Several questions continue to nag.
Paine was discharged twice from the
revenue, in Alford and Lewes. How was
Paine reinstated into the excise office so
expeditiously? How could Paine reject
the first post offered at Grampound
after his restoration to the revenue?
Why and how is Paine singled out to
be on a committee of eight prior to the
petition and the pamphlet? Why is he
discharged from his post from Lewes if
he was in the service of his superiors in
the writing of ‘The Case of the Officers
of Excise’?
Hindmarch points out that Swallow,
Paine’s superior officer in Alford,
after an anonymous complaint, was
demoted after he was found using
Paine’s orderly books. Even Oldys,
Paine’s malicious but exacting first
biographer notes: ‘Whether while he
rode as an exciseman at Alford his
practices had been misrepresented by
malice, tradition has not told us’. From
the detailed examination of the excise
record surrounding the Alford period, it
appears that Paine was discharged for
not joining in the corrupt practices of
the local officers of excise. Paine had
stood out.
In Paine’s application letter to the board
of excise for reinstatement there is a
revealing detail. He wrote the letter in
the central excise office in London on
July 3rd 1766. Paine’s letter states: “The
time I enjoyed my former commission
was short and unfortunate- an officer
only a single year. No complaint of
the least dishonesty or intemperance
ever appeared against me”. He was
reinstated the next day on the 4th of
July 1766. The denial of any wrongdoing
is clear, and must have been accepted
by the board of commissioners. This
was an unusually quick reinstatement,
one day. This strongly implies that
Earle, the officer in charge of appeals,
helped Paine write the letter in the
correct tone and style, vouching for
him after personal interview. Earl would
have been fully aware of Paine’s unfair
treatment at Alford.
As to Paine’ eventual discharge from the
service in Lewes, a substituting officer,
Edward Clifford, was temporarily sent
to Lewes. Clifford lodged a complaint
that Paine was absent without leave.
The message was rushed to London in
an unseemly manner on the 6th of April
1774 in Lewes. The board’s decision in
London to discharge Paine was made
on the 8th of April 1774. This clearly
circumvented due process. The local
collector, the highest excise official in
Lewes, would normally have dealt with
such an issue in the first instance.
There is no evidence that Paine sold up
and left Lewes for any other reasons
than of his own choosing. The decision
to sell his assets was made before his
discharge. He had settled amicably
with his wife Elizabeth and discharged
any current business debts with the
sale of his business assets. Paine was
more than likely expecting promotion
due to his contact at high level with the
excise service. He had been selected
to be on a committee of honest excise
officers, and from those had been
selected to write for the whole of the
excise, including his superiors, with one
voice. He had been given access to
information at the head office in London.
He had been selected, financed and
encouraged from the
highest level.
Oldys comments that “George Lewis
Scott ---could not, for the third time,
obtain our author’s (Paine) restoration as
an officer of excise, he recommended
hi m strongly to that great man Dr.
Benjamin Franklin, as a person who
could, at that epoch, be useful in
America”. Oldys has inadvertently given
us the strongest clue that Scott was
instrumental in Paine’s entire excise
career. Paine was eventually thrust
into high politics with the assistance
of Scott, an influential member of the
board of excise.
Paine also received praise from the clerk
to the board while he was in Lewes. Clio
Rickman, a former resident of Lewes
and close friend, and biographer of
Paine, notes that “Mr Jenner, principal
clerk in the excise office, London, had
several times occasion to write letters
from the board of excise thanking Mr.
Paine for his assiduity in his profession,
and for his information and calculations
forwarded to the office”.
and an unconsummated marriage?
The pamphlet was ahead of its time.
Paine was ahead of his time.
Paine departed to America with the
confidence of Scott, Franklin and a
potently developed set of skills under
his belt. Not dejected, but hopeful.
England’s loss was America’s gain.
Paine was to coin the phrase ‘The
United States of America’ and give the
colonists the confidence to live without
a King. Who knows how it would have
turned out if Parliament had the wit
to accept Paine’s recommendations?
Perhaps a small pay rise and marginally
better conditions would have avoided
the loss of the Americas. We shall never
know. But Paine did try his best, and
over a sustained period of time, for his
native country. We can now see where
his smouldering fury was seeded.
Being let down twice by the very
establishment he was enlisted by to help
must have given Thomas Paine much
food for thought. And the subsequences
of that thought had serious world
implications. Paine was unusually gifted
to observe and write. Lewes society
and politics were unusually accessible.
These two interacting factors have had
a profound effect on the political and
cultural development of the Atlantic
seaboard for the last two hundred years.
By Paul Myles
For more read: Thomas Paine in Lewes
1768-1774 A Prelude to American
Independence or visit thomaspaineuk.
Here lies the enigma; summary
dismissal coincided with support and
help from the very board that issued
the notice of discharge. There were
very powerful forces at play, powerful
enough to bypass the local due process
of investigation, powerful enough to
override one of the commissioners
sitting on the board. This may have
represented an agreed deal to move
Paine sideways to America due to
political pressure from the treasury,
or perhaps Paine was viewed as
an expendable experiment. Paine
himself acknowledges the failure of
the pamphlet, noting that excisemen
were not popular. What would be
more attractive, a future in a new land
of opportunity with a golden letter of
approval from Benjamin Franklin, or a
future in a provincial town, a small shop
51