QIf the Parliament should repeal the Stamp Act, will the assembly 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 mhabitants, unless it be with the consent of the assembly, or by act of Parliament.

Q. How, then, could the assembly of Pennsylvania assert, 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 entitled to all the privileges and liberties of Englishmen ; they find in the Great Charters, and the Petition 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 color of that clause in the charter, assume 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 Petition of Right, all justify it.

Q. Does the distinction between internal and external taxes exist in the words of the charter?

A. No, I believe not.

Q. Then, may they not, by the same interpretation, object to the Parliament's right of external taxation? A. They never have hitherto. Many arguments have been lately used here to show them, that there is no difference, and that, if you have no right to tax them internally, you have none to tax them externally, or make any other law to bind them. At present they do not reason so; but in time they may possibly be convinced by these arguments.

Q. Do not the resolutions of the Pennsylvania assembly say, "all taxes"?

A. If they do, they mean only internal taxes; the same words have not always the same meaning here and in the colonies. By taxes, they mean internal taxes; by duties, they mean customs; these are their ideas of the language.

Q. Have you not seen the resolutions of the Massachusetts Bay assembly?

A. I have.

Do they not say, that neither external nor internal taxes can be laid on them by Parliament? A. I don't know that they do; I believe not. Q. If the same colony should say, neither tax nor imposition could be laid, does not that province hold the power of Parliament can lay neither?

A. I suppose, that, by the word imposition, they do not intend to express duties to be laid on goods imported, as regulations of commerce.

Q. What can the colonies mean then by imposition, as distinct from taxes?

A. They may mean many things, as impressing of men or of carriages, quartering troops on private

houses, and the like; there may be great impositions that are not properly taxes.

Q. Is not the post-office rate an internal tax laid by act of Parliament?

A. I have answered that.

Q. Are all parts of the colonies equally able to pay taxes?

A. No, certainly; the frontier parts, which have been ravaged by the enemy, are greatly disabled by that means; and therefore, in such cases, are usually favored in our tax laws.

Q. Can we, at this distance, be competent judges of what favors are necessary?

A. The Parliament have supposed it, by claiming a right to make tax laws for America; I think it impossible.

Q. Would the repeal of the Stamp Act be any discouragement of your manufactures? Will the people that have begun to manufacture decline it?

A. Yes, I think they will; especially if, at the same time, the trade is opened again, so that remittances can be easily made. I have known several instances that make it probable. In the war before last, tobacco being low, and making little remittance, the people of Virginia went generally into family manufactures. Afterwards, when tobacco bore a better price, they returned to the use of British manufactures. So fulling-mills were very much disused in the last war in Pennsylvania, because bills were then plenty, and remittances could easily be made to Britain for English cloth and other goods.

Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would it induce the assemblies of America to acknowledge the rights of Parliament to tax them, and would they erase their resolutions?

A. No, never.

Q. Are there no means of obliging them to erase those resolutions?

A. None that I know of; they will never do it, unless compelled by force of arms..

Q. Is there a power on earth that can force them to erase them?

A. No power, how great soever, can force men to change their opinions.

Q. Do they consider the post-office as a tax, or as a regulation?

A. Not as a tax, but as a regulation and conveniency; every assembly encouraged it, and supported it in its infancy, by grants of money, which they would not otherwise have done; and the people have always paid the postage.

Q. When did you receive the instructions you mentioned?

A. I brought them with me, when I came to England, about fifteen months since.

Q. When did you communicate that instruction to the minister?

A. Soon after my arrival, while the stamping of America was under consideration, and before the bill was brought in.

Q. Would it be most for the interest of Great Britain, to employ the hands of Virginia in tobacco, or in manufactures?

A. In tobacco, to be sure.

Q. What used to be the pride of the Americans? A. To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great Britain.

Q. What is now their pride?

A. To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make new ones.

Withdrew.

NOTE.

In Mr. Walsh's "Life of Franklin," contained in Delaplaine's Repository are some curious remarks on the preceding examination, transcribed from a manuscript written by Dr. Franklin in reply to a friend, who desired to know by whom the several questions were put. These remarks are as follows.

"I have numbered the questions," says Dr. Franklin, "for the sake of making references to them.

"Qu. 1, is a question of form, asked of every one that is examined. — Qu. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, were asked by Mr. Hewitt, a member for Coventry, a friend of ours, and were designed to draw out the answers that follow; being the substance of what I had before said to him on the subject, to remove a common prejudice, that the Colonies paid no taxes, and that their governments were supported by burdening the people here; Qu. 7, was particularly intended to show by the answer, that Parliament could not properly and equally lay taxes in America, as they could not, by reason of their distance, be acquainted with such circumstances as might make it necessary to spare particular parts.Qu. 8 to 13, asked by Mr. Huske, another friend, to show the impracticability of distributing the Stamps in America. Qu. 14, 15, 16, by one of the late administration, an adversary.—Qu. 17 to 26, by Mr. Huske again. His questions about the Germans, and about the number of people, were intended to make the opposition to the Stamp Act in America appear more formidable. He asked some others here that the Clerk has omitted, particularly one, I remember.

"There had been a considerable party in the House for saving the honor and right of Parliament, by retaining the Act, and yet making it tolerable to America, by reducing it to a stamp on commissions for profitable offices, and on cards and dice. I had, in conversation with many of them, objected to this, as it would require an establishment for the distributors, which would be a great expense, as the stamps would not be sufficient to pay them, and so the odium and contention would be kept up for nothing. The notion of amending, however, still continued, and one of the most active of the members for promoting it told me, he was sure I could, if I would, assist them to amend the Act in such a manner, that America should have little or no objection to it. 'I must confess,' says I, ‘I have thought of one amendment; if you will make it, the Act may remain, and yet the Americans will be quieted. It is a very small amendment, too; it is only the change of a single word. 'Ay,' says he, 'what is that?' It is in that clause where it is said, that from and after the first day of November one thousand seven hundred and sixty-five, there shall be paid, &c. The amendment I would propose is, for one read two, and then all the rest of the act may stand as it does. I believe it will give nobody in America any uneasiness. Mr. Huske had heard of this, and, desiring to bring out the same answer in the House, asked me whether I could not propose a small