an argument used against abolishing the paper?-I suppose it was. What is the present opinion there of that law? Is it as unpopular as it was at first? I think it is not. Have not instructions from hence been sometimes sent over to governors, highly oppressive and unpolitical?-Yes. Have not some governors dispensed with them for that reason?-Yes, I have heard so. Did the Americans ever dispute the controuling power of parliament to regulate the commerce?-No. cumstances, the restraints on their trade, and the difficulty of making remittances, it is their interest to make every thing. Suppose an act of internal regulations connected with a tax, how would they receive it?-I think it would be objected to. Then no regulation with a tax would be submitted to?-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 have always done, grant them freely. And that their money ought not to be given away, without their consent, by persons at a distance, unacquaint Can any thing less than a military force carry the Stamp Act into execution?-I do not see how a military force can be ap-ed with their circumstances and abilities. plied to that purpose. Why may it not?-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 chuses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one. If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the consequences?-A total loss of the respect and affection the people of America bear to this country, and of all the commerce that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. How can the commerce be affected? -You will find, that if the act is not repealed, they will take very little of your manufactures in a short time. Is it in their power to do without them?-I think they may very well do without them. Is it their interest not to take them? -The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries, mere conveniencies, 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. Is it their interest to make cloth at home? 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 cir 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, shouid make a merit to itself of giving and granting what is not its own, but theirs, and deprives them of a right they esteem of the utmost value and importance, as it is the security of all their other rights. But is not the post office, which they have long received, a tax as well as a regulation-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 chuse 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. But do they not consider the regulations of the post-office, by the act of last year, as a tax?-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. 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?-They wild 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. You say they do not object to the right of parliament, in laying duties on า 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?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. 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?—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. Is not the duty paid on the tobacco exported a duty of that kind?-That, I think, is only on tobacco carried coastwise from one colony to another, and appropriated as a fund for supporting the college at Williamsburgh, in Virginia. Have not the assemblies in the West Indies the same natural rights with those in North America?--Undoubtedly. And is there not a tax laid there on their sugars exported?-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. How much is the poll tax in your province laid on unmarried men?-It is, I think, fifteen shillings, to be paid by every single freeman, upwards of twenty one years old. What is the annual amount of all the taxes in Pennsylvania?-I suppose about 20,000l. sterling. 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? -Yes, I think so. People will pay as freely to gratify one passion as another, their resentment as their pride. Would the people at Boston discontinue their trade?-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. What are the body of the people in the colonies?-They are farmers, husbandmen or planters. Would they suffer the produce of their lands to rot?-No; but they would not raise so much. They would manufacture more, and plough less. 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? 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. I 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?-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. 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. What do you think a sufficient military force to protect the distribution of the stamps in every part of America?—A very great force; I cannot say what, if the disposition of America is for a general resistance. What is the number of men in America able to bear arms, or of disciplined What do you mean by its inexpedieney? militia? There are, I suppose, at least [Question objected to. He with--I mean its inexpediency on several ac drew. Called in again.] Is the American Stamp Act an equal tax on that country?—I think not. Why so? 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. counts; the poverty and inability of those who were to pay the tax; the general discontent it has occasioned; and the impracticability of enforcing it. If the Act should be repealed, and the legislature should shew 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?—I don't doubt at all, that if the legislature repeal the Stamp Act, the But will not this increase of expence be a means of lessening the number of law-colonies will acquiesce in the authority. suits? 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. Would it not have the effect of excessive usury?—Yes, as an oppression of the debtor. How many ships are there laden annually in North America with flax seed for Ireland? I cannot speak to the number of ships, but I know that in 1752, 10,000 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. What becomes of the flax that grows with that flax seed?-They manufacture some into coarse, and some into a middling kind of linen. Are there any slitting mills in America? -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. Are there any fulling mills there?-A great many. Did you never hear that a great quantity of stockings were contracted for, for the army, during the war, and manufactured in Philadelphia?—I have heard so. 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?—It is hard to answer questions what people at such a distance will think. But what do you imagine they will think were the motives of repealing the Act?-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. 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 ?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 not built a fort, raised a man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to such opposition. The ringleaders of riot 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 25,000 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 200,000l. 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 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. 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 3,000 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 spoke of here as entered into for the defence, or for the sake of the people of 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 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 re-take that fort (which was looked on here as another incroachment on the King's territory) and to protect your trade. not till after his defeat that the colonies were attacked. 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 But suppose Great Britain should be en- territories of the crown, the property of gaged in a war in Europe, would North no American, and for the defence of a America contribute to the support of it? trade purely British, was really a British I do think they would, as far as their cir-war-and yet the people of America made cumstances would permit. They consider no scruple of contributing their utmost tothemselves as a part of the British empire, wards carrying it on, and bringing it to a and as having one common interest with happy conclusion. it; they may be looked on here as fo Do you reigners, but they do not consider them-session of the King's territorial rights, and selves as such, They are zealous for the strengthening the frontiers, is not an It was think then that the taking pos American interest?-Not particularly, but conjointly a British and an American in terest. 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?—Yes; captures of ships carrying on the British trade there, with British manufactures. How then can they think they have a right to levy money for the crown, or for any other than local purposes?—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 Was not the late war with the Indians, since the peace with France, a war for America only?-Yes: it was more parti-crown upon the subject in Ireland, or in cularly 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 300 regulars in that army, and above 1000 Pennsylvanians. Is it not necessary to send troops to America, to defend the Americans against the Indians?-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 de fence from those diminished Indian tribes, when the colonies are become so popu lous, and so strong? There is not the least occasion for it; they are very able to defend themselves. Do you say there were no more than 300 regular troops employed in the late Indian war?-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, Do you think the assemblies have a right to levy money on the subject there, to grant to the crown?-I certainly think so; they have always done it. 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? -They are very well acquainted with it. 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. 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?-That is a question I cannot answer. 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 ?—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. When money has been raised in the colonies, upon requisitions, has it not been granted to the King?-Yes, always; but the requisitions have generally been for some service expressed, as to raise, clothe, and pay troops, and not for money only. 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?-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. Do not letters often come into the post offices in America, directed into some inland town where no post goes?—Yes. |