trader more skins for his goods, if the Indian is willing to give them? Where there are a number of 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 risk.

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 spirituous 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 honor. They have among themselves no such thing as prisons or confinement 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 dis

They

liked by the nations, and occasion breaches. have such high ideas of the value of personal liberty, and such slight ones of the value of personal property, 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 honor 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 risk greater in trusting any particular Indian, he will either not do it, or proportion his price to his risk.

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 be 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?

VOL. IV.

R

HINTS

FOR A REPLY TO THE PROTESTS

OF

CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS

AGAINST

THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT.

In the ATHENEUM at Philadelphia are many volumes of Pamphlets, which formerly belonged to Dr. Franklin. Some of these are curious from the manuscript notes they contain in the margin. A few specimens have been selected for publication, both as having an historical interest, and as being peculiarly characteristic of their author. These were first published by the present editor in a little volume, entitled, "Familiar Letters and Miscellaneous Pieces by Dr. Franklin.”

It should here also be observed, that the notes contained in these pamphlets were penned at the very time when he was supposed, by some persons, either unfriendly to his character or ignorant of his motives, to be secretly acting a part in England more accordant to his private aims, than to the high duties of a true lover of his country. From the tone, temper, and substance of these notes, let the reader judge with what justice such suspicions have been entertained, and such insinuations hazarded to the public. As mere private records of his thoughts, prompted by the impulse of the moment, without any design of their ever seeing the light, they must be admitted to reveal his true sentiments, and to exhibit the unbiassed workings of his mind.

The following "HINTS" are found in the margin of Dr. Franklin's printed copy of the Protests, written at the time (1766), from which it would appear, that it was his intention to make a formal answer to these Protests. This purpose, it is believed, was never executed. EDITOR.

FIRST PROTEST.

We have submitted to your laws; no proof of our acknowledgment of your power to make them; rather an acknowledgment of their reasonableness, or of our own weakness. Post-office came as a matter of utility; was aided by the legislature. Mean to take advantage of our ignorance. Children should not be imposed on; are not, even by honest shopkeepers. A great and magnanimous nation should disdain to govern by tricks and traps, that would disgrace a pettifogging attorney.

Settlement of the colonies stated. Parliament not consulted; not till after the Restoration, except by rebel Parliament. Anxious about preserving the sovereignty of this country? Rather be so about preserving the liberty. We shall be so about the liberty of America, that your posterity may have a free country to come to, where they will be received with open arms.

King, the sovereign, cannot take in his Parliament; at least, can give no greater power, than he had himself.

Compliment the Lords. Not a wiser or better body of men on earth. The deep respect impressed on me by the instance I have been witness to of their justice. They have been misled by misinformation. Proof of my opinion of their goodness, in the freedom with which I propose to examine their Protests.

The trust of taxing America was never reposed by the people of America in the legislature of Great Britain. They had one kind of confidence, indeed, in that legislature; that it would never attempt to tax them without their consent. The law was destructive of that confidence among them.

Other advantages of colonies besides commerce. Selfishness of commercial views.

The sovereignty of the crown I understand. The sovereignty of the British legislature out of Britain I do not understand.

The fear of being thought weak is a timidity and weakness of the worst sort, as it betrays into a persisting in errors, that may be much more mischievous than the appearance of weakness. A great and powerful state, like this, has no cause for such timidity.

Acknowledging and correcting an error shows great magnanimity. Small states and small republics cannot afford to do so.

America not in the realm of England or Great Britain? No man in America thinks himself exempt from the jurisdiction of the crown, and of the assemblies, or has any such private judgment.

The agitation of the question of rights makes it now necessary to settle a constitution for the colonies. Restrictions should be only for the general good. Endeavour to convince reasonable creatures by reason. Try your hands with me.

Never think of it. They are reasonable creatures. Reasonable laws will not require force.

I observe two or three Scotch Lords protest. Many more voted against the repeal. Colonies settled before the union. Query; If the Parliament had a jurisdiction over the colonies by the first settlement, had they a right to introduce new legislators? Could they sell or commute the right with other nations? Can they introduce the Peers of Ireland and Commons, and the States of Holland, and make them legislators of the colonies? How could Scotland acquire a right to legislation over English colonies, but by consent of the colonies themselves?

I am a subject of the crown of Great Britain; have ever been a loyal one; have partaken of its favors. I