PAPERS ON AMERICAN SUBJECTS BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY TROUBLES. (continued 4)

It begins with a formal quotation from the [assembly's] petition, which they own they have not seen, and of words that are not in it; and after relating very imperfectly and unfairly the fact relating to their application for a copy of it, which is of no importance, proceeds to set forth, "that as we and all your American subjects must be governed by persons authorised and approved by your Majesty, on the best recommendation that can be obtained of them; we cannot perceive our condition in this respect to be different from our fellow-subjects around us, or that we are thereby less under your majesty's particular care and protection than they are; since there can be no governors of this province without your majesty's immediate approbation and authority." Such a declaration from the wiser part of the province is really a little surprising. What! when disputes concerning matters of property are daily arising between you and your proprietaries, cannot your wisdoms perceive the least difference between having the judges of those disputes appointed by a royal governor, who has no interest in the cause, and having them appointed by the proprietaries themselves, the principal parties against you; and during their pleasure too? When supplies are necessary to be raised for your defence, can you perceive no difference between having a royal governor, free to promote his majesty's service by a ready assent to your laws; and a proprietary governor, shackled by instructions, forbidding him to give that assent, unless some private advantage is obtained, some profit got, or unequal exemption gained for their estate, or some privilege wrested from you? When prerogative, that in other governments is only used for the good of the people, is here strained to the extreme, and used to their prejudice, and the proprietaries benefit, can you perceive no difference? When the direct and immediate rays of majesty benignly and mildly shine on all around us, but are transmitted and thrown upon us through the burning-glass of proprietary government, can your sensibilities feel no difference? Sheltered perhaps in proprietary offices, or benumbed with expectations, it may be you cannot. But surely you might have known better than to tell his majesty, "that there can be no governors of this province, without his immediate approbation." Don't you know, who know so much, that by our blessed constitution the proprietors themselves, whenever they please, may govern us in person, without such approbation?

The petition proceeds to tell his majesty, "that the particular mode of government which we enjoy, under your majesty, is held in the highest estimation by good men of all denominations among us; and hath brought multitudes of industrious people from various parts of the world," &c. Really! Can this be from proprietary partizans? That constitution, which they were for ever censuring as defective in a legislative council, defective in government powers, too popular in many of its modes, is it now become so excellent? Perhaps, as they have been tinkering it these twenty years, till they have stripped it of some of its most valuable privileges, and almost spoiled it, they now begin to like it. But then it is not surely this present constitution, that brought hither those multitudes. They came before. At least it was not that particular in our constitution (the proprietary power of appointing a governor) which attracted them, that single particular, which alone is now in question, which our venerable founder first, and now the assembly, are endeavouring to change. As to the remaining valuable part of our constitution, the assembly have been equally full and strong in expressing their regard for it, and perhaps stronger and fuller; for their petition, in that respect, is in the nature of a petition of right: it lays claim, though modestly and humbly, to those privileges on the foundation of royal grants, on laws confirmed by the crown, and on justice and equity, as the grants were the consideration offered to induce them to settle, and which they have in a manner purchased and paid for, by executing that settlement without putting the crown to any expence. Whoever would know what our constitution was, when it was so much admired, let him peruse that elegant farewell speech of Mr. Hamilton, father of our late governor, when, as speaker, he took his leave of the house, and of public business, in 1739; and then let him compare that constitution with the present. The power of appointing public officers by the representatives of the people, which he so much extols, where is it now? Even the bare naming to the governor in a bill, a trivial officer to receive a light-house duty (which could be considered as no more than a mere recommendation) is, in a late message, styled, "an encroachment on the prerogative of the crown!" The sole power of raising and disposing of public money, which he says was then lodged in the assembly, that inestimable privilege, what is become of it? Inch by inch they have been wrested from us in times of public distress; and the rest are going the same way. I remember to have seen, when governor Hamilton was engaged in a dispute with the assembly on some of those points, a copy of that speech, which then was intended to be reprinted, with a dedication to that honourable gentleman, and this motto from John Rogers's verses in the Primer:

Many a such little book has been sent by our assemblies to the present proprietaries: but they do not like to see their father's face; it puts their own out of countenance.

The petition proceeds to say, "that such disagreements as have arisen in this province, we have beheld with sorrow; but as others around us are not exempted from the like misfortunes, we can by no means conceive them incident to the nature of our government, which hath often been administered with remarkable harmony: and your majesty, before whom our late disputes have been laid, can be at no loss, in your great wisdom, to discover, whether they proceed from the above cause, or should be ascribed to some others." The disagreements in question are proprietary disagreements in government, relating to proprietary private interests. And are not the royal governments around us exempt from these misfortunes? Can you really, gentlemen, by no means conceive, that proprietary government disagreements are incident to the nature of proprietary governments? If your wisdoms are so hard to conceive, I am afraid they will never bring forth. But then our government "hath often been administered with remarkable harmony." Very true; as often as the assembly have been able and willing to purchase that harmony, and pay for it, the mode of which has already been shown. And yet that word often seems a little unluckily chosen: the flame that is often put out, must be as often lit. If our government hath often been administered with remarkable harmony, it hath as often been administered with remarkable discord: one often is as numerous as the other. And his majesty, if he should take the trouble of looking over our disputes (to which the petitioners, to save themselves a little pains, modestly and decently refer him) where will he, for twenty years past, find any but proprietary disputes concerning proprietary interests; or disputes that have been connected with and arose from them?

The petition proceeds to assure his majesty, "that this province (except from the Indian ravages) enjoys the most perfect internal tranquillity!"—Amazing! what! the most perfect tranquillity! when there have been three atrocious riots within a few months! when in two of them, horrid murders were committed on twenty innocent persons; and in the third, no less than one hundred and forty like murders were meditated, and declared to be intended, with as many more as should be occasioned by any opposition! when we know that these rioters and murderers have none of them been punished, have never been prosecuted, have not even been apprehended! when we are frequently told, that they intend still to execute their purposes, as soon as the protection of the king's forces is withdrawn! Is our tranquillity more perfect now, than it was between the first riot and the second, or between the second and the third? And why "except the Indian ravages," is a little intermission to be denominated "the most perfect tranquillity?" For the Indians too have been quiet lately. Almost as well might ships in an engagement talk of the most perfect tranquillity between two broadsides. But "a spirit of riot and violence is foreign to the general temper of the inhabitants." I hope and believe it is; the assembly have said nothing to the contrary. And yet is there not too much of it? Are there not pamphlets continually written, and daily sold in our streets, to justify and encourage it? Are not the mad armed mob in those writings instigated to embrue their hands in the blood of their fellow-citizens, by first applauding their murder of the Indians, and then representing the assembly and their friends as worse than Indians, as having privately stirred up the Indians to murder the white people, and armed and rewarded them for that purpose? Lies, gentlemen, villanous as ever the malice of hell invented, and which, to do you justice, not one of you believes, though you would have the mob believe them.

But your petition proceeds to say, "that where such disturbances have happened, they have been speedily quieted." By whom were they quieted? The two first, if they can be said to be quieted, were quieted only by the rioters themselves going home quietly (that is, without any interruption) and remaining there till their next insurrection, without any pursuit, or attempt to apprehend any of them. And the third, was it quieted, or was the mischief they intended prevented, or could it have been prevented, without the aid of the king's troops, marched into the province for that purpose?—"The civil powers have been supported," in some sort. We all know how they were supported; but have they been fully supported? Has the government sufficient strength, even with all its supports, to venture on the apprehending and punishment of those notorious offenders? If it has not, why are you angry at those who would strengthen its hands by a more immediate royal authority? If it has, why is not the thing done? Why will the government, by its conduct, strengthen the suspicions (groundless no doubt) that it has come to a private understanding with those murderers, and that impunity for their past crimes is to be the reward of their future political services?—O! but says the petition, "there are perhaps cases in all governments where it may not be possible speedily to discover offenders." Probably; but is there any case in any government where it is not possible to endeavour such a discovery? There may be cases where it is not safe to do it: and perhaps the best thing our government can say for itself is, that that is our case. The only objection to such an apology must be, that it would justify that part of the assembly's petition to the crown, which relates to the weakness of our present government.[68]

Still, if there is any fault, it must be in the assembly; for, says the petition, "if the executive part of our government should seem in any case too weak, we conceive it is the duty of the assembly, and in their power, to strengthen it." This weakness, however, you have just denied. "Disturbances you say have been speedily quieted, and the civil power supported," and thereby you have deprived your insinuated charge against the assembly of its only support. But is it not a fact known to you all, that the assembly did endeavour to strengthen the hands of the government? That, at his honour's instance, they prepared and passed in a few hours a bill for extending hither the act of parliament for dispersing rioters? That they also passed and presented to him a militia bill, which he refused, unless powers were thereby given him over the lives and properties of the inhabitants, which the public good did not require; and which their duty to their constituents would not permit them to trust in the hands of any proprietary governor? You know the points, gentlemen: they have been made public. Would you have had your representatives give up those points? Do you intend to give them up, when at the next election you are made assemblymen? If so, tell it us honestly beforehand, that we may know what we are to expect when we are about to choose you?

I come now to the last clause of your petition, where, with the same wonderful sagacity with which you in another case discovered the excellency of a speech you never heard, you undertake to characterise a petition [from the assembly] you own you never saw; and venture to assure his majesty, that it is "exceeding grievous in its nature, that it by no means contains a proper representation of the state of this province, and is repugnant to the general sense of his numerous and loyal subjects in it." Are then his majesty's "numerous and loyal subjects" in this province all as great wizards as yourselves, and capable of knowing, without seeing it, that a petition is repugnant to their general sense? But the inconsistence of your petition, gentlemen, is not so much to be wondered at; the prayer of it is still more extraordinary, "We therefore most humbly pray, that your majesty would be graciously pleased wholly to disregard the said petition of the assembly." What! without enquiry! without examination! without a hearing of what the assembly might say in support of it! "wholly disregard" the petition of your representatives in assembly, accompanied by other petitions, signed by thousands of your fellow-subjects as loyal, if not as wise and as good, as yourselves! Would you wish to see your great and amiable prince act a part that could not become a dey of Algiers? Do you, who are Americans, pray for a precedent of such contempt in the treatment of an American assembly! such "total disregard" of their humble applications to the throne? Surely your wisdoms here have overshot yourselves.—But as wisdom shows itself not only in doing what is right, but in confessing and amending what is wrong, I recommend the latter particularly to your present attention; being persuaded of this consequence, that though you have been mad enough to sign such a petition, you never will be fools enough to present it.

There is one thing mentioned in the preface, which I find I omitted to take notice of as I came along, the refusal of the house to enter Mr. Dickinson's protest on their minutes. This is mentioned in such a manner there and in the newspapers, as to insinuate a charge of some partiality and injustice in the assembly. But the reasons were merely these, that though protesting may be a practice with the lords of parliament, there is no instance of it in the house of commons, whose proceedings are the model followed by the assemblies of America; that there is no precedent of it on our votes, from the beginning of our present constitution; and that the introducing such a practice would be attended with inconveniences, as the representatives in assembly are not, like the lords in parliament, unaccountable to any constituents, and would therefore find it necessary for their own justification, if the reasons of the minority for being against a measure were admitted in the votes, to put there likewise the reasons that induced the majority to be for it: whereby the votes, which were intended only as a register of propositions and determinations, would be filled with the disputes of members with members, and the public business be thereby greatly retarded, if ever brought to a period.

As that protest was a mere abstract of Mr. Dickinson's speech, every particular of it will be found answered in the following speech of Mr. Galloway, from which it is fit that I should no longer detain the reader.[69]

FOOTNOTES:

Remarks on a late Protest against the Appointment of Mr. Franklin as Agent for this Province [of Pensylvania].

I have generally passed over, with a silent disregard, the nameless abusive pieces that have been written against me; and though this paper, called a protest, is signed by some respectable names, I was, nevertheless, inclined to treat it with the same indifference; but, as the assembly is therein reflected on upon my account, it is thought more my duty to make some remarks upon it.

I would first observe then, that this mode of protesting by the minority, with a string of reasons against the proceedings of the majority of the house of assembly, is quite new among us; the present is the second we have had of the kind, and both within a few months. It is unknown to the practice of the house of commons, or of any house of representatives in America, that I have heard of; and seems an affected imitation of the lords in parliament, which can by no means become assemblymen of America. Hence appears the absurdity of the complaint, that the house refused the protest an entry on their minutes. The protesters know, that they are not, by any custom or usage, intitled to such an entry; and that the practice here is not only useless in itself, but would be highly inconvenient to the house, since it would probably be thought necessary for the majority also to enter their reasons, to justify themselves to their constituents; whereby the minutes would be incumbered and the public business obstructed. More especially will it be found inconvenient, if such protests are made use of as a new form of libelling, as the vehicles of personal malice, and as means of giving to private abuse the appearance of a sanction as public acts. Your protest, gentlemen, was therefore properly refused; and since it is no part of the proceedings of assembly, one may with the more freedom examine it.

Your first reason against my appointment is, that you "believe me to be the chief author of the measures pursued by the last assembly, which have occasioned such uneasiness and distraction among the good people of this province." I shall not dispute my share in those measures; I hope they are such as will in time do honour to all that were concerned in them. But you seem mistaken in the order of time: it was the uneasiness and distraction among the good people of the province that occasioned the measures; the province was in confusion before they were taken, and they were pursued in order to prevent such uneasiness and distraction for the future. Make one step farther back, and you will find proprietary injustice supported by proprietary minions and creatures, the original cause of all our uneasiness and distractions.

Another of your reasons is, "that I am, as you are informed, very unfavourably thought of by several of his majesty's ministers." I apprehend, gentlemen, that your informer is mistaken. He indeed has taken great pains to give unfavourable impressions of me, and perhaps may flatter himself, that it is impossible so much true industry should be totally without effect. His long success in maiming or murdering all the reputations that stand in his way (which has been the dear delight and constant employment of his life) may likewise have given him some just ground for confidence, that he has, as they call it, done for me, among the rest. But, as I said before, I believe he is mistaken. For what have I done, that they should think unfavourably of me? It cannot be my constantly and uniformly promoting the measures of the crown, ever since I had any influence in the province. It cannot, surely, be my promoting the change from a proprietary to a royal government. If indeed I had, by speeches and writings, endeavoured to make his majesty's government universally odious in the province: if I had harangued by the week to all comers and goers, on the pretended injustice and oppressions of royal government, and the slavery of the people under it: if I had written traitorous papers to this purpose, and got them translated into other languages, to give his majesty's foreign subjects here those horrible ideas of it: if I had declared, written, and printed, that "the king's little finger we should find heavier than the proprietor's whole loins," with regard to our liberties; then indeed might the ministers be supposed to think unfavourably of me. But these are not exploits for a man, who holds a profitable office under the crown, and can expect to hold it no longer than he behaves with the fidelity and duty that becomes every good subject. They are only for officers of proprietary appointment, who hold their commissions during his, and not the king's pleasure; and who, by dividing among themselves and their relations, offices of many thousands a year enjoyed by proprietary favour, feel where to place their loyalty. I wish they were as good subjects to his majesty; and perhaps they may be so, when the proprietary interferes no longer.

Another of your reasons is, "that the proposal of me for an agent is extremely disagreeable to a very great number of the most serious and reputable inhabitants of the province; and the proof is, my having been rejected at the last election, though I had represented the city in assembly for fourteen years."

And do those of you, gentlemen, reproach me with this, who, among near four thousand voters, had scarcely a score more than I had? It seems then, that your elections were very near being rejections, and thereby furnishing the same proof in your case that you produce in mine, of your being likewise extremely disagreeable to a very great number of the most serious and reputable people. Do you, honourable sir, reproach me with this, who, for almost twice fourteen years have been rejected (if not being chosen is to be rejected) by the same people? and (unable, with all your wealth and connections, and the influence they give you, to obtain an election in the county where you reside, and the city where you were born, and are best known) have been obliged to accept a seat from one of the out-counties, the remotest of the province!—It is known, sir, to the persons who proposed me, that I was first chosen against my inclination, and against my entreaties that I might be suffered to remain a private man. In none of the fourteen elections you mention, did I ever appear as a candidate. I never did, directly or indirectly, solicit any man's vote. For six of the years in which I was annually chosen, I was absent, residing in England; during all which time, your secret and open attacks upon my character and reputation were incessant; and yet you gained no ground. And can you really, gentlemen, find matter of triumph in this rejection as you call it? A moment's reflection on the means by which it was obtained must make you ashamed of it.

Not only my duty to the crown, in carrying the post-office act more duly into execution, was made use of to exasperate the ignorant, as if I was encreasing my own profits, by picking their pockets; but my very zeal in opposing the murderers, and supporting the authority of government; and even my humanity, with regard to the innocent Indians under our protection, were mustered among my offences, to stir up against me those religious bigots, who are of all savages the most brutish. Add to this, the numberless falshoods propagated as truths, and the many perjuries procured among the wretched rabble, brought to swear themselves intitled to a vote: And yet so poor a superiority obtained at all this expence of honour and conscience! can this, gentlemen, be matter of triumph? Enjoy it then. Your exultation, however, was short. Your artifices did not prevail every where; nor your double tickets and whole boxes of forged votes. A great majority of the new-chosen assembly were of the old members, and remain uncorrupted. They still stood firm for the people, and will obtain justice from the proprietaries. But what does that avail to you, who are in the proprietary interest? And what comfort can it afford you, when, by the assembly's choice of an agent, it appears that the same, to you obnoxious, man (notwithstanding all your venomous invectives against him) still retains so great a share of the public confidence?

But "this step, you say, gives you the more lively affliction, as it is taken at the very moment when you were informed by a member of the house, that the governor had assured him of his having received instructions from the proprietaries, to give his assent to the taxation of their estates; in the same manner that the estates of other persons are to be taxed; and also to confirm, for the public use, the several squares formerly claimed by the city." O the force of friendship! the power of interest! What politeness they infuse into a writer, and what delicate expressions they produce!—The dispute between the proprietaries and us was about the quantum, the rate of their taxation, and not about the manner; but now, when all the world condemns them for requiring a partial exemption of their estates, and they are forced to submit to an honest equality, it is called "assenting to be taxed in the same manner with the people." Their restitution of five public squares in the plan of the city, which they had near forty years unjustly and dishonourably seized and detained from us, (directing their surveyor to map streets over them, in order to turn them into lots, and their officers to sell a part of them;) this their disgorging is softly called confirming them for the public use; and instead of the plain words "formerly given to the city, by the first proprietary, their father," we have the cautious pretty expression of "formerly claimed by the city:" Yes; not only formerly, but always claimed, ever since they were promised and given to encourage the settlers; and ever will be claimed, till we are put in actual possession of them. It is pleasant, however, to see how lightly and tenderly you trip over these matters, as if you trod upon eggs. But that "very moment," that precious moment! Why was it so long delayed? Why were those healing instructions so long withheld and concealed from the people? They were, it seems, brought over by Mr. Allen:[70] intelligence was received by various hands from London, that orders were sent by the proprietaries, from which great hopes were entertained of an accommodation. Why was the bringing and the delivery of such orders so long denied? The reason is easily understood. Messieurs Barclays, friends to both proprietaries and people, wished for that gentleman's happy arrival; hoping his influence, added to the power and commissions the proprietaries had vested him with, might prove effectual in restoring harmony and tranquillity among us; but he, it seems, hoped his influence might do the business, without those additions. There appeared on his arrival some prospect (from sundry circumstances) of a change to be made in the house by the approaching election. The proprietary friends and creatures knew the heart of their master; and how extremely disagreeable to him that equal taxation, that restitution, and the other concessions to be made for the sake of a reconciliation, must necessarily be. They hoped therefore to spare him all those mortifications, and thereby secure a greater portion of his favour. Hence the instructions were not produced to the last assembly, though they arrived before the September sitting, when the governor was in town, and actually did business with the house. Nor to the new assembly were they mentioned, till the "very moment," the fatal moment, when the house were on the point of choosing that wicked adversary of the proprietary to be an agent for the province in England.

But I have, you say, a "fixed enmity to the proprietaries," and "you believe it will preclude all accommodation of our disputes with them, even on just and reasonable terms." And why do you think I have a fixed enmity to the proprietaries? I have never had any personal difference with them. I am no land-jobber; and therefore have never had any thing to do with their land-office or officers; if I had, probably, like others, I might have been obliged to truckle to their measures, or have had like causes of complaint. But our private interests never clashed; and all their resentment against me, and mine to them, has been on the public account. Let them do justice to the people of Pensylvania, act honourably by the citizens of Philadelphia, and become honest men; my enmity, if that's of any consequence, ceases from the "very moment;" and, as soon as I possibly can, I promise to love, honour and respect them. In the mean time, why do you "believe it will preclude all accommodation with them on just and reasonable terms?" Do you not boast, that their gracious condescensions are in the hands of the governor; and that "if this had been the usual time for business, his honour would have sent them down in a message to the house." How then can my going to England prevent this accommodation? The governor can call the house when he pleases; and, one would think, that, at least in your opinion, my being out of the way would be a favourable circumstance. For then, by "cultivating the disposition shown by the proprietaries, every reasonable demand that can be made on the part of the people might be obtained: in vigorously insisting on which, you promise to unite most earnestly with the rest of the house." It seems then we have "reasonable demands" to make, and, as you call them a little higher, equitable demands. This is much for proprietary minions to own; but you are all growing better, in imitation of your master, which is indeed very commendable. And if the accommodation here should fail, I hope, that though you dislike the person a majority of two to one in the house have thought fit to appoint an agent, you will nevertheless, in duty to your country, continue the noble resolution of uniting with the rest of the house, in vigorously insisting on that equity and justice, which such an union will undoubtedly obtain for us.

I pass over the trivial charge against the assembly, that they "acted with unnecessary haste in proceeding to this appointment, without making a small adjournment," &c. and your affected apprehensions of danger from that haste. The necessity of expedition on this occasion is as obvious to every one out of doors, as it was to those within; and the fears you mention are not, I fancy, considerable enough to break your rest. I come then to your high charge against me, "that I heretofore ventured, contrary to an act of assembly, to place the public money in the stocks; whereby this province suffered a loss of 6000l. and that sum, added to the 5000l. granted for my expences, makes the whole cost of my former voyage to England amount to eleven thousand pounds!" How wisely was that form in our laws contrived, which, when a man is arraigned for his life, requires the evidence to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! The reason is manifest. A falshood may destroy the innocent, so may part of a truth without the whole; and a mixture of truth and falshood may be full as pernicious. You, Mr. Chief Justice, and the other justices among the protesters, and you, sir, who are a counsellor at law, must all of you be well acquainted with this excellent form; and when you arraigned my reputation (dearer to me than life) before the assembly, and now at the respectable tribunal of the public, would it not have well become your honours to have had some small regard at least to the spirit of that form? You might have mentioned, that the direction of the act, to lodge the money in the bank, subject to the drafts of the trustees of the loan-office here, was impracticable; that the bank refused to receive it on those terms, it being contrary to their settled rules to take charge of money subject to the orders of unknown people living in distant countries. You might have mentioned, that the house being informed of this, and having no immediate call for the money, did themselves adopt the measure of placing it in the stocks, which then were low, where it might on a peace produce a considerable profit, and in the mean time accumulate an interest: that they even passed a bill, directing the subsequent sums granted by parliament to be placed with the former: that the measure was prudent and safe; and that the loss arose, not from placing the money in the stocks, but from the imprudent and unnecessary drawing it out at the very time when they were lowest, on some slight uncertain rumours of a peace concluded: that if the assembly had let it remain another year, instead of losing they would have gained six thousand pounds; and that after all, since the exchange at which they sold their bills was near twenty per cent higher when they drew than when the stocks were purchased, the loss was far from being so great as you represent it. All these things you might have said; for they are, and you know them to be, part of the whole truth; but they would have spoiled your accusation. The late speaker of your honourable house, Mr. Norris, (who has, I suppose, all my letters to him, and copies of his own to me, relating to that transaction) can testify with how much integrity and clearness I managed the whole affair. All the house were sensible of it, being from time to time fully acquainted with the facts. If I had gone to gaming in the stocks with the public money, and through my fault a sum was lost, as your protest would insinuate, why was I not censured and punished for it when I returned? You, honourable sir, (my enemy of seven years standing) was then in the house. You were appointed on the committee for examining my accounts; you reported, that you found them just, and signed that report.[71] I never solicited the employ of agent; I made no bargain for my future service, when I was ordered to England by the assembly; nor did they vote me any salary. I lived there near six years at my own expence, and I made no charge or demand when I came home. You, sir, of all others, was the very member that proposed (for the honour and justice of the house) a compensation to be made me of the five thousand pounds you mention. Was it with an intent to reproach me thus publicly for accepting it? I thanked the house for it then, and I thank you now for proposing it: though you, who have lived in England, can easily conceive, that besides the prejudice to my private affairs by my absence, a thousand pounds more would not have reimbursed me. The money voted was immediately paid me. But if I had occasioned the loss of six thousand pounds to the province, here was a fair opportunity of securing easily the greatest part of it; why was not the five thousand pounds deducted, and the remainder called for? The reason is, this accusation was not then invented. Permit me to add, that supposing the whole eleven thousand pounds an expence occasioned by my voyage to England, yet the taxation of the proprietary estate now established will, when valued by years purchase, be found in time an advantage to the public, far exceeding that expence. And if the expence is at present a burthen, the odium of it ought to lie on those, who, by their injustice, made the voyage necessary; and not on me, who only submitted to the orders of the house in undertaking it.

I am now to take leave (perhaps a last leave) of the country I love, and in which I have spent the greatest part of my life.—Esto Perpetua.—I wish every kind of prosperity to my friends,—and I forgive my enemies.

B. FRANKLIN.

Philadelphia, Nov. 5, 1764.

FOOTNOTES:

Remarks on a Plan for the future Management of Indian Affairs.[72]

The regulations in this plan seem to me to be in general very good: but some few appear to want explanation, or farther consideration.

Clause 3. Is it intended by this clause, to prevent the trade that Indians, living near the frontiers, may choose to carry on with the inhabitants, by bringing their skins into the [English] settlements? This prevention is hardly practicable; as such trade may be carried on in many places out of the observation of government; the frontier being of great extent, and the inhabitants thinly settled in the woods, remote from each other. The Indians too do not every where live in towns sufficiently numerous to encourage traders to reside among them, but in scattered families, here and there, often shifting their situation for the sake of better hunting; and if they are near the English settlements, it would seem to them very hard to be obliged to carry their skins for sale to remote towns or posts, when they could dispose of them to their neighbours, with less trouble, and to greater advantage; as the goods they want for them, are and must be dearer at such remote posts.

4. The colony "laws for regulating Indian affairs or commerce" are the result of long experience, made by people on the spot, interested to make them good; and it would be well to consider the matter thoroughly, before they are repealed, to make way for new untried schemes.

By whom are they to be repealed? By the colony assemblies, or by parliament? Some difficulty will arise here.

13. The districts seem too large for this. The Indians under the care of the northern superintendant, by this plan, border on the colonies of Nova Scotia, Quebec, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pensylvania, Maryland, Virginia: the superintendant's situation, remote from many of these, may occasion great inconvenience, if his consent is always to be necessary in such cases.

14. This seems too much to be done, when the vastness of the district is considered. If there were more districts and smaller, it might be more practicable.

15 and 16. Are these agents or commissaries to try causes where life is concerned? Would it not be better, to send the criminals into some civil well settled government or colony for trial, where good juries can be had?

18. "Chief for the whole tribe; who shall constantly reside with the commissary, &c." Provision must then be made for his maintenance, as particular Indians have no estates, but live by hunting, and their public has no funds or revenues. Being used to rambling, it would perhaps not be easy to find one, who would be obliged to this constant residence; but it may be tried.

22. If the agent and his deputies, and the commissaries, are not to trade, should it not be a part of their oath, that they will have no concern in such trade, directly or indirectly? Private agreements between them and the traders, for share of profits, should be guarded against, and the same care taken to prevent, if possible, private agreements between them and the purchasers of Indian lands.

31. —— "or trading at any other post, &c." This should be so expressed, as to make the master liable for the offence of the servant; otherwise it will have no effect.

33. I doubt the settling of tariffs will be a matter of difficulty. There may be differences of fineness, goodness, and value, in the goods of different traders, that cannot be properly allowed for by general tariffs. And it seems contrary to the nature of commerce, for government to interfere in the prices of commodities. Trade is a voluntary thing between buyer and seller; in every article of which, each exercises his own judgment, and is to please himself. Suppose either Indian or trader is dissatisfied with the tariff, and refuses barter on those terms, are the refusers to be compelled? if not, why should an Indian be forbidden to take more goods for skins than your tariff allows, if the trader is willing to give them, or a trader more skins for his goods, if the Indian is willing to give them? Where there are a number of different traders, the separate desire of each to get more custom will operate in bringing down their goods to a reasonable price. It therefore seems to me, that trade will best find and make its own rates; and that government cannot well interfere, unless it will take the whole trade into its own hands (as in some colonies it does) and manage it by its own servants, at its own risque.

38. I apprehend, that if the Indians cannot get rum of fair traders, it will be a great means of defeating all these regulations, that direct the trade to be carried on at certain posts. The countries and forests are so very large, it is scarce possible to guard every part, so as to prevent unlicensed traders drawing the Indians and the trade to themselves, by rum and other spiritous liquors, which all savage people are so fond of. I think they will generally trade where they can get rum, preferably to where it is refused them; and the proposed prohibition will therefore be a great encouragement to unlicensed traders, and promote such trade. If the commissaries, or officers at the posts, can prevent the selling of rum during the barter for other goods, and until the Indians are about going away, it is perhaps all that is practicable or necessary. The missionaries will, among other things, endeavour to prevail with them to live soberly and avoid drunkenness.

39. The Indian trade, so far as credit is concerned, has hitherto been carried on wholly upon honour. They have among themselves no such things as prisons or confinements for debt. This article seems to imply, that an Indian may be compelled by law to pay a debt of fifty shillings or under. Our legal method of compulsion is by imprisonment: the Indians cannot and will not imprison one another; and if we attempt to imprison them, I apprehend it would be generally disliked by the nations, and occasion breaches. They have such high ideas of the value of personal liberty, and such slight ones of the value of personal property;[73] that they would think the disproportion monstrous between the liberty of a man, and a debt of a few shillings; and that it would be excessively inequitable and unjust, to take away the one for a default in payment of the other. It seems to me therefore best, to leave that matter on its present footing; the debts under fifty shillings as irrecoverable by law, as this article proposes for the debts above fifty shillings. Debts of honour are generally as well paid as other debts. Where no compulsion can be used, it is more disgraceful to be dishonest. If the trader thinks his risque greater in trusting any particular Indian, he will either not do it, or proportion his price to his risque.

44. As the goods for the Indian trade all come from England, and the peltry is chiefly brought to England; perhaps it will be best to lay the duty here, on the exportation of the one, and the importation of the other, to avoid meddling with the question, of the right to lay duties in America by parliament here.

If it is thought proper to carry the trading part of this plan into execution, would it not be well to try it first in a few posts, to which the present colony laws for regulating the Indian trade do not reach; that by experience its utility may be ascertained, or its defects discovered and amended, before it is made general, and those laws repealed to make way for it?—If the Indians find by experience, that they are better used in their trade at the posts, under these regulations, than at other places, may it not make them desirous of having the regulations extended to other places; and when extended, better satisfied with them upon reflection and comparison[74]?

FOOTNOTES: