was really a British war--and yet the people of America made no scruple of contributing their utmost towards carrying it on, and bringing it to a happy conclusion.
_Q._ Do you think then that the taking possession of the king's territorial rights, and _strengthening the frontiers_, is not an American interest? _A._ Not particularly, but conjointly a British and an American interest. _Q._ You will not deny that the preceding war, the _war with Spain_, was entered into for the sake of America; was it not _occasioned by captures made in the American_ seas? _A._ Yes; captures of ships carrying on the British trade there with British manufactures. _Q._ Was not the _late war with the_ Indians, _since the peace with France_, a war for America only? _A._ Yes; it was more particularly for America than the former; but it was rather a consequence or remains of the former war, the Indians not having been thoroughly pacified; and the Americans bore by much the greatest share of the expence. 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 Pensylvanians. _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 an handful, and the Indians much more numerous. They continually gained ground, and have driven the Indians over the mountains, without any troops sent to their assistance from this country. And can it be thought necessary now to send troops for their defence from those diminished Indian tribes, when the colonies are become so populous, and so strong? There is not the least occasion for it, they are very able to defend themselves.
_Q._ Do you say there were no more than three hundred regular troops employed in the late Indian war? _A._ Not on the Ohio, or the frontiers of Pensylvania, which was the chief part of the war that affected the colonies. There were garrisons at Niagara, Fort Detroit, and those remote posts kept for the sake of your trade; I did not reckon them; but I believe that on the whole the number of Americans, or provincial troops, employed in the war, was greater than that of the regulars. I am not certain, but I think so. _Q._ Do you think the assemblies have a right to levy money on the subject there, to grant _to the crown_? _A._ I certainly think so, they have always done it. _Q._ Are they acquainted with the declaration of rights? And do they know that, by that statute, money is not to be raised on the subject but by consent of parliament? _A._ They are very well acquainted with it. _Q._ How then can they think they have a right to levy money for the crown, or for any other than local purposes?
_A._ They understand that clause to relate to subjects only within the realm; that no money can be levied on them for the crown, but by consent of parliament. _The colonies_ are not supposed to be within the realm; they have assemblies of their own, which are their parliaments, and they are, in that respect, in the same situation with Ireland. When money is to be raised for the crown upon the subject in Ireland, or in the colonies, the consent is given in the parliament of Ireland, or in the assemblies of the colonies. They think the parliament of Great Britain cannot properly give that consent, till it has representatives from America; for the petition of right expressly says, it is to be by _common consent in parliament_; and the people of America have no representatives in parliament, to make a part of that common consent. _Q._ If the stamp act should be repealed, and an act should pass, ordering the assemblies of the colonies to indemnify the sufferers by the riots, would they obey it? _A._ That is a question I cannot answer. _Q._ Suppose the king should require the colonies to grant a revenue, and the parliament should be against their doing it, do they think they can grant a revenue to the king, _without_ the consent of the parliament of Great Britain?
_A._ That is a deep question. As to my own opinion, I should think myself at liberty to do it, and should do it, if I liked the occasion. _Q._ When money has been raised in the colonies, upon requisitions, has it not been granted to the king? _A._ Yes, always; but the requisitions have generally been for some service expressed, as to raise, clothe, and pay troops, and not for money only. _Q._ If the act should pass, requiring the American assemblies to make compensation to the sufferers, and they should disobey it, and then the parliament should, by another act, lay an internal tax, would they 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.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.