FOOTNOTES:

[136] These rules first appeared in a London newspaper about the beginning of the year 1774, and have several times since been introduced into our public prints.—The minister alluded to is supposed to be the Earl of Hillsborough.

"The causes and motions of seditions (says Lord Bacon) are, innovation in religion, taxes, alteration of laws and customs, breaking of privileges, general oppression, advancement of unworthy persons, strangers, dearths, disbanded soldiers, factions grown desperate, and whatsoever in offending people joineth and knitteth them in a common cause." B. V.

[137] One of the American writers affirms, "That there has not been a single instance in which they have complained, without being rebuked, or in which they have been complained against, without being punished."—A fundamental mistake in the minister occasioned this. Every individual in New England (the peccant country) was held a coward or a knave, and the disorders, which spread abroad there, were treated as the result of the too great lenity of Britain! By the aid of this short and benevolent rule, judgment was ever wisely predetermined, to the shutting out redress on the one hand, and inforcing every rigour of punishment on the other. B. V.

[138] I am not versed in Indian affairs, but I find, that in April, 1773, the assembled chiefs of the western nations told one of our Indian agents, "that they remembered their father, the king of Great Britain's message, delivered to them last fall, of demolishing Fort Pittsburg (on the Ohio) and removing the soldiers with their sharp-edged weapons out of the country:—this gave them great pleasure, as it was a strong proof of his paternal kindness towards them." (See Considerations on the Agreement with Mr. T. Walpole for Lands upon the Ohio, p. 9). This is general history: I attempt no application of facts, personally invidious. B. V.

[139] As the reader may be inclined to divide his belief between the wisdom of ministry and the candor and veracity of Dr. Franklin, I shall inform him that two contrary objections may be made to the truth of this representation. The first is, that the conduct of Great Britain is made too absurd for possibility, and the second, that it is not made absurd enough for fact. If we consider that this piece does not include the measures subsequent to 1773, the latter difficulty is easily set aside. The former I can only solve by the many instances in history, where the infatuation of individuals has brought the heaviest calamities upon nations. B. V.