_Q._ Are they acquainted with the declaration of rights? And do they know that, by that statute, money is not to be raised on the subject but by consent of Parliament?
_A._ They are very well acquainted with it.
_Q._ How, then, can they think they have a right to levy money for the crown, or for any other than local purposes?
_A._ They understand that clause to relate to subjects only within the realm; that no money can be levied on them for the crown but by consent of Parliament. _The colonies_ are not supposed to be within the realm; they have a.s.semblies of their own, which are their parliaments, and they are, in that respect, in the same situation with Ireland. When money is to be raised for the crown upon the subject in Ireland or in the colonies, the consent is given in the Parliament of Ireland or in the a.s.semblies of the colonies. They think the Parliament of Great Britain cannot properly give that consent till it has representatives from America; for the pet.i.tion of right expressly says, it is to be by _common consent in Parliament_; and the people of America have no representatives in Parliament to make a part of that common consent.
_Q._ If the stamp-act should be repealed, and an act should pa.s.s ordering the a.s.semblies of the colonies to indemnify the sufferers by the riots, would they do it?
_A._ That is a question I cannot answer.
_Q._ Suppose the king should require the colonies to grant a revenue, and the Parliament should be against their doing it, do they think they can grant a revenue to the king _without_ the consent of the Parliament of Great Britain?
_A._ That is a deep question. As to my own opinion, I should think myself at liberty to do it, and should do it if I liked the occasion.
_Q._ When money has been raised in the colonies upon requisition, has it not been granted to the king?
_A._ Yes, always; but the requisitions have generally been for some service expressed, as to raise, clothe, and pay troops, and not for money only.
_Q._ If the act should pa.s.s requiring the American a.s.semblies to make compensation to the sufferers, and they should disobey it, and then the Parliament should, by another act, lay an internal tax, would they then obey it?
_A._ The people will pay no internal tax; and I think an act to oblige the a.s.semblies 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 themselves.
_Q._ Do not letters often come into the postoffices in America directed to some inland town where no post goes?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ Can any private person take up those letters, and carry them as directed?
_A._ Yes; any friend of the person may do it, paying the postage that has accrued.
_Q._ But must not he pay an additional postage for the distance to such inland town?
_A._ No.
_Q._ Can the postmaster answer delivering the letter, without being paid such additional postage?
_A._ Certainly he can demand nothing where he does no service.
_Q._ Suppose a person, being far from home, finds a letter in a postoffice directed to him, and he lives in a place to which the post generally goes, and the letter is directed to that place, will the postmaster deliver him the letter without his paying the postage receivable at the place to which the letter is directed?
_A._ Yes; the office cannot demand postage for a letter that it does not carry, or farther than it does carry it.
_Q._ Are not ferrymen in America obliged, by act of Parliament, to carry over the posts without pay?
_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 have it in _instruction_ from the a.s.sembly to a.s.sure 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 circ.u.mstances and abilities, whenever called upon for that purpose, in the usual const.i.tutional manner; and I had the honour of communicating this instruction to that honourable gentleman then minister.
_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 anything that concerned the general interest. They consider themselves as part of the whole.
_Q._ What is the usual const.i.tutional 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 aid 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 a.s.sembly of Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania 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 a.s.sembly or by act of Parliament.
_Q._ How, then, could the a.s.sembly of Pennsylvania a.s.sert, 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 ent.i.tled to all the privileges and liberties of Englishmen; they find in the great charters, and the pet.i.tion 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, a.s.sume 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 Pet.i.tion of Right, all justify it. * * * *