Chapter XI: Introduction (8)

_A._ Yes.

_Q._ Is not this a tax on the ferrymen?

_A._ They do not consider it as such, as they have an advantage from persons travelling with the post.

_Q._ If the stamp-act should be repealed, and the crown should make a requisition to the colonies for a sum of money, would they grant it?

_A._ I believe they would.

_Q._ Why do you think so?

_A._ I can speak for the colony I live in; I had it in _instruction_ from the assembly to assure the ministry, that as they always had done, so they should always think it their duty, to grant such aids to the crown as were suitable to their circumstances and abilities, whenever called upon for that purpose, in the usual constitutional manner; and I had the honour of communicating this instruction to that honourable gentleman then minister.[95]

_Q._ Would they do this for a British concern, as suppose a war in some part of Europe, that did not affect them?

_A._ Yes, for any thing that concerned the general interest. They consider themselves as part of the whole.

_Q._ What is the usual constitutional manner of calling on the colonies for aids?

_A._ A letter from the secretary of state.

_Q._ Is this all you mean; a letter from the secretary of state?

_A._ I mean the usual way of requisition, in a circular letter from the secretary of state, by his majesty's command, reciting the occasion, and recommending it to the colonies to grant such aids as became their loyalty, and were suitable to their abilities.

_Q._ Did the secretary of state ever write for _money_ for the crown?

_A._ The requisitions have been to raise, clothe, and pay men, which cannot be done without money.

_Q._ Would they grant money alone, if called on?

_A._ In my opinion they would, money as well as men, when they have money, or can make it.

_Q._ If the parliament should repeal the stamp act, will the assembly of Pensylvania 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 Pensylvanian 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 Pensylvania 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 intitled to all the privileges and liberties of Englishmen; they find in the great charters, and the petition and declaration of rights, that one of the privileges of English subjects is, that they are not to be taxed but by their _common consent_; they have therefore relied upon it, from the first settlement of the province, that the parliament never would, nor could, by colour of that clause in the charter, assume a right of taxing them, _till_ it had qualified itself to exercise such right, by admitting representatives from the people to be taxed, who ought to make a part of that common consent.

_Q._ Are there any words in the charter that justify that construction?

_A._ The common rights of Englishmen, as declared by Magna Charta, and the petition of right, all justify it.

_Q._ Does the distinction between internal and external taxes exist in the words of the charter?

_A._ No, I believe not.

_Q._ Then may they not, by the same interpretation, object to the parliament's right of external taxation?

_A._ They never _have_ hitherto. Many arguments have been lately used here to 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 Pensylvania 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 Massachusett's 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 taxes.

_Q._ Is not the post-office rate an internal tax laid by act of parliament?

_A._ I have answered that.

_Q._ Are all parts of the colonies equally able to pay taxes?

_A._ No, certainly; the frontier parts, which have been ravaged by the enemy, are greatly disabled by that means; and therefore, in such cases, are usually favoured in our tax-laws.

_Q._ Can we, at this distance, be competent judges of what favours are necessary?

_A._ The parliament have supposed it, by claiming a right to make tax-laws for America; I think it impossible.

_Q._ Would the repeal of the stamp act be any discouragement of your manufactures? Will the people that have begun to manufacture decline it?

_A._ Yes, I think they will; especially if, at the same time, the trade is opened again, so that remittances can be easily made. I have known several instances that make it probable. In the war before last, tobacco being low, and making little remittance, the people of Virginia went generally into family-manufactures. Afterwards, when tobacco bore a better price, they returned to the use of British manufactures. So fulling-mills were very much disused in the last war in Pensylvania, 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 rights 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._

FOOTNOTES:

[83] 1766. Feb. 3. Benjamin Franklin, Esq. and a number of other persons were "ordered to attend the committee of the whole house [of commons] to whom it was referred, to consider farther the several papers [relative to America] which were presented to the house by Mr. Secretary Conway, &c."

Feb. 13. Benjamin Franklin, Esq. having passed through his examination, was exempted from farther attendance.

Feb. 24. 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." A proposal for re-committing this resolution was negatived by 240 votes to 133. (See the Journals of the House of Commons.)

This examination of Dr. Franklin was printed in the year 1767, under the form of a shilling pamphlet. It is prior in point of date to some of the foregoing pieces; but I readily submitted to this derangement, thinking by this means to provide the reader with a knowledge of the proceedings on which the examination was grounded. B. V.

[84] "The stamp act says, 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, if I recollect well, was estimated by its proposer in the house of commons at the committee for supplies, at 100,000_l._ 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 Britain's manufactures; there were doubts where could remain the _specie_ sufficient to answer the tax. B. V.

[85] The stamp act provides 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, I presume, 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 effected. 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.

[86] Strangers excluded, some parts of the northern colonies double their numbers in fifteen or sixteen years; to the southward they are longer, but, taking one with another, they have doubled by natural generation only, once in twenty-five years. Pensylvania, I believe, _including strangers_, has doubled in about sixteen years. The calculation for February 1766 will not then suit 1779. B. V.

[87] In the year 1733--"for the welfare and prosperity of our sugar colonies in America," and "for remedying discouragements 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 our 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 Massachusett's 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 14, 1764._"

The question proposed to Dr. Franklin alludes to this sugar act in 1763. Dr. Franklin's answer appears to deserve the best attention of the reader. B. V.

[88] Some of the colonies have been reduced to the necessity of bartering, from the want of a medium of traffic. See p. 146. B. V.

[89] Afterwards expressed in the Declaratory-Act. B. V.

[90] See the answer to the report of the board of trade, p. 144. B. V.

[91] See the note to Lord Howe's letter to our author. B. V.

[92] i. e. Mills for the slitting of iron. B. V.

[93] Admiral Vernon and General Wentworth commanded this expedition; with what success, is well known. B. V.

[94] When this army was in the utmost distress from the want of waggons, &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 but just before Dr. Franklin's last return to America, that the accounts in this transaction were passed at home. B. V.

[95] 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 the 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 will 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.

It seems that the only part of the offer which bore a show of favour, was the grant of the _mode of levying_--and this was the only circumstance which was _not new_.

See Mr. Mauduit's account of Mr. Grenville's conference with the agents, confirmed by the agents for Georgia and Virginia, and Mr. Burke's speech, in 1774, p. 55. B. V.

_Attempts of Dr. Franklin for Conciliation of Great Britain with
the Colonies[96]._

_London, Nov. 28, 1768._

DEAR SIR,

I received your obliging favour of the 12th instant. Your sentiments of the importance of the present dispute between Great Britain and the colonies, appear to me extremely just. There is nothing I wish for more than to see it amicably and equitably settled.

But Providence will bring about its own ends by its own means; and if it intends the downfal of a nation, that nation will be so blinded by its pride, and other passions, as not to see its danger, or how its fall may be prevented.

Being born and bred in one of the countries, and having lived long and made many agreeable connexions of friendship in the other, I wish all prosperity to both: but I have talked, and written so much and so long on the subject, that my acquaintance are weary of hearing, and the public of reading any more of it, which begins to make me weary of talking and writing; especially as I do not find that I have gained any point, in either country, except that of rendering myself suspected, by my impartiality; in England, of being too much an American, and in America of being too much an Englishman. Your opinion, however, weighs with me, and encourages me to try one effort more, in a full, though concise state of facts, accompanied with arguments drawn from those facts; to be published about the meeting of parliament, after the holidays.

If any good may be done I shall rejoice; but at present I almost despair.

Have you ever seen the barometer so low as of late?

The 22d instant mine was at 28, 41, and yet the weather fine and fair.

With sincere esteem, I am, dear friend,

Yours, affectionately,

B. FRANKLIN.

FOOTNOTE:

[96] I cannot pretend to say what is the publication promised in this letter; unless it alludes to the one given above at p. 225; in which case there is a mistake in the date of the year. B. V.

_Queries from Mr. Strahan._

TO DR. FRANKLIN[97].

_Nov. 21, 1769._

DEAR SIR,

In the many conversations we have had together about our present disputes with North America, we perfectly agreed in wishing they may be brought to a speedy and happy conclusion. How this is to be done, is not so easily ascertained.

_Two objects_, I humbly apprehend, his majesty's servants have now in contemplation. 1st. To relieve the colonies from the taxes complained of, which they certainly had no hand in imposing. 2dly, To preserve the honour, the dignity, and the supremacy of the British legislature over all his majesty's dominions.

As I know your singular knowledge of the subject in question, and am as fully convinced of your cordial attachment to his majesty, and your sincere desire to promote the happiness equally of all his subjects, I beg you would in your own clear, brief, and explicit manner, send me an answer to the following questions: I make this request now, because this matter is of the utmost importance, and must very quickly be agitated. And I do it with the more freedom, as you know me and my motives too well to entertain the most remote suspicion that I will make an improper use of any information you shall hereby convey to me.

1st. Will not a repeal of all the duties (that on tea excepted, which was before paid here on exportation, and of course no new imposition) fully satisfy the colonists[98]? If you answer in the negative,

2d. Your reasons for that opinion?

3d. Do you think the only effectual way of composing the present differences is to put the Americans precisely in the situation they were in before the passing of the late stamp-act?--If that is your opinion,

4th. Your reasons for that opinion?

5th. If this last method is deemed by the legislature, and his majesty's ministers, to be repugnant to their duty, as guardians of the just rights of the crown and of their fellow-subjects; can you suggest any other way of terminating these disputes, consistent with the ideas of justice and propriety conceived by the king's subjects on both sides of the Atlantic?

6. And if this method was actually followed, do you not think it would actually encourage the violent and factious part of the colonists to aim at still farther concessions from the mother-country?

7th. If they are relieved in part only, what do you, as a reasonable and dispassionate man, and an equal friend to both sides, imagine will be the probable consequences?

The answers to these questions, I humbly conceive, will include all the information I want; and I beg you will favour me with them as soon as may be. Every well-wisher to the peace and prosperity of the British empire, and every friend to our truly happy constitution, must be desirous of seeing even the most trivial causes of dissention among our fellow-subjects removed. Our domestic squabbles, in my mind, are nothing to what I am speaking of. This you know much better than I do, and therefore I need add nothing farther to recommend this subject to your serious consideration. I am, with the most cordial esteem and attachment, dear sir, your faithful and affectionate humble servant,

W. S.

FOOTNOTES:

[97] These letters have often been copied into our public prints. Mr. Strahan, the correspondent, is printer to the king, and now representative in parliament for Malmsbury in Wiltshire. An intimacy of long standing had subsisted between him and Dr. Franklin. B. V.

It was the father of the present Mr. Strahan, who is also king's-printer, and member of parliament. The friendship, which so long subsisted between Mr. Strahan and Dr. Franklin, the latter, in 1775, formally abjured, in a letter addressed to Mr. Strahan, which will be found in the order of its date, in a subsequent part of this work. _Editor._

[98] In the year 1767, for the express purpose of raising a revenue in America, glass, red-lead, white-lead, painters' colours, paper, and _tea_ (which last article was subject to various _home_-impositions) became charged by act of parliament, with new _permanent_ duties payable in the American ports. Soon after, in the same sessions, (the East-India Company promising indemnification for the experiment) a _temporary_ alteration was made with respect to the _home_ customs or excise upon certain teas, in the hope that a deduction in the nominal imposition, by producing a more extended consumption, would give an increased sum to the exchequer. Mr. Strahan, comparing only the _amounts_ of the imposed American duty, and the deducted home duty, determines that the Americans had suffered no new imposition. The Americans it seems, thought otherwise. Had we established this precedent for a revenue, we thought we had every thing to hope; yet we affect surprise, when the colonies avoided an acquiescence which by parity of reasoning gave _them_ every thing to fear. B. V.

_Answer to the preceding Queries._

_Craven Street, Nov. 29, 1769._

DEAR SIR,

Being just returned to town from a little excursion, I find yours of the 21st, containing a number of queries, that would require a pamphlet to answer them fully. You, however, desire only brief answers, which I shall endeavour to give.

Previous to your queries, you tell me, that "you apprehend his majesty's servants have now in contemplation, 1st, To relieve the colonists from the taxes complained of; 2d, To preserve the honour, the dignity, and the supremacy of the British legislature over all his majesty's dominions." I hope your information is good; and that what you suppose to be in contemplation will be carried into execution, by repealing all the laws, that have been made for raising a revenue in America by authority of parliament without the consent of the people there. The honour and dignity of the British legislature will not be hurt by such an act of justice and wisdom. The wisest councils are liable to be misled, especially in matters remote from their inspection. It is the persisting in an error, not the correcting it, that lessens the honour of any man or body of men. The supremacy of that legislature, I believe, will be best preserved by making a very sparing use of it; never but for the evident good of the colonies themselves, or of the whole British empire; never for the partial advantage of Britain to their prejudice. By such prudent conduct, I imagine, that supremacy may be gradually strengthened, and in time fully established; but otherwise, I apprehend it will be disputed, and lost in the dispute. At present the colonies consent and submit to it, for the regulations of general commerce; but a submission to acts of parliament was no part of their original constitution. Our former kings governed their colonies, as they had governed their dominions in France, without the participation of British parliaments. The parliament of England never presumed to interfere in that prerogative, till the time of the great rebellion, when they usurped the government of all the king's other dominions, Ireland, Scotland, &c. The colonies that held for the king, they conquered by force of arms, and governed afterwards as conquered countries; but New England, having not opposed the parliament, was considered and treated as a sister-kingdom, in amity with England (as appears by the Journals, _March 10, 1642_.)

1st. "Will not a repeal of all the duties (that on tea excepted, which was before paid here on exportation, and of course no new imposition) fully satisfy the colonists?"

_Answer_, I think not.

2d. "Your reasons for that opinion?"

_A._ Because it is not the sum paid in that duty on tea that is complained of as a burden, but the principle of the act, expressed in the preamble, viz. That those duties were laid for the better support of government, and the administration of justice in the colonies[99]. This the colonists think unnecessary, unjust, and dangerous to their most important rights. _Unnecessary_, because in all the colonies (two or three new ones excepted[100]) government and the administration of justice were, and always had been, well supported without any charge to Britain: _unjust_, as it has made such colonies liable to pay such charge for others, in which they had no concern or interest: _dangerous_, as such mode of raising money for those purposes tended to render their assemblies useless; for if a revenue could be raised in the colonies for all the purposes of government by act of parliament, without grants from the people there, governors, who do not generally love assemblies, would never call them; they would be laid aside; and when nothing should depend on the people's good-will to government, their rights would be trampled on; they would be treated with contempt. Another reason, why I think they would not be satisfied with such a partial repeal, is that their agreements, not to import till the repeal takes place, include the whole; which shows, that they object to the whole; and those agreements will continue binding on them, if the whole is not repealed.

3d. "Do you think the only effectual way of composing the present differences is to put the Americans precisely in the situation they were in before the passing of the late stamp act?"

_A._ I think so.

4th. "Your reasons for that opinion?"

_A._ Other methods have been tried. They have been refused or rebuked in angry letters. Their petitions have been refused or rejected by parliament. They have been threatened with the punishments of treason by resolves of both houses. Their assemblies have been dissolved and troops have been sent among them: but all these ways have only exasperated their minds and widened the breach. Their agreements to use no more British manufactures have been strengthened; and these measures, instead of composing differences, and promoting a good correspondence, have almost annihilated your commerce with those countries, and greatly endanger the national peace and general welfare.

5th. "If this last method is deemed by the legislature, and his majesty's ministers, to be repugnant to their duty as guardians of the just rights of the crown, and of their fellow-subjects; can you suggest any other way of terminating these disputes, consistent with the ideas of justice and propriety conceived by the king's subjects on _both_ sides the Atlantic?"

_A._ I do not see how that method can be deemed repugnant to the rights of the crown. If the Americans are put into their former situation, it must be an act of parliament; in the passing of which by the king, the rights of the crown are exercised, not infringed. It is indifferent to the crown, whether the aids received from America are granted by parliament here, or by the assemblies there, provided the quantum be the same; and it is my opinion, that more will be generally granted there voluntarily, than can ever be exacted or collected from thence by authority of parliament. As to the rights of fellow-subjects (I suppose you mean the people of Britain) I cannot conceive how those will be infringed by that method. They will still enjoy the right of granting their own money, and may still, if it pleases them, keep up their claim to the right of granting ours; a right they can never exercise properly, for want of a sufficient knowledge of us, our circumstances and abilities (to say nothing of the little likelihood there is that we should ever submit to it) therefore a right that can be of no good use to them; and we shall continue to enjoy in fact the right of granting our money, with the opinion, now universally prevailing among us, that we are free subjects of the king, and that fellow-subjects of one part of his dominions are not sovereigns over fellow-subjects in any other part. If the subjects on the different sides of the Atlantic have different and opposite ideas of "justice and propriety," no one "method" can possibly be consistent with both. The best will be, to let each enjoy their own opinions, without disturbing them, when they do not interfere with the common good.

6th. "And if this method were actually allowed, do you not think it would encourage the violent and factious part of the colonists, to aim at still farther concessions from the mother-country?"

_A._ I do not think it would. There may be a few among them that deserve the name of factious and violent, as there are in all countries; but these would have little influence, if the great majority of sober reasonable people were satisfied. If any colony should happen to think, that some of your regulations of trade are inconvenient to the general interest of the empire, or prejudicial to them without being beneficial to you, they will state these matters to parliament in petitions as heretofore; but will, I believe, take no violent steps to obtain what they may hope for in time from the wisdom of government here. I know of nothing else they can have in view: the notion that prevails here, of their being desirous to set up a kingdom or commonwealth of their own, is to my certain knowledge entirely groundless. I therefore think, that on a total repeal of all duties, laid expressly for the purpose of raising a revenue on the people of America without their consent, the present uneasiness would subside; the agreements not to import would be dissolved; and the commerce flourish as heretofore; and I am confirmed in this sentiment by all the letters I have received from America, and by the opinions of all the sensible people who have lately come from thence, crown-officers excepted. I know, indeed, that the people of Boston are grievously offended by the quartering of troops among them, as they think, contrary to law, and are very angry with the board of commissioners, who have calumniated them to government; but as I suppose the withdrawing of those troops may be a consequence of reconciliating measures taking place; and that the commission also will be either dissolved, if found useless, or filled with more temperate and prudent men, if still deemed useful and necessary; I do not imagine these particulars would prevent a return of the harmony so much to be wished[101].

7th. "If they are relieved in part only, what do you, as a reasonable and dispassionate man, and an equal friend to both sides, imagine will be the probable consequence?"

_A._ I imagine, that repealing the offensive duties in part will answer no end to this country; the commerce will remain obstructed, and the Americans go on with their schemes of frugality, industry, and manufactures, to their own great advantage. How much that may tend to the prejudice of Britain, I cannot say; perhaps not so much as some apprehend, since she may in time find new markets. But I think, if the union of the two countries continues to subsist, it will not hurt the general interest; for whatever wealth Britain loses by the failing of its trade with the colonies, America will gain; and the crown will receive equal aids from its subjects upon the whole, if not greater.

And now I have answered your questions, as to what may be, in my opinion, the consequences of this or that supposed measure, I will go a little further, and tell you, what I fear is more likely to come to pass in _reality_. I apprehend, that the ministry, at least the American part of it, being fully persuaded of the right of parliament, think it ought to be enforced, whatever may be the consequences; and at the same time do not believe, there is even now any abatement of the trade between the two countries on account of these disputes; or that if there is, it is small, and cannot long continue. They are assured by the crown-officers in America, that manufactures are impossible there; that the discontented are few, and persons of little consequence; that almost all the people of property and importance are satisfied, and disposed to submit quietly to the taxing power of parliament; and that, if the revenue-acts are continued, and those duties only that are called anti-commercial be repealed, and others perhaps laid in their stead, the power ere long will be patiently submitted to, and the agreements not to import be broken, when they are found to produce no change of measures here. From these and similar misinformations, which seem to be credited, I think it likely, that no thorough redress of grievances will be afforded to America this session. This may inflame matters still more in that country; farther rash measures there may create more resentment here, that may produce not merely ill-advised dissolutions of their assemblies, as last year, but attempts to dissolve their constitution[102]; more troops may be sent over, which will create more uneasiness; to justify the measures of government, your writers will revile the Americans in your newspapers, as they have already begun to do, treating them as miscreants, rogues, dastards, rebels, &c. to alienate the minds of the people here from them, and which will tend farther to diminish their affections to this country. Possibly too, some of their warm patriots may be distracted enough to expose themselves by some mad action to be sent for hither, and government here be indiscreet enough to hang them, on the act of Henry VIII[103]. Mutual provocations will thus go on to complete the separation; and instead of that cordial affection, that once and so long existed, and that harmony, so suitable to the circumstances, and so necessary to the happiness, strength, safety, and welfare of both countries, an implacable malice and mutual hatred, such as we now see subsisting between the Spaniards and Portuguese, the Genoese and Corsicans, from the same original misconduct in the superior governments, will take place: the sameness of nation, the similarity of religion, manners, and language not in the least preventing in our case, more than it did in theirs.--I hope, however, that this may all prove false prophecy, and that you and I may live to see as sincere and perfect a friendship established between our respective countries, as has so many years subsisted between Mr. Strahan, and his truly affectionate old friend,

B. FRANKLIN.

FOOTNOTES:

[99] "Men may lose little property by an act which takes away all their freedom. When a man is robbed of a trifle on the highway, it is not the two-pence lost that makes the capital outrage." "Would twenty shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No! but the payment of half twenty shillings, on the principle it was demanded, would have made him a slave." See Mr. Burke's speeches in 1774 and 1775. B. V.

[100] Nova Scotia, Georgia, the Floridas, and Canada. B. V.

[101] "The opposition [to Lord Rockingham's administration]" says Lord Chesterfield, "are for taking vigorous, as they call them, but I call them violent measures; not less than _les dragonades_; and to have the tax collected by the troops we have there. For my part, I never saw a forward child mended by whipping: and I would not have the mother become a step-mother." Letter, No. 360.

"Is it a certain maxim," pleads Mr. Burke, "that the fewer causes of dissatisfaction are left by government, the more the subject will be inclined to resist and rebel?" "I confess I do not feel the least alarm from the discontents which are to arise from putting people at their ease. Nor do I apprehend the destruction of this empire, from giving, by an act of free grace and indulgence, to two millions of my fellow-citizens, some share of those rights, upon which I have always been taught to value myself." Speeches in 1774 and 1775. B. V.

[102] This was afterwards attempted by the British legislature, in the case of the Massachusett's Bay. B. V.

[103] The lords and commons very prudently concurred in an address for this purpose, and the king graciously assured them of his compliance with their wishes. B. V.

_State of the Constitution of the Colonies, by Governor
Pownall[104]; with Remarks by Dr. Franklin._

[PRINCIPLES.]

1. Wherever any Englishmen go forth without the realm, and make settlements in partibus exteris, "These settlements as English settlements, and these inhabitants as English subjects (carrying with them the laws of the land wherever they form colonies, and receiving his majesty's protection by virtue of his royal charter[105]" or commissions of government) "have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects, to all intents constructions and purposes whatsoever, as if they and every of them were born within the realm[106];" and are bound by the like allegiance as every other subject of the realm.

Remarks. _The settlers of colonies in America did not carry with them the_ laws of the land, _as being bound by them wherever they should settle. They left the realm to avoid the inconveniences and hardships they were under, where some of those laws were in force, particularly ecclesiastical laws, those for payment of tythes and others. Had it been understood, that they were to carry these laws with them, they had better have staid at home among their friends, unexposed to the risques and toils of a new settlement. They carried with them, a right to_ such parts _of the_ laws of the land, _as they should judge advantageous or useful to them; a right to be free from those they thought hurtful; and a right to make such others, as they should think necessary, not infringing the general rights of Englishmen: and such_ new _laws they were to form, as agreeable as might be to the laws of England_. B. F.

2. Therefore the _common law of England_, and all _such statutes_ as were enacted and in force at _the time_ in which such settlers went forth, and such colonies and plantations were established, (except as hereafter excepted) together with all such alterations and amendments as the said common law may have received, is from time to time, and at all times, the law of those colonies and plantations.

Rem. _So far as they adopt it, by express laws or by practice._ B. F.

3. Therefore all statutes, touching the _right of the succession_, and settlement of the crown, with the statutes of treason relating thereto[107]; all statutes, _regulating_ or limiting the general powers and _authority of the crown_, and the exercise of the jurisdiction thereof; all statutes, _declaratory of the rights and liberty of the subject_, do extend to all British subjects in the colonies and plantations as of common right, and as if they and every of them were born within the realm.

Rem. _It is doubted, whether any settlement of the crown by parliament, takes place in the colonies, otherwise than by consent of the assemblies there. Had the rebellion in 1745 succeeded so far as to settle the Stuart family again on the throne, by act of parliament, I think the colonies would not have thought themselves bound by such act. They would still have adhered to the present family as long as they could._ B. F.

Observation in reply. _They are bound to the king and his successors, and we know no succession but by act of parliament._ T. P.

4. All statutes enacted _since_ the establishment of colonies and plantations do extend to and operate within the said colonies and plantations, in which statutes the same _are specially named_.

Rem. _It is doubted, whether any act of parliament should_ of right _operate in the colonies_: in fact _several of than have and do operate_. B. F.

5. Statutes and customs, which respect only the _special and local circumstances_ of the realm, do not extend to and operate within said colonies and plantations, where no such special and local circumstances are found.--(Thus the _ecclesiastical and canon_ law, and all _statutes respecting tythes_, the laws respecting _courts baron and copyholds_, the _game acts_, the statutes _respecting the poor_ and settlements, and all other laws and statutes, having special reference to special and local circumstances and establishments within the realm, do not extend to and operate within these settlements, in partibus exteris, where no such circumstances or establishments exist.)

Rem. _These laws have no force in America: not merely because local circumstances differ, but because they have never been adopted, or brought over by acts of assembly or by practice in the courts._ B. F.

6. No statutes made _since_ the establishment of said colonies and plantations (_except_ as above described in articles 3 and 4) do extend to and operate within said colonies and plantations.

Query.--Would any statute made since the establishment of said colonies and plantations, which statute imported, to _annul_ and abolish the powers and jurisdictions of their respective constitutions of government, where the same was not contrary to the laws, or any otherwise forfeited or abated; or which statute imported, to take away, or did take away, the rights and privileges of the settlers, as British subjects: would such statute, as of right, extend to and operate within said colonies and plantations?

Answer. _No. The parliament has no such power. The charters cannot be altered but by consent of both parties--the king and the colonies._ B. F.

[COROLLARIES FROM THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES.]

Upon the matters of fact, right and law, as above stated, it is, that the British subjects thus settled in partibus exteris without the realm, so long as they are excluded from an intire union with the realm as parts of and within the same, have a right to have (as they have) and to be governed by (as they are) a _distinct intire civil government_, of the like powers, pre-eminences and jurisdictions (conformable to the like rights, privileges, immunities, franchises, and civil liberties) as are to be found and are established in the British government, respecting the British subject within the realm.

Rem. _Right._ B. F.

Hence also it is, that the _rights of the subject_, as declared in the petition of right, that the _limitation of prerogative_ by the act for abolishing the star-chamber and for regulating the privy-council, &c. that the habeas corpus act, the statute of frauds, the bill of rights, do of common right extend to and are in force within said colonies and plantations.

Rem. _Several of these rights are established by special colony laws. If any are not yet so established, the colonies have right to such laws: and the covenant having been made in the charters by the king, for himself and his successors, such laws ought to receive the royal assent_ as of right. B. F.

Hence it is, that the _freeholders_ within the precincts of these jurisdictions have (as of right they ought to have) a _share in the power of making those laws_ which they are to be governed by, by the right which they have of sending their representatives to act for them and to consent for them in all matters of legislation, which representatives, when met in general assembly, have, together with the crown, a right to perform and do all the like acts respecting the matters, things and rights within the precincts of their jurisdiction, as the parliament hath respecting the realm and British dominions.

Hence also it is, that all the _executive offices_ (from the supreme civil magistrate, as locum tenens to the king, down to that of constable and head-borough) must of right be established with all and the like powers, neither more nor less than as defined by the constitution and law, as in fact they are established.

Hence it is, that the _judicial offices and courts of justice_, established within the precincts of said jurisdictions, have, as they ought of right to have, all those jurisdictions and powers "as fully and amply to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as the courts of king's bench, common pleas, and exchequer, within his majesty's kingdom of England, have, and ought to have, and are empowered to give judgment and award execution thereupon[108]."

Hence it is, that by the possession enjoyment and exercise of his majesty's _great seal_, delivered to his majesty's governor, there is established within the precincts of the respective jurisdictions all the same and like _powers of chancery_ (except where by charters specially excluded) as his majesty's chancellor within his majesty's kingdom of England hath, and of right ought to have, by delivery of the great seal of England.--And hence it is, that all the like rights, privileges and powers, follow the use, exercise and application of the great seal of each colony and plantation within the precincts of said jurisdiction, as doth, and ought of right to follow the use, exercise, and application of the great seal.

Hence also it is, that _appeals in real actions_, "whereby the lands, tenements, and hereditaments of British subjects may be drawn into question and disposed of[109]," do not lie, as of right and by law they ought not to lie, to the king in council.

Hence also it is, that there is _not_ any law now in being, whereby _the subject_ within said colonies and plantations can be _removed[110] from the jurisdiction to which he is amenable_ in all his right, and through which his service and allegiance must be derived to the crown, and from which no appeal lies in criminal causes, so as that such subject may become amenable to a jurisdiction foreign to his natural and legal resiancy; to which he may be thereby transported, and under which he may be brought to trial and receive judgment, contrary to the rights and privileges of the subject, as declared by the spirit and intent and especially by the 16th § of the habeas corpus act. And if the person of any subject within the said colonies and plantations _should_ be seized or detained by any power issuing from any court, without the jurisdiction of the colony where he then had his legal resiancy, it would become the duty of the courts of justice _within_ such colony (it is undoubtedly of their jurisdiction so to do) to issue the writ of _habeas corpus_[111].

Hence also it is, that in like manner as "the _command and disposition of the militia, and of all forces by sea and land_, and of all forts and places of strength, is, and by the laws of England ever was, the undoubted right of his majesty and his royal predecessors, kings and queens of England, within all his majesty's realms and dominions[112]," in like manner as the supreme military power and command (so far as the constitution knows of and will justify its establishment) is inseparably annexed to, and forms an essential part of the office of supreme civil magistrate, the office of king: in like manner, in all _governments under the king_, where the constituents are British subjects and of full and perfect right entitled to the British laws and constitution, the supreme military command within the precincts of such jurisdictions must be inseparably annexed to the office of supreme civil magistrate, (his majesty's regent, vice-regent, lieutenant, or locum tenens, in what form soever established) so that the king cannot, by any[113] commission of regency, by any commission or charter of government, separate or withdraw the supreme command of the military from the office of supreme civil magistrate--either by reserving this command in his own hands, to be exercised and executed independent of the civil power; or by granting a distinct commission to any military commander in chief, so to be exercised and executed; but more especially not within such jurisdictions where such supreme military power (so far as the constitution knows and will justify the same) is _already_ annexed and granted to the office of supreme civil magistrate.--And hence it is, that the king cannot erect or establish any law martial or military command, by any commission which may supersede and not be subject to the supreme civil magistrate, within the respective precincts of the civil jurisdictions of said colonies and plantations, otherwise than in such manner as the said law martial and military commissions are annexed or subject to the supreme civil jurisdiction within his majesty's realms and dominions of Great Britain and Ireland; and hence it is, that the establishment and exercise of such commands and commissions would be illegal[114].

Rem. _The king has the command of all military force in his dominions: but in every distinct state of his dominions there should be the consent of the parliament or assembly (the representative body) to the_ raising and keeping up _such military force. He cannot even raise troops and quarter them in another, without the consent of that other. He cannot_ of right _bring troops raised in Ireland and quarter them in Britain, but with the consent of the parliament of Britain: nor carry to Ireland and quarter there, soldiers raised in Britain, without the consent of the Irish parliament, unless in time of war and cases of extreme exigency.--In 1756, when the Speaker went up to present the money-bills, he said among other things, that "England was capable of fighting her own battles and defending herself; and although ever attached to your majesty's person, ever at ease under your just government, they cannot forbear taking notice of some circumstances in the present situation of affairs, which nothing but the confidence in your justice could hinder from alarming their most serious apprehensions. Subsidies to foreign princes, when already burthened with a debt scarce to be borne, cannot but be severely felt._ An army of foreign troops, a thing unprecedented, unheard of, unknown, brought into England, _cannot but alarm, &c. &c._" (_See the Speech._)

_N. B. These_ foreign troops _were part of the king's subjects, Hanoverians, and all in _his_ service, which the same thing as_**** B. F.

FOOTNOTES:

[104] This State of the Constitution of the Colonies was printed at the close of 1769, and communicated to various persons, with a view to prevent mischief, from the misunderstandings between the government of Great Britain and the people of America. I have taken the liberty of ascribing it to governor Pownall, as his name could have been no secret at the time. Dr. Franklin's remarks (which from their early date are the more curious) are in manuscript, and from an observation in reply signed T. P. appear to have been communicated to governor Pownall. B. V.

[105] Pratt and York.

[106] General words in all charters.

[107] [i. e.] All statutes respecting the general relation between the crown and the subject, not such as respect any particular or peculiar establishment of the realm of England. As for instance: by the 13th and 14th of Car. II. c. 2, the supreme military power is declared to be in general, without limitation, in his majesty, and to have always been of right annexed to the office of king of England, throughout all his majesty's realms and dominions; yet the enacting clause, which respects only the peculiar establishment of the militia of England, extends to the realm of England only: so that the supreme military power of the crown in all other his majesty's realms and dominions stands, _as to this statute_, on the basis of its general power, unlimited. However, the several legislatures of his majesty's kingdom of Ireland, of his dominions of Virginia, and of the several colonies and plantations in America, have, by laws to which the king hath given his consent, operating within the precincts of their several jurisdictions, limited the powers of it and regulated the exercise thereof.

[108] Law in New England, confirmed by the crown, Oct. 22, 1700.

[109] 16th Car. I. c. 10.