Chapter 15

We send you here a little book,For you to look upon;That you may see your father's face,Now he is dead and gone.

We send you here a little book,

For you to look upon;

That you may see your father's face,

Now he is dead and gone.

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 thelike misfortunes, we can by no means conceive them incident to the nature of our government, which hathoftenbeen 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 theroyalgovernments around us exempt fromthesemisfortunes? 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 "hathoftenbeen 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 wordoftenseems 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 butproprietarydisputes 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 themost 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! Isour 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 alittle intermissionto 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 beenspeedily quieted." By whom were they quieted? Thetwo 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 thethird, was it quieted, or was the mischief they intended prevented, or could it have been prevented, without the aid of theking'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 beenfullysupported? 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 maynot be possible speedily to discover offenders." Probably; but is there any case in any government where it is not possible toendeavoursuch 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 theweaknessof our present government.[68]

Still, if there is anyfault, it must bein the assembly; for, says the petition, "if the executive part of our government should seem in any case too weak, we conceiveit is the duty of the assembly, and intheirpower, to strengthen it." This weakness, however, you have just denied. "Disturbances you sayhavebeen 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 assemblydidendeavour 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? Doyouintend to give them up, when at the next electionyouare 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 tocharacterise a petition[from theassembly]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 loyalsubjects" 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; theprayerof it isstill moreextraordinary, "We therefore most humbly pray, that your majesty would be graciously pleasedwholly to disregardthe 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 aprecedentof 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 andamendingwhat 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 proteston 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 thereasonswere merely these, that though protesting may bea 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:[59]As I am very much unacquainted with the history and principles of these provincial politics, I shall confine myself to some imperfect anecdotes concerning the parties, &c. A speech, which Mr. Dickinson had delivered in the Pensylvania assembly against the abolition of the proprietary government, having been published, and a preface having been written to it, as I think by a Dr. Smith, Mr. Galloway's speech was held forth as a proper answer to that speech, while the preface to it appeared balanced by the above preface from Dr. Franklin. Mr. Galloway's speech, or probably the advertisement that attended it, urged, I believe, Mr. Dickinson first to a challenge, and then to a printed reply.—The controversy was quickly republished in England, or at least the principal parts of it; and it is from the English edition of Mr. Galloway's speech (printed in London by Nichols in 1765) that I have copied the above.These several gentlemen however seem, for a time, to have better agreed in their subsequent opinions concerning American taxation by Great Britain; Mr. Dickinson, in particular, having taken a very spirited line in the Farmer's Letters and other pieces, which procured him considerable reputation. The congress declaration, nevertheless, for independence, was reported not to have given perfect satisfaction at first, either to himself or to Mr. Galloway. And in the event, Mr. Galloway thought proper to come over to General Howe, and afterwards to embark for England. B. V.[60]This act is intitled, An Act for granting to his Majesty the Sum of One Hundred Thousand Pounds: striking the same in Bills of Credit, and sinking the Bills by a Tax on all Estates real and personal.[61]i. e. In England, I suppose, when the laws were brought home to receive the king's assent. B. V.[62]Possibly this wordwhere, meanswherever.B. V.[63]This would have been done, and the money all sunk in the hands of the people, if the agents, Benjamin Franklin, and Robert Charles, had not interposed, and voluntarily, without authority from the assembly so to do, but at their own risque, undertaken, that these amendments should be made, or that they themselves would indemnify the proprietaries from any damages they might sustain for want thereof. An action which, as the prefacer says in another case, "posterity perhaps may find a name for."[64]It is not easy to guess from what source our proprietaries have drawn their principles. Those who study law and justice as a science have established it a maxim in equity, "Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus." And so consistent is this with the common sense of mankind, that even our lowest untaught coblers and porters feel the force of it in their own maxim (which they are honest enough never to dispute) "Touch pot, touch penny."[65]For a fuller account of this dispute the reader is referred to the newspapers and votes of assembly.[66]These words, "by completing the agreement," &c. are omitted by the honest prefacer, in his account of the resolve, that they might not interfere with his insinuation of the measure's being impracticable, "have the proprietors, by any act of theirs, forfeited the least tittle of what was granted them by his Majesty's royal ancestors? Or can they bedeprivedof their charter rights without their consent?" &c. Sensible that these questions are impertinent, if those rights are already sold.[67]The prefacer, with great art, endeavours to represent this number as insignificant. He says the petitioners were but 3500, and that the province contains near three hundred thousandsouls! His reader is to imagine, thattwo hundred and ninety six thousand five hundredof them were applied to, and refused to sign it. The truth is, that his number of souls is vastly exaggerated. The dwelling-houses in the province in 1752 did not exceed 20,000. Political arithmeticians reckon generally but five souls to a house, one house with another; and therefore, allowing for houses since built, there are not probably more than an hundred and ten thousand souls in the province; that of these, scarce twenty two thousand could with any propriety be petitioners. And considering the scattered settlement of the province; the general inattention of mankind, especially in new countries, to public affairs; and the indefatigable pains taken by the proprietaries' new allies the presbyterian clergy of Philadelphia, (who wrote circular letters to every congregation in the county, to deter them from petitioning, by dutiful intimations, that if we were reduced to a royal government, it would be the "ruin of the province;") it is a wonder the number (near a sixth part) was so great as it was. But if there had been no such petitions, it would not have been material to the point. Theassemblywent upon another foundation. They had adjourned to consult their constituents; they returned satisfied that the measure was agreeable to them, andnothing appeared to the contrary.[68]The assembly being called upon by the governor for their advice on that occasion did, in a message, advise his sending for and examining the magistrates of Lancaster county and borough, where the murders were committed, in order to discover the actors; but neither that nor any of the other measures recommended were ever taken. Proclamations indeed were published, but soon discontinued.[69]Mr. Galloway's speech is of course omitted here.Editor.

[59]As I am very much unacquainted with the history and principles of these provincial politics, I shall confine myself to some imperfect anecdotes concerning the parties, &c. A speech, which Mr. Dickinson had delivered in the Pensylvania assembly against the abolition of the proprietary government, having been published, and a preface having been written to it, as I think by a Dr. Smith, Mr. Galloway's speech was held forth as a proper answer to that speech, while the preface to it appeared balanced by the above preface from Dr. Franklin. Mr. Galloway's speech, or probably the advertisement that attended it, urged, I believe, Mr. Dickinson first to a challenge, and then to a printed reply.—The controversy was quickly republished in England, or at least the principal parts of it; and it is from the English edition of Mr. Galloway's speech (printed in London by Nichols in 1765) that I have copied the above.These several gentlemen however seem, for a time, to have better agreed in their subsequent opinions concerning American taxation by Great Britain; Mr. Dickinson, in particular, having taken a very spirited line in the Farmer's Letters and other pieces, which procured him considerable reputation. The congress declaration, nevertheless, for independence, was reported not to have given perfect satisfaction at first, either to himself or to Mr. Galloway. And in the event, Mr. Galloway thought proper to come over to General Howe, and afterwards to embark for England. B. V.

These several gentlemen however seem, for a time, to have better agreed in their subsequent opinions concerning American taxation by Great Britain; Mr. Dickinson, in particular, having taken a very spirited line in the Farmer's Letters and other pieces, which procured him considerable reputation. The congress declaration, nevertheless, for independence, was reported not to have given perfect satisfaction at first, either to himself or to Mr. Galloway. And in the event, Mr. Galloway thought proper to come over to General Howe, and afterwards to embark for England. B. V.

[60]This act is intitled, An Act for granting to his Majesty the Sum of One Hundred Thousand Pounds: striking the same in Bills of Credit, and sinking the Bills by a Tax on all Estates real and personal.

[61]i. e. In England, I suppose, when the laws were brought home to receive the king's assent. B. V.

[62]Possibly this wordwhere, meanswherever.B. V.

[63]This would have been done, and the money all sunk in the hands of the people, if the agents, Benjamin Franklin, and Robert Charles, had not interposed, and voluntarily, without authority from the assembly so to do, but at their own risque, undertaken, that these amendments should be made, or that they themselves would indemnify the proprietaries from any damages they might sustain for want thereof. An action which, as the prefacer says in another case, "posterity perhaps may find a name for."

[64]It is not easy to guess from what source our proprietaries have drawn their principles. Those who study law and justice as a science have established it a maxim in equity, "Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus." And so consistent is this with the common sense of mankind, that even our lowest untaught coblers and porters feel the force of it in their own maxim (which they are honest enough never to dispute) "Touch pot, touch penny."

[65]For a fuller account of this dispute the reader is referred to the newspapers and votes of assembly.

[66]These words, "by completing the agreement," &c. are omitted by the honest prefacer, in his account of the resolve, that they might not interfere with his insinuation of the measure's being impracticable, "have the proprietors, by any act of theirs, forfeited the least tittle of what was granted them by his Majesty's royal ancestors? Or can they bedeprivedof their charter rights without their consent?" &c. Sensible that these questions are impertinent, if those rights are already sold.

[67]The prefacer, with great art, endeavours to represent this number as insignificant. He says the petitioners were but 3500, and that the province contains near three hundred thousandsouls! His reader is to imagine, thattwo hundred and ninety six thousand five hundredof them were applied to, and refused to sign it. The truth is, that his number of souls is vastly exaggerated. The dwelling-houses in the province in 1752 did not exceed 20,000. Political arithmeticians reckon generally but five souls to a house, one house with another; and therefore, allowing for houses since built, there are not probably more than an hundred and ten thousand souls in the province; that of these, scarce twenty two thousand could with any propriety be petitioners. And considering the scattered settlement of the province; the general inattention of mankind, especially in new countries, to public affairs; and the indefatigable pains taken by the proprietaries' new allies the presbyterian clergy of Philadelphia, (who wrote circular letters to every congregation in the county, to deter them from petitioning, by dutiful intimations, that if we were reduced to a royal government, it would be the "ruin of the province;") it is a wonder the number (near a sixth part) was so great as it was. But if there had been no such petitions, it would not have been material to the point. Theassemblywent upon another foundation. They had adjourned to consult their constituents; they returned satisfied that the measure was agreeable to them, andnothing appeared to the contrary.

[68]The assembly being called upon by the governor for their advice on that occasion did, in a message, advise his sending for and examining the magistrates of Lancaster county and borough, where the murders were committed, in order to discover the actors; but neither that nor any of the other measures recommended were ever taken. Proclamations indeed were published, but soon discontinued.

[69]Mr. Galloway's speech is of course omitted here.Editor.

Back to Index Next