_A._ They are farmers, husbandmen, or planters.
_Q._ Would they suffer the produce of their lands to rot?
_A._ No; but they would not raise so much. They would manufacture more and plough less.
_Q._ Would they live without the administration of justice in civil matters, and suffer all the inconveniences of such a situation for any considerable time, rather than take the stamps, supposing the stamps were protected by a sufficient force, where every one might have them?
_A._ I think the supposition impracticable, that the stamps should be so protected as that every one might have them. The act requires sub-distributors to be appointed in every county town, district, and village, and they would be necessary. But the _princ.i.p.al_ 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 lawsuits for the recovery of debts, and be paid by the lower sort of people, who were too poor easily to pay their debts. It is, therefore, a heavy tax on the poor, and a tax upon them for being poor.
_Q._ But will not this increase of expense be a means Of lessening the number of lawsuits?
_A._ I think not; for as the costs all fall upon the debtor, and are to be paid by him, they would be no discouragement to the creditor to bring his action.
_Q._ Would it not have the effect of excessive usury?
_A._ Yes; as an oppression of the debtor. * * * *
_Q._ Are there any _slitting-mills_ in America?
_A._ I think there are three, but I believe only one at present employed. I suppose they will all be set to work if the interruption of the trade continues.
_Q._ Are there any _fulling-mills_ there?
_A._ A great many.
_Q._ Did you never hear that a great quant.i.ty 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 a.s.semblies have been very different from those of the mobs, and should be distinguished, as having no connexion with each other. The _a.s.semblies_ have only peaceably resolved what they take to be their rights: they have taken no measures for opposition by force; they have not built a fort, raised a man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to such opposition. The ringleaders of riots, they think, ought to be punished: they would punish them themselves if they could. Every sober, sensible man would wish to see rioters punished, as otherwise peaceable people have no security of person or estate; but as to an internal tax, how small soever, laid by the Legislature here on the people there, while they have no representatives in this Legislature, I think it will never be submitted to: they will oppose it to the last: they do not consider it as at all necessary for you to raise money on them by your taxes; because they are, and always have been, ready to raise money by taxes among themselves, and to grant large sums, equal to their abilities, upon requisition from the crown. They have not only granted equal to their abilities, but, during all the last war, they granted far beyond their abilities, and beyond their proportion with this country (you yourselves being judges) to the amount of many hundred thousand pounds; and this they did freely and readily, only on a sort of promise from the secretary of state that it should be recommended to Parliament to make them compensation. It was accordingly recommended to Parliament in the most 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 expense for their defence, and refusing to bear any part of that expense. The colonies raised, paid, and clothed near twenty-five thousand men during the last war; a number equal to those sent from Britain, and far beyond their proportion: they went deeply into debt in doing this, and all their taxes and estates are mortgaged, for many years to come, for discharging that debt. Government here was at 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 annually to the crown, to be distributed in such compensation to the colonies. This is the strongest of all proofs that the colonies, far from being unwilling to bear a share of the burden, did exceed their proportion; for if they had done less, or had only equalled their proportion, there would have been no room or reason for compensation. Indeed, the sums reimbursed them were by no means adequate to the expense they incurred beyond their proportion: but they never murmured at that; they esteemed their sovereign"s approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and the approbation of this house, far beyond any other kind of compensation; therefore there was no occasion for this act to force money from a willing people: they had not refused giving money for the _purposes_ of the act, no requisition had been made, they were always willing and ready to do what could reasonably be expected from them, and in this light they wish to be considered.
_Q._ But suppose Great Britain should be engaged in a _war in Europe_, would North America contribute to the support of it?
_A._ I do think they would, as far as their circ.u.mstances 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 a.s.sist in the expedition against Carthagena, and they sent three thousand men to join your army. It is true Carthagena is in America, but as remote from the northern colonies as if it had been in Europe. They make no distinction of wars as to their duty of a.s.sisting in them. I know the _last war_ is commonly spoken of here as entered into for the defence, or for the sake of the people in America. I think it is quite misunderstood. It began about the limits between Canada and Nova Scotia; about territories to which the _crown_ indeed laid claim, but which were not claimed by any British _colony_; none of the lands had been granted to any colonist; we had, therefore, no particular concern or interest in that dispute. As to the Ohio, the contest there began about your right of trading in the Indian country; a right you had by the treaty of Utrecht, which the French infringed; they seized the traders and their goods, which were your manufactures; they took a fort which a company of your merchants, and their factors and correspondents, had erected there, to secure that trade. Braddock was sent with an army to retake that fort (which was looked on here as another encroachment on the king"s territory) and to protect your trade. It was not till after his defeat that the colonies were attacked.[21] 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 anything 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 expense. It was put an end to by the army under General Bouquet; there were not above three hundred regulars in that army, and above one thousand Pennsylvanians.
_Q._ Is it not necessary to send troops to America, to defend the Americans against the Indians?
_A._ No, by no means; it never was necessary. They defended themselves when they were but a handful, and the Indians much more numerous. They continually gained ground, and have driven the Indians over the mountains, without any troops sent to their a.s.sistance 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 think the a.s.semblies 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.