The Complete Works in Philosophy, Politics and Morals of the late Dr. Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 3 [of 3] · Benjamin Franklin
FOOTNOTES:
As to the remaining valuable part of our constitution, the assembly have been equally full and strong in expressing their regard for it, and perhaps stronger and fuller; for _their_ petition, in that respect, is in the nature of a petition of right: it lays claim, though modestly and humbly, to those privileges on the foundation of royal grants, on laws confirmed by the crown, and on justice and equity, as the grants were the consideration offered to induce them to settle, and which they have in a manner purchased and paid for, by executing that settlement without putting the crown to any expence. Whoever would know what our constitution was, when it was so much admired, let him peruse that elegant farewell speech of Mr. Hamilton, father of our late governor, when, as speaker, he took his leave of the house, and of public business, in 1739; and then let him compare that constitution with the present. The power of _appointing public officers_ by the representatives of the people, which he so much extols, where is it now?
Even the bare naming to the governor in a bill, a trivial officer to receive a light-house duty (which could be considered as no more than a mere recommendation) is, in a late message, styled, "an encroachment on the prerogative of the crown!" The sole power of _raising and disposing of public money_, which he says was then lodged in the assembly, that inestimable privilege, what is become of it? Inch by inch they have been wrested from us in times of public distress; and the rest are going the same way. I remember to have seen, when governor Hamilton was engaged in a dispute with the assembly on some of those points, a copy of that speech, which then was intended to be reprinted, with a dedication to that honourable gentleman, and this motto from John Rogers's verses in the Primer: We send you here a little book, For you to look upon; That you may see your father's face, Now he is dead and gone. Many a such little book has been sent by our assemblies to the present proprietaries: but they do not like to see their father's face; it puts their own out of countenance.
The petition proceeds to say, "that such disagreements as have arisen in this province, we have beheld with sorrow; but as others around us are not exempted from the _like misfortunes_, we can by no means conceive them incident to the nature of our government, which hath _often_ been administered with remarkable harmony: and your majesty, before whom our late disputes have been laid, can be at no loss, in your great wisdom, to discover, whether they proceed from the above cause, or should be ascribed to some others." The disagreements in question are proprietary disagreements in government, relating to proprietary private interests. And are not the _royal_ governments around us exempt from _these_ misfortunes? Can you really, gentlemen, by no means conceive, that proprietary government disagreements are incident to the nature of proprietary governments? If your wisdoms are so hard to conceive, I am afraid they will never bring forth. But then our government "hath _often_ been administered with remarkable harmony." Very true; as often as the assembly have been able and willing to purchase that harmony, and pay for it, the mode of which has already been shown. And yet that word _often_ seems a little unluckily chosen: the flame that is often put out, must be as often lit. If our government hath often been administered with remarkable harmony, it hath as often been administered with remarkable discord: one often is as numerous as the other. And his majesty, if he should take the trouble of looking over our disputes (to which the petitioners, to save themselves a little pains, modestly and decently refer him) where will he, for twenty years past, find any but _proprietary_ disputes concerning proprietary interests; or disputes that have been connected with and arose from them?
The petition proceeds to assure his majesty, "that this province (except from the Indian ravages) enjoys the _most perfect internal tranquillity_!"--Amazing! what! the most perfect tranquillity! when there have been three atrocious riots within a few months! when in two of them, horrid murders were committed on twenty innocent persons; and in the third, no less than one hundred and forty like murders were meditated, and declared to be intended, with as many more as should be occasioned by any opposition! when we know that these rioters and murderers have none of them been punished, have never been prosecuted, have not even been apprehended! when we are frequently told, that they intend still to execute their purposes, as soon as the protection of the king's forces is withdrawn! Is our tranquillity more perfect now, than it was between the first riot and the second, or between the second and the third? And why "except the Indian ravages," is a _little intermission_ to be denominated "the most perfect tranquillity?" For the Indians too have been quiet lately. Almost as well might ships in an engagement talk of the most perfect tranquillity between two broadsides. But "a spirit of riot and violence is foreign to the general temper of the inhabitants." I hope and believe it is; the assembly have said nothing to the contrary. And yet is there not too much of it? Are there not pamphlets continually written, and daily sold in our streets, to justify and encourage it? Are not the mad armed mob in those writings instigated to embrue their hands in the blood of their fellow-citizens, by first applauding their murder of the Indians, and then representing the assembly and their friends as worse than Indians, as having privately stirred up the Indians to murder the white people, and armed and rewarded them for that purpose? LIES, gentlemen, villanous as ever the malice of hell invented, and which, to do you justice, not one of you believes, though you would have the mob believe them.
But your petition proceeds to say, "that where such disturbances have happened, they have been _speedily quieted_." By whom were they quieted? The _two first_, if they can be said to be quieted, were quieted only by the rioters themselves going home quietly (that is, without any interruption) and remaining there till their next insurrection, without any pursuit, or attempt to apprehend any of them. And the _third_, was it quieted, or was the mischief they intended prevented, or could it have been prevented, without the aid of the king's troops, marched into the province for that purpose?--"The civil powers have been supported," in some sort. We all know how they were supported; but have they been _fully_ supported? Has the government sufficient strength, even with all its supports, to venture on the apprehending and punishment of those notorious offenders? If it has not, why are you angry at those who would strengthen its hands by a more immediate royal authority? If it has, why is not the thing done? Why will the government, by its conduct, strengthen the suspicions (groundless no doubt) that it has come to a private understanding with those murderers, and that impunity for their past crimes is to be the reward of their future political services?--O! but says the petition, "there are perhaps cases in all governments where it may _not be possible speedily to discover offenders_." Probably; but is there any case in any government where it is not possible to _endeavour_ such a discovery? There may be cases where it is not safe to do it: and perhaps the best thing our government can say for itself is, that that is our case. The only objection to such an apology must be, that it would justify that part of the assembly's petition to the crown, which relates to the _weakness_ of our present government.[68]
Still, if there is any _fault_, it must be _in the assembly_; for, says the petition, "if the executive part of our government should seem in any case too weak, we conceive it is the duty of the assembly, and in _their_ power, to strengthen it." This weakness, however, you have just denied. "Disturbances you say _have_ been speedily quieted, and the civil power supported," and thereby you have deprived your insinuated charge against the assembly of its only support. But is it not a fact known to you all, that the assembly _did_ endeavour to strengthen the hands of the government? That, at his honour's instance, they prepared and passed in a few hours a bill for extending hither the act of parliament for dispersing rioters? That they also passed and presented to him a militia bill, which he refused, unless powers were thereby given him over the lives and properties of the inhabitants, which the public good did not require; and which their duty to their constituents would not permit them to trust in the hands of any proprietary governor? You know the points, gentlemen: they have been made public. Would you have had your representatives give up those points? Do _you_ intend to give them up, when at the next election _you_ are made assemblymen? If so, tell it us honestly beforehand, that we may know what we are to expect when we are about to choose you?
I come now to the last clause of your petition, where, with the same wonderful sagacity with which you in another case discovered the excellency of a speech you never heard, you undertake to _characterise a petition_ [_from the_ assembly] _you own you never saw_; and venture to assure his majesty, that it is "exceeding grievous in its nature, that it by no means contains a proper representation of the state of this province, and is repugnant to the general sense of his numerous and loyal subjects in it." Are then his majesty's "numerous and loyal subjects" in this province all as great wizards as yourselves, and capable of knowing, without seeing it, that a petition is repugnant to their general sense? But the inconsistence of your petition, gentlemen, is not so much to be wondered at; the _prayer_ of it is _still more_ extraordinary, "We therefore most humbly pray, that your majesty would be graciously pleased _wholly to disregard_ the said petition of the assembly." What! without enquiry! without examination! without a hearing of what the assembly might say in support of it! "wholly disregard" the petition of your representatives in assembly, accompanied by other petitions, signed by thousands of your fellow-subjects as loyal, if not as wise and as good, as yourselves! Would you wish to see your great and amiable prince act a part that could not become a dey of Algiers? Do you, who are Americans, pray for a _precedent_ of such contempt in the treatment of an American assembly! such "total disregard" of their humble applications to the throne? Surely your wisdoms here have overshot yourselves.--But as wisdom shows itself not only in doing what is right, but in confessing and _amending_ what is wrong, I recommend the latter particularly to your present attention; being persuaded of this consequence, that though you have been mad enough to sign such a petition, you never will be fools enough to present it.
There is one thing mentioned in the preface, which I find I omitted to take notice of as I came along, _the refusal of the house to enter Mr. Dickinson's protest_ on their minutes. This is mentioned in such a manner there and in the newspapers, as to insinuate a charge of some partiality and injustice in the assembly. But the _reasons_ were merely these, that though protesting may be a practice with the lords of parliament, there is no instance of it in the house of commons, whose proceedings are the model followed by the assemblies of America; that there is no precedent of it on our votes, from the beginning of our present constitution; and that the introducing such a practice would be attended with inconveniences, as the representatives in assembly are not, like the lords in parliament, unaccountable to any constituents, and would therefore find it necessary for their own justification, if the reasons of the minority for being against a measure were admitted in the votes, to put there likewise the reasons that induced the majority to be for it: whereby the votes, which were intended only as a register of propositions and determinations, would be filled with the disputes of members with members, and the public business be thereby greatly retarded, if ever brought to a period. As that protest was a mere abstract of Mr. Dickinson's speech, every particular of it will be found answered in the following speech of Mr. Galloway, from which it is fit that I should no longer detain the reader.[69]
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.