Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), noted printer, publisher, author, inventor and diplomat, lived primarily in the British colony of Pennsylvania, where he was publisher and printer of a newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette as well as an annual publication, Poor Richard's Almanac. Franklin was a vocal opponent of the Stamp Act, a tax passed by the British Parliament in 1765 that required all legal documents, publications, and printed materials to carry a "stamp" proving they had paid a required tax on all such documents levied by the British. The British argued that this tax helped to defray costs for the defense of the colonies, but many, including Benjamin Franklin, opposed it arguing that they had no direct representatives defending their interests in the British Parliament and, therefore, should not be taxed without due representation. Franklin and others argued that the colonial governments, not the British Parliament, should control and regulate colonial finances. In October 1765, a colonial "congress" convened in America to formally oppose the Stamp Act and to draft a petition of protest that was then delivered to the British king and Parliament. In 1766, the British Parliament repealed the act, but remained resolute in its claim to have the authority to pass laws that regulated affairs in the colonies. This dispute, along with other related problems, ultimately provided the basis for the American independence movement. In this excerpt, members of the lower house of the British Parliament, the House of Commons, question Franklin about the Stamp Act, soon after its repeal. Source: L. Jesse Lemisch, editor, Benjamin Franklin: The Autobiography and Other Writings (New York: New American Library, 1961), 256-260.
THE EXAMINATION OF DOCTOR BENJAMIN FRANKLIN...IN THE BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS, RELATIVE TO THE REPEAL OF THE AMERICAN STAMP ACT... [February, 1766] Q. What is your name, and place of abode? A. Franklin, of Philadelphia.... Q. From the thinness of the back settlements, would not the stamp act be extremely inconvenient to the inhabitants, if executed? A. To be sure it would; as many of the inhabitants could not get stamps when they had occasion for them without taking long journeys, and spending perhaps Three or Four Pounds, that the Crown might get Six pence. 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. Don't you know that the money arising from the stamps was all to be laid out in America? A. I know it is appropriated by the act to the American service; but it will be spent in the conquered Colonies, where the soldiers are, not in the Colonies that pay it. Q. Is there not a balance of trade due from the Colonies where the troops are posted, that will bring back the money to the old colonies? A. I think not. I believe very little would come back. I know of no trade likely to bring it back. I think it would come from the Colonies where it was spent directly to England; for I have always observed, that in every Colony the more plenty the means of remittance to England, the more goods are sent for, and the more trade with England carried on.... Q. Do you 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 towards 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, obe dience 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 are 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 com merce. 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 us. Q. And what is their temper now? A. O, very much altered. Q. Did you ever hear the authority of parliament to make laws for American questioned till lately? A. The authority of Parliament was allowed to be valid in all laws, except such as should lay internal taxes. It was never disputed in laying duties to regulate commerce.... 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 privileges, and always spoke of it with the utmost respect and veneration. Arbitrary ministers, they thought, might possibly, at times, attempt to oppress them; but they relied on it, that the parliament, on application, would always give redress. They remembered, with gratitude, a strong instance of this, when a bill was brought into parliament, with a clause, to make royal instructions laws in the colonies, which the House of Commons would not pass, and it was thrown out. 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 juries, and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions. Q. Don't you think they would submit to the stamp-act, if it was modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and the duty reduced to some particulars, of small moment? A. No; they will never submit to it.... Q. What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same principle with that of the stamp-act? How would the Americans receive it? A. Just as they do this. They would not pay it. Q. Have not you 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 right 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. Can any thing less than a military force carry the stamp act into execution? A. I do not see how a military force can be applied to the purpose. Q. Why may it not? A. Suppose a military force sent into America, they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man to take stamps who chuses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may in deed make one. Q. If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be in the consequences? A. A 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. How can the commerce be affected? A. You will find, that if the act is not repealed, they will take very little of your manufacturers in a short time. Q. Is it in their power to do without them? A. I think they may very well do without them.... 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 inhabitants, 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 infringe ment 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 replied upon it, from the first settlement of the province, that the parliament never would, nor could, by colour of that clause in the charter, assume a right of taxing them, till it had qualified itself to exercise such right, by admitting repre sentatives from the people to be taxed, who ought to make a part of that common consent. Q. Are there any words in the chapter 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 shew 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. What used to be the pride of the Americans? A. To indulge in the fashions and manufacturers of Great Britain. Q. What is now their pride? A. To wear their old cloaths over again, till they can make new ones.