The Compleated Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1757-1790)

by Benjamin Franklin

  As to the true history of the Stamp Act, the facts are these: Some time in the winter of 1763-64 Mr. Grenville had called together the agents of the several colonies, and told them that he purposed to draw a revenue from America, and to that end his intention was to levy a stamp duty on the colonies by act of Parliament in the ensuing session, and if any other duty equally productive would be more agreeable to them, they might let him know it.

  George Grenville: “I am sure he would have obtained more money from the colonies by their voluntary grants than he himself expected from his stamps.”

  I was a member of the Assembly of Pennsylvania when this notification came to hand. In a resolution, we observed that the ancient, established, and regular method of drawing aids from the colonies was that the sovereign would direct his Secretary of State to write circular letters to the several governors, who would lay them before their assemblies; that upon their satisfaction, the assemblies would grant such sums as should be suitable to their abilities, loyalty and zeal for his service; that the colonies had always granted liberally on such requisitions, and so liberally during the previous war that the king, sensible they had granted much more than their proposition, had recommended it to Parliament five years successively to make them some compensation, and the Parliament accordingly returned them £200,000 a year to be divided among them; and that the proposition of taxing them in Parliament was therefore both cruel and unjust. I went soon after to England, and took with me an authentic copy of this resolution, which I presented to Mr. Grenville before he brought in the Stamp Act. I asserted in the House of Commons (Mr. Grenville being present) that I had done so, and he did not deny it. Other colonies made similar resolutions. And had Mr. Grenville instead of that Act applied to the King in council for such requisitional letters to be circulated by the Secretary of State, I am sure he would have obtained more money from the colonies by their voluntary grants than he himself expected from his stamps. But he chose compulsion rather than persuasion, and would not receive from their good will what he thought he could obtain without it. And thus the Golden Bridge which the ingenious author thinks the Americans unwisely and unbecomingly refused to hold out to the minister and Parliament was actually held out to them, but they refused to walk over it.

  WE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE HINDERED THE SUN’S SETTING

  I took every step in my power to prevent the passing of the Stamp Act; nobody could have been more concern’d in interest than myself to oppose it, sincerely and heartedly. But the tide was too strong against us. The nation was provoked by American claims of independence, and all parties joined in resolving by this Act to settle the point. We might as well have hindered the sun’s setting. That we could not do. But since ’tis down, we could still light candles. As I wrote in “Father Abraham’s Speech,” frugality and industry will go a great way towards indemnifying us. Idleness and pride tax us with a heavier hand than kings and parliaments; if we can get rid of the former we may easily bear the latter.33 For we are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly. Mr. Hall wrote me about the ferment in the colonies over the Stamp Act; that Mr. Oliver, the stamp officer, was hanged in effigy in Boston; that a house was pulled down, which was supposed to have been erected for the business of the Stamp Office; that the spirit of the people was violently against everyone they thought had the least concern with the Stamp law; and that many had imbibed the false notion that I had a hand in the framing of the Stamp Act, which occasion’d me many enemies. He reported that all the papers on the American Continent, except our Pennsylvania Gazette, were full of spirited papers against the Stamp law, and that because he did not publish those papers likewise, he was much blamed, got a great deal of ill-will, and that some of our customers had stopped subscribing on that account. I told him that he had acted very prudently in omitting the pieces that were printed in other papers, and I would have been equally averse to printing them even if I had held no office under the crown.

  A Mr. Thomson tender’d me a response, of which I gave an extract to a friend, who printed it in the London Chronicle. (I reprinted everything from America that I thought might help our common cause.) It said in part, “The Sun of Liberty is indeed fast setting, if not down already, in the American colonies: But I much fear instead of the candles you mentioned being lighted, you will hear of the works of darkness.”

  A MOB AT MY HOME IN PHILADELPHIA

  In November 1765, I received letters from my wife, my daughter Sally, and our good neighbors relating to raising a mob at my home in Philadelphia in protest of the Stamp Act. I honoured much the spirit and courage my wife showed, and the prudent preparations she made in that time of danger. I wrote her, “The woman deserves a good house who is determined to defend it.” The disturbances in the colonies gave me great concern, as I feared the event would be pernicious to America in general. The rashness of the Assembly in Virginia was amazing! I had hoped that ours would keep within the bounds of prudence and moderation; for that, I believed, was the only way to lighten or get clear of our burdens, and facilitate my endeavor to get the Stamp Act repeal’d. I assured my wife and friends that nothing could be falser than the reports that I had even the least hand in framing the Stamp Act, or procuring any other burden on our country. In truth, I never in my life labour’d any point more heartedly than I did that of obtaining the repeal. I shall long remember a pious Presbyterian countryman who set the people amadding, by telling them that I plann’d the Stamp Act. I thanked him that he did not charge me (as they do their God) with having plann’d Adam’s Fall, and the damnation of mankind.

  I had a long audience at this time with Lord Dartmouth. He had been highly recommended to me by Lords Grantham and Bessborough as a young man of excellent understanding and the most amiable disposition. I found him to be all they said of him. I gave him my opinion that the general execution of the Stamp Act was impracticable without occasioning more mischief than it was worth, by totally alienating the affections of the Americans from Britain, and thereby lessening its commerce. I strongly recommended either a thorough union with America, or that government in Britain would proceed in the old method of requisition, by which, I was confident, more would be obtained in the way of voluntary grant, than could probably be got by compulsory taxes laid by Parliament. Particular colonies might at times be backward, but at other times, when in better temper, they would make up for that backwardness, so that on the whole it would be nearly equal. To send armies and fleets to enforce the Act would not, in my opinion, answer any good end, except the danger, by mutual violences, excesses and severities, of creating a deep-rooted aversion between the two countries, and laying the foundation of a future total separation. A great deal more I said on our American affairs. His Lordship heard all with great attention and patience. He thank’d me politely for the visit, and desired to see me often.

  I SPOKE MY MIND PRETTY PLAINLY

  During the course of the debate on the Stamp Act, I appear’d on February 13, 1766 before the Committee of the Whole of the House of Commons, and spoke my mind pretty plainly. I enclose the imperfect account that was taken of that examination.

  Q. What is your name, and place of abode?

  A. Franklin, of Philadelphia.

  Q. Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes among themselves?

  A. Certainly many, and very heavy taxes.

  Q. Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able to pay the stamp duty?

  A. In my opinion there is not gold and silver enough in the colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year.

  Q. Are you not concerned in the management of the post office in America?

  A. Yes. I am Deputy Post-Master General of North America.

  Q. Don’t you think the distribution of stamps, by post, to all the inhabitants, very practicable, if there was no opposition?

  A. The posts only go along the sea coasts; they do not, except in a few instances, go back into the country; and if they di
d, sending for stamps by post would occasion an expense of postage amounting, in many cases, to much more than that of the stamps themselves.

  Q. Do you think it right that America should be protected by this country and pay no part of the expenses?

  A. America has been greatly misrepresented and abused here, in papers and pamphlets and speeches, as ungrateful and unreasonable and unjust; and in having put this nation to immense expense for their defense and refusing to bear any part of that expense. But that is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed, and paid, during the last war, near 25,000 men and spent many millions.

  Q. Were you not reimbursed by Parliament?

  A. We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our proportion, or beyond what might have been reasonably expected from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent. Pennsylvania, in particular, disbursed about £500,000, and the reimbursements in the whole did not exceed £60,000. This is the strongest of all proofs that the colonies, far from being unwilling to bear a share of the burden, did exceed their proportion.

  Q. Do you not think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp duty if it was moderated?

  A. No, never, unless compelled by force of arms.

  Q. What was the temper of America toward Great Britain before the year 1763?

  A. The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the government of the Crown, and paid, in all their courts, obedience to acts of Parliament. Numerous as the people are in the several provinces, they cost you nothing in forts, citadels, garrisons, or armies to keep them in subjection. They were governed by this country at the expense only of a little pen, ink, and paper. They were led by a thread. They had not only a respect but an affection for Great Britain; for its laws, its customs and manners, and even a fondness for its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce. Natives of Britain were always treated with particular regard; to be an old England man was, of itself, a character of some respect and gave a kind of rank among them.

  Q. And what is their temper now?

  A. Oh, very much altered.

  Q. In what light did the people of America use to consider the Parliament of Great Britain?

  A. They considered the Parliament as the great bulwark and security of their liberties and veneration. Arbitrary ministers, they thought, might possibly at times attempt to oppress them; but they relied on it that Parliament on application would always give redress.

  Q. And have they not still the same respect for Parliament?

  A. No, it is greatly lessened.

  Q. To what causes is that owing?

  A. To a concurrence of causes: the restraints lately laid on their trade by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps; taking away, at the same time, trials by jury and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions.

  Q. Have you not heard of the resolutions of this House, and of the House of Lords, asserting the right of Parliament relating to America, including a power to tax the people there?

  A. Yes, I have heard of such resolutions.

  Q. What will be the opinion of the Americans on those resolutions ?

  A. They will think them unconstitutional and unjust.

  Q. Was it an opinion in America before 1763 that the Parliament had no right to lay taxes and duties there?

  A. I never heard any objection to the rights of laying duties to regulate commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in Parliament, as we are not represented there.

  Q. If the Act is not repealed, what do you think will be the consequences?

  A. The total loss of the respect and affection the people of America bear to this country, and of all the commerce that depends on that respect and affection.

  Q. But if the legislature should think fit to ascertain its right to lay taxes, by an act laying a small tax contrary to their opinion, would they submit to pay the tax?

  A. The proceedings of the assemblies have been very different from those of the mobs, and should be distinguished, as having no connection with each other. The assemblies have only peaceably resolved what they take to be their rights; they have taken no measures for opposition by force; they have not built a fort, raised a man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to enforce such opposition. The ringleaders of riots they think ought to be punished. But as to an internal tax, how small so ever, laid by the legislature here on the people there: while they have no representatives in this legislature, I think it will never be submitted to. They will oppose it to the last. They do not consider it at all necessary for you to raise money on them by your taxes; because they are, and always have been, ready to raise money by taxes among themselves and to grant large sums, equal to their abilities, upon requisition from the Crown.

  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 own clothes over again till they can make new ones.

  I WAS NEVER PROUDER OF ANY DRESS IN MY LIFE

  Two weeks after my examination before the government, I was made very happy by a vote of the Commons on February 22, 1766, for the repeal of the mother of mischiefs, the Stamp Act. The House of Commons, after a long debate, came to a resolution, 275 to 167. Great honour and thanks was due to the British merchants trading to America, all of them being our zealous and indefatigable friends. In honour of its repeal, I sent my wife a new gown, informing her that had the trade between the new countries totally ceas’d, it was a comfort to me to recollect that I had once been cloth’d from head to foot in woolen and linen of my wife’s manufacture; that I never was prouder of any dress in my life; and that she and my daughter might do it again if it was necessary. I learned from letters from home that upon the news in America, bells rang, bonfires were set, fire works illuminated, and cannon fired.

  ENEMIES DO A MAN SOME GOOD

  As to the reports that spread to my disadvantage during the Stamp Act affair, I gave myself as little concern about them as possible. I have often met with such treatment from people that I was all the while endeavouring to serve. At other times I have been extoll’d extravagantly when I have had little or no merit. These are the operations of nature. It sometimes is cloudy, it rains, it hails; again ’tis clear and pleasant, and the sun shines on us. Take one thing with another, and the world is a pretty good sort of world; and ’tis our duty to make the best of it and be thankful. One’s true happiness depends more on one’s own judgement of one’s self, on a consciousness of rectitude in action and intention, and on the approbation of those few who judge impartially, than upon the applause of the unthinking, undiscerning multitude, who are apt to cry “hosanna” today, and tomorrow, “crucify him.”

  I thank God that I have enjoyed a greater share of health, strength and activity than is common with people of my years. As to the abuses I have met with, I number them among my honours. One cannot behave so as to obtain the esteem of the wise and good without drawing on one’s self at the same time the envy and malice of the foolish and wicked, and the latter is testimony of the former. The best men have always had their share of this treatment, and the more of it in proportion to their different and greater degrees of merit. A man has therefore some reason to be asham’d of himself when he meets with none of it. And the world is not to be condemn’d in the lump because some bad people live in it. Their number is not great, the hurt they do is but small, as real good characters always finally surmount and are established, notwithstanding attempts to keep them down. And in the mean time such enemies do a man some good, while they think they are doing him harm, by fortifying the character they would destroy; for when he sees how readily imaginary faults and crimes are laid to his charge, he must be more apprehensive of the danger of committing real ones. I call to mind what my friend good Mr. Whitefie
ld said to me once on such an occasion: “I read the libels writ against you, when I was in a remote province, where I could not be inform’d of the truth of the facts; but they rather gave me this good opinion of you, that you continued to be useful to the public: for when I am on the road, and see boys in a field at a distance, pelting a tree, though I am too far off to know what tree it is, I conclude it has fruit on it.”

  NEVER ASK, NEVER REFUSE, NEVER RESIGN

  My enemies were forc’d to content themselves with abusing me plentifully in the newspapers. ’Tis the fashion in the newspapers to abuse and roast one another, and I sometimes took a little of that diversion myself. In their endeavour to provoke me to resign from the Post Office, they were not likely to succeed, I being deficient in that Christian virtue of resignation. If they would have my office, they must take it—I have heard of some great man, whose rule it was with regard to offices, never to ask for them, and never to refuse them: To which I have always added in my own practice, never to resign them.34

  I TRAVELLED A GOOD DEAL FOR MY HEALTH

  During the course of the Stamp Act affair, I was extremely busy, attending members of both Houses, informing, explaining, consulting, disputing, in a continual hurry from morning to night till the affair was happily ended. Following the affair, I became ill again. I had been us’d to making a journey once a year, the want of which the previous year had, I believed, hurt me, so that tho’ I was not quite to say sick, I was often ailing that winter and thro’ this spring. Once nearly well, but feeble, by summer I set out with my friend Sir John Pringle, the queen’s physician, on a journey to Prymont, Germany, where we drank the waters some days. I travelled a good deal for my health in Germany that summer, which I found a very fine country, and seemingly not so much hurt by the late war as one might have expected, since it appeared every where fully cultivated, notwithstanding the great loss it sustained in people. As I was soon well, my hearty journey had perfectly answered its intention.