Benjamin Franklin
(1706 - 1790)

"Homespun" Celebrates Indian Corn

To the PRINTER.

VINDEX PATRIAE, a writer in your paper, comforts himself, and the India Company, with the fancy, that the Americans, should they resolve to drink no more tea, can by no means keep that resolution, their Indian corn not affording "an agreeable, or easy digestible breakfast." Pray let me, an American, inform the gentleman, who seems quite ignorant of the matter, that Indian corn, take it for all in all, is one of the most agreeable and wholesome grains in the world; that its green ears roasted are a delicacy beyond expression; that samp, hominy, succatash, and nokehock, made of it, are so many pleasing varieties; and that a johny, or hoe-cake, hot from the fire, is better than a Yorkshire muffin -- But if Indian corn were as disagreeable and indigestible as the Stamp Act, does he imagine we can get nothing else for breakfast? -- Did he never hear that we have oatmeal in plenty, for water-gruel or burgoo; as good wheat, rye, and barley as the world affords, to make frumenty; or toast and ale; that there is every where plenty of milk, butter, and cheese; that rice is one of our staple commodities; that for tea, we have sage and bawm in our gardens, the young leaves of the sweet white hickery or walnut, and, above all, the buds of our pine, infinitely preferable to any tea from the Indies; while the islands yield us plenty of coffee and chocolate? -- Let the gentleman do us the honour of a visit in America, and I will engage to breakfast him every day in the month with a fresh variety, without offering him either tea or Indian corn. -- As to the Americans using no more of the former, I am not sure they will take such a resolution; but if they do, I fancy they will not lightly break it. I question whether the army proposed to be sent among them, would oblige them to swallow a drop more of tea than they chuse to swallow; for, as the proverb says, though one man may lead a horse to the water, ten can't make him drink. Their resolutions have hitherto been pretty steadily kept. They resolved to wear no more mourning; -- and it is now totally out of fashion with near two millions of people; and yet nobody sighs for Norwich crapes, or any other of the expensive, flimsey, rotten, black stuffs and cloths you used to send us for that purpose, with the frippery gauses, loves, ribbands, gloves, &c.;thereunto belonging. -- They resolved last spring to eat no more lamb; and not a joint of lamb has since been seen on any of their tables, throughout a country of 1500 miles extent, but the sweet little creatures are all alive to this day, with the prettiest fleeces on their backs imaginable. Mr. VINDEX's very civil letter will, I dare say, be printed in all our provincial news papers, from Nova Scotia to Georgia; and together with the other kind, polite, and humane epistles of your correspondents PACIFICUS, TOM HINT, &c.;&c. contribute not a little to strengthen us in every resolution that may be of advantage, to our country at least, if not to yours. HOMESPUN.

The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, January 2, 1766

On the Paving of Chancery Lane

To the PRINTER.

By an advertisement in your paper of Wednesday last, I find, "the inhabitants of Chancery-lane are desired to meet at the Crown and Rolls, to consider about new paving the said street." I hope and pray they may not agree to it. Chancery lane is in every respect so like a Chancery suit; it is so very long a lane, so subject to obstructions and delays, one is so unwilling to enter into it, so uneasy and unsafe all the while one is going through it, and so glad to get out of it, that the very reflection on this similarity has often, to my great advantage, deterred me from law, and inclined me rather to end a dispute by arbitration. I therefore wish to see the lane continued in its present state (even after all the rest of the city shall be new paved) as a standing memento that may be beneficial to my fellow citizens. F. B.

The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, January 4, 1766

On the Tenure of the Manor of East Greenwich

To the PRINTER.

I did not think to have given you any farther trouble, having already exprest my sentiments pretty fully, on the impropriety and imprudence of angry reflections on the Americans in the public papers, as more than half the trade of this country is with them; and that trade depends greatly on the regard they have for us, and in consequence for our fashions and fineries, which are by no means necessary to their subsistence; the Northern colonies having among themselves the natural means of furnishing, by a little additional industry, every convenience and ornament of life; and to that industry I apprehended a resentment of harsh and contemptuous treatment might naturally provoke them.

But I cannot take leave of my antagonist VINDEX PATRIAE, without a few remarks on his letter of Friday last. All the mad proceedings of the mobs in America, however disapproved of by the sober and prudent part of the inhabitants, are charged to the account of the country in general, and the people are all involved in one common accusation. He remembers that your papers have informed us of the riots at Boston, but forgets that they likewise informed us, some of the rioters were apprehended and imprisoned, in order to be brought to justice; and that the body of the people detested these violences. It is true, they universally deem the stamp act an infringement of their rights, but then their assemblies have taken no violent measures to oppose it; they have only entered into resolutions among themselves, declaring their sense of these rights; and joined, as we are well assured, in dutiful petitions to the King and Parliament here, that the act may be repealed, and those rights preserved to them. Can more be expected from any subjects, how loyal soever, that think themselves aggrieved? -- Is it right to abuse all England as rebellious, because it has sometimes mobs of weavers, coal-diggers, &c.? Candour then should distinguish in this case fairly, between the proceedings of the assemblies there, and the actions of mobs; the latter are certainly wrong, the former may be so; but if they are, it is a mistaken judgment only of what they think their right; -- of this mistake they may possibly be convinced by reason; -- but I still doubt the argument of your correspondent, proving, or attempting to prove, "that they are represented in parliament, because the manor of East Greenwich in Kent is represented there, and they all live in that manor;" will hardly appear so intelligible, so clear, so satisfactory, and so convincing to the Americans, as it seems it does to himself.

I own it does not appear so to me; and that my plain understanding, unaccustomed to the subtile refinements of law, cannot easily conceive, that in the King's grants of territory in America to the colonists, the words, "to be holden of us, our heirs and successors, as of the manor of East Greenwich, in our county of Kent, in free and common soccage, and not in capite, or by knight's service;" do truly imply, that the lands so granted really lie in East Greenwich. I should rather have thought those words meant only to express, that the tenure should be of the same kind with that of the manor of East Greenwich. The countries held by this tenure, Sir, are perhaps as big as all Europe; and East Greenwich, in the county of Kent, in England, is at most but of a few miles circumference. I have read that the whale swallowed Jonah; and as that is in Holy Writ, to be sure I ought to believe it. But if I were told, that, in fact, it was Jonah that swallowed the whale, I fancy I could myself as easily swallow the whale as the story.

If "New England lies within England," as your correspondent would have the New England men beleive, and particularly in the manor of East Greenwich, a few questions must thence naturally arise, to which his law knowledge will probably furnish ready answers. As, What have these inhabitants of East Greenwich in Kent done, that they, more than any other inhabitants of Kent, should be curbed in their manufactures and commerce? Why are they restrained in making hats of their own beaver, nail rods and steel of their own iron, and cloth of their own wool? Why may not ships from East Greenwich carry its commodities to any part of Europe, and thence bring back others in exchange, with the same freedom that ships may go from any other part of Kent, or of England? And since it is agreed, that by our constitution, the King can raise no money in England but by act of parliament, how has it come to pass, that in consequence of requisitions from the crown, large sums have been raised for its service on these inhabitants of East Greenwich, in the county of Kent, unauthorized by any such act, particularly between three and four millions during the last war? And if this money was illegally taken, whether it ought not to be refunded, and the ministers impeached that advised the measure? These seem questions of some importance, and may possibly admit of satisfactory answers; but to that end I doubt it will be found necessary, that these new inhabitants of East Greenwich in Kent, planted there by your correspondent, should be all sent back, and replaced in their native America.

In considering of these questions, perhaps it may be of use to recollect; that the colonies were planted in times when the powers of parliament were not supposed so extensive, as they are become since the Revolution: -- That they were planted in lands and countries where the parliament had not then the least jurisdiction: -- That, excepting the yet infant colonies of Georgia and Nova Scotia, none of them were settled at the expence of any money granted by parliament: -- That the people went from hence by permission from the crown, purchased or conquered the territory, at the expence of their own private treasure and blood: -- That these territories thus became new dominions of the crown, settled under royal charters, that formed their several governments and constitutions, on which the parliament was never consulted; or had the least participation. -- The people there have had, from the beginning, like Ireland, their separate parliaments, called modestly assemblies: by these chiefly our Kings have governed them. How far, and in what particulars, they are subordinate and subject to the British parliament; or whether they may not, if the King pleases, be governed as domains of the crown, without that parliament, are points newly agitated, never yet, but probably soon will be, thoroughly considered and settled. Different opinions are now entertained concerning them; and till such settlement is made by due authority, it is not criminal to think differently. Therefore, I wish the American opinion may, in the mean time, be treated with less acrimony.

As to VINDEX's accusation of the Americans, "that they run into their country divers commodities of the manufacture of France, to the ruin of Great Britain;" I fancy, they will be apt to answer, Look at home; -- and perhaps it will be found, that in this ruinous trade, the rest of the people of Kent, are not a whit behind-hand with the inhabitants of East Greenwich. Jan. 6, 1766. N. N.

The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, January 11, 1766

"Two Taylors"

To the PRINTER.

TOM HINT's virulence against the people of New York, has been in some sort accounted for by himself, in one of his former letters. It seems, tho' he lived several years in that country, they never extended to him any of that civility they generally shew to strangers. He now tells us, in your paper of Saturday, by way of fresh abuse on that whole people, that "he admires their wonderful sagacity in distinguishing the gentleman from the scoundrel; for in serious truth, it would be a difficult matter for an old-country man to make that distinction among them, after living with them for many years." This will excuse my remarking, that it appears this old-country man has little of that sagacity himself, and, from the difficulty he supposed in making such distinction, might naturally conceive an opinion when he arrived there, that he should be able easily to pass upon those ignorant new-country men, as a gentleman. The event, it seems, did not answer his expectations; and hence he had reason to admire their sagacity, but still continues to be angry at its consequences. -- It puts me in mind of a short story, which, in return for his scraps of plays, I will take the liberty of telling him. Two journeymen Snips, during the season of little business, agreed to make a trip to Paris, with each a fine lac'd waistcoat, in which they promised themselves the great pleasure of being received and treated as gentlemen. On the road from Calais, at every inn, when they called for any thing hastily, they were answered, Tout a l'heure, Tout a l'heure; which not a little surprized them. At length, D -- these French scoundrels, says one, how shrewd they are! I find it won't do; -- e'en let us go back again to London. -- Aye, says 'tother, they must certainly deal with the devil, or, dress'd as we are dress'd, they could not possibly all at first sight have known us to be two taylors. F. B.

The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, January 14, 1766

"Homespun's" Further Defense of Indian Corn

To the PRINTER.

JOHN BULL shews in nothing more his great veneration for good eating, and how much he is always thinking of his belly, than in his making it the constant topic of his contempt for other nations, that they do not eat so well as himself. The roast beef of Old England he is always exulting in, as if no other country had beef to roast; -- reproaching, on every occasion, the Welsh with their leeks and toasted cheese, the Irish with their potatoes, and the Scotch with their oatmeal. And now that we are a little out of favour with him, he has begun, by his attorney VINDEX PATRIAE, to examine our eating and drinking, in order, I apprehend, to fix some horrible scandal of the same kind upon us poor Americans.

I did but say a word or two in favour of Indian corn, which he had treated as "disagreable and indigestible," and this vindictive gentleman grows angry. "Let him tell the world, IF HE DARES (says he) that the Americans prefer it to a place at their own tables." Ah, Sir, I see the dilemma you have prepared for me. If I should not dare to say, that we do prefer it to a place at our tables, then you demonstrate, that we must come to England for tea, or go without our breakfasts: and if I do dare to say it, you fix upon me and my countrymen for ever, the indelible disgrace of being Indian corn-eaters.

I am afraid, Mr. Printer, that you will think this too trifling a dispute to deserve a place in your paper: but pray, good Sir, consider, as you are yourself an Englishman, that we Americans, who are allowed even by Mr. VINDEX to have some English blood in our veins, may think it a very serious thing to have the honour of our eating impeached in any particular whatsoever.

"Why doth he not deny the fact (says VINDEX) that it is assigned to the slaves for their food? To proclaim the wholesomeness of this corn, without assigning a reason why white men give it to their slaves, when they can get other food, is only satirizing the good sense of their brethren in America." In truth I cannot deny the fact, though it should reflect ever so much on the good sense of my countrymen. I own we do give food made of Indian corn to our slaves, as well as eat it ourselves; not, as you suppose, because it is "indigestible and unwholesome;" but because it keeps them healthy, strong and hearty, and fit to go through all the labour we require of them. Our slaves, Sir, cost us money, and we buy them to make money by their labour. If they are sick, they are not only unprofitable, but expensive. Where then was your English good sense, when you imagined we gave the slaves our Indian corn, because we knew it to be unwholesome?

In short, this is only another of Mr. VINDEX's paradoxes, in which he is a great dealer. The first endeavoured to persuade us, that we were represented in the British Parliament virtually, and by fiction: -- Then that we were really represented there, because the Manor of East Greenwich in Kent is represented there, and all the Americans live in East Greenwich. And now he undertakes to prove to us, that taxes are the most profitable things in the world to those that pay them; for that Scotland is grown rich since the Union, by paying English taxes. I wish he would accommodate himself a little better to our dull capacities. We Americans have a great many heavy taxes of our own, to support our several governments, and pay off the enormous debt contracted by the war; we never conceived ourselves the richer for paying taxes, and are willing to leave all new ones to those that like them. At least, if we must with Scotland, participate in your taxes, let us likewise, with Scotland, participate in the Union, and in all the privileges and advantages of commerce that accompanied it.

VINDEX, however, will never consent to this. He has made us partakers in all the odium with which he thinks fit to load Scotland: -- "They resemble the Scots in sentiments (says he) their religion is Scottish; their customs and laws are Scottish; like the Scotch they Judaically observe what they call the Sabbath, persecute old women for witches, are intolerant to other sects, &c." But we must not, like the Scots, be admitted into Parliament; for that, he thinks, would increase "the Scotch interest in England, which is equally hostile to the cause of liberty, and the cause of our church."

Pray, Sir, who informed you that our "laws are Scottish?" The same, I suppose, that told you our Indian corn is unwholesome. Indeed, Sir, your information is very imperfect. The common law of England, is, I assure you, the common law of the colonies: and if the civil law is what you mean by the Scottish law, we have none of it but what is forced upon us by England, in its courts of Admiralty, depriving us of that inestimable part of the common law, trials by juries. And do you look upon keeping the Sabbath, as part of the Scottish law? "The Americans, like the Scots, (you say,) observe what they call the Sabbath." Pray, Sir, you who are so zealous for your church (in abusing other Christians) what do you call it? and where the harm of their observing it? If you look into your prayer-book, or over your altars, you will find these words written, Remember to keep holy the SABBATH Day. This law, tho' it may be observed in Scotland, and has been countenanced by some of your statutes, is, Sir, originally one of God's Commandments: a body of laws still in force in America, tho' they may have become obsolete in some other countries.

Give me leave, Master JOHN BULL, to remind you, that you are related to all mankind; and therefore it less becomes you than any body, to affront and abuse other nations. But you have mixed with your many virtues, a pride, a haughtiness, and an insolent contempt for all but yourself, that, I am afraid, will, if not abated, procure you one day or other a handsome drubbing. Besides your rudeness to foreigners, you are far from being civil even to your own family. The Welch you have always despised for submitting to your government: But why despise your own English, who conquered and settled Ireland for you; who conquered and settled America for you? Yet these you now think you may treat as you please, because, forsooth, they are a conquered people. Why dispise the Scotch, who fight and die for you all over the world? Remember, you courted Scotland for one hundred years, and would fain have had your wicked will of her. She virtuously resisted all your importunities, but at length kindly consented to become your lawful wife. You then solemnly promised to love, cherish, and honour her, as long as you both should live; and yet you have ever since treated her with the utmost contumely, which you now begin to extend to your common children. But, pray, when your enemies are uniting in a Family Compact against you, can it be discreet in you to kick up in your own house a Family Quarrel? And at the very time you are inviting foreigners to settle on your lands, and when you have more to settle than ever you had before, is it prudent to suffer your lawyer, VINDEX, to abuse those who have settled there already, because they cannot yet speak "Plain English?" -- It is my opinion, Master BULL, that the Scotch and Irish, as well as the colonists, are capable of speaking much plainer English than they have ever yet spoke, but which I hope they will never be provoked to speak.

To be brief, Mr. VINDEX, I pass over your other accusations of the Americans, and of the Scotch, that we "Persecute old women for witches, and are intolerant to other sects," observing only, that we were wise enough to leave off both those foolish tricks, long before Old England made the act of toleration, or repealed the statute against witchcraft; so that even you yourself may safely travel through all Scotland and the Colonies, without the least danger of being persecuted as a churchman, or taken (up) for a conjurer. And yet I own myself so far of an intolerant spirit, that though I thank you for the box-in-the-ear you have given TOM HINT, as being, what you justly call him, "a futile calumniator," I cannot but wish he would give you another -- for the same reason.

One word more, however, about the Indian corn, which I began and must end with, even though I should hazard your remarking, that it is certainly "indigestible," as it plainly appears to stick in my stomach. "Let him tell the world, IF HE DARES, (you say) that the Americans prefer it to a place at their tables." -- And, pray, if I should DARE, -- what then? -- Why then -- "You will enter upon a discussion of its salubrity and pleasant taste." -- Really? -- Would you venture to write on the salubrity and pleasant taste of Indian corn, when you never in your life have tasted a single grain of it? -- But why should that hinder your writing on it? Have you not written even on politics? Your's, HOMESPUN.

The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, January 15, 1766