Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Joseph-Étienne Bertier, 27 February 1769
From: Bertier, Joseph-Etienne
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Monsieurà Paris ce 27 fev. 1769
Vous m’avéz fait grand plaisir de m’adresser M. le Capitaine Houry. Vous m’avéz donné l’occasion de vous marquer ma reconnoissance, mon attachement, et mon estime, et de rendre les services dont je suis capable à un homme de merite, et bien aimable. Pour couroner l’oeuvre, il faudroit faire encore un voyage en france. C’est votre pays autant que l’Angleterre, vous y seriés au milieu des franklinistes. Un Père est dans son pays, quand ce pays est habité par ses enfans. Continués, je vous en prie, de m’adresser des gens de merite, et de m’honorer de vos commissions. Je suis avec respect votre très humble et obeissant serviteur
Bertier Frankliniste
J’etois frankliniste sans le savoir, maintenant que je le sais je ne manqueray pas de citer l’auteur de ma secte Monsieur.

Endorsed: Pere Berthier Paris


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Deborah Franklin, 1 March 1769
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Franklin, Deborah

My dear Child,
London, March 1. 1769

I received yours of Jan. 3. per Packet, and one from Sally. I wrote to you very fully by the late Ships. This is only to let you know I am well, and particularly that my Arms, which you enquire after, have perfectly recover’d their Strength. Your Account of Mr. Coleman’s fresh Disorder, grieves me exceedingly. I have had a Visit from Mr. Bache’s Sister, who appears a very agreable, genteel, sensible young Woman. My Love to Sally and our other Children. Remember me affectionately to Mr. Rhoads, Roberts and other Friends. Send word to Billy that I have receiv’d his Letter of Jan. 4. which I shall answer fully per Sparks. I am as ever, my dear Debby, Your affectionate Husband
B Franklin

I received Sally’s little Letter with yours and enclose one from Miss Bache for her.

Addressed: To / Mrs Franklin / Philadelphia / via N York / per Packet / B Free Franklin


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from James Parker, 1 March 1769
From: Parker, James
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Honoured Sir
Newyork. March 1. 1769
By Mrs. Franklin’s Desire, I now send by this Opportunity, two small Kegs of Keskatomas Nuts, one is a Firkin the other a small Quarter Cask: They contain very near a Bushel and a half. I hope they may come safe and sound to your Hands: As I have been now a great while confined by the Gout, I could not go out about them; but as the Second Mate, is a near Neighbour’s Son, and long Acquaintance, I have committed them to his Care, and he is a worthy young Man.
The Packet’s Letters may probably reach you before this, as she is to be discharged three Days hence: As your Business so engages all your Attention, that I presume not to hope the Pleasure of any Letters from you, not having had one these many Months; I will not intrude farther on your Time, than just to add, humble Complements from Your most obliged Servant
James Parker.
PS. I sent a 2d Bill of a Set of Ex[change] by Capt. Arnold to you about 10 Days ago, the first of which I sent to Mr. Foxcroft, who is gone down to Virginia, I have not received the Third. It was from Mr. Hubbart for £60 Sterl. some Shillings. And I shall send by the Packet A Bill for £100 Sterl. more, which I have just received: Would have sent one of them now, but have received only one of the Set yet.

Addressed: For / Dr Benjamin Franklin / Craven Street / London / Per Capt. Kemble / Newspapers


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from William Franklin, 2 March 1769
From: Franklin, William
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Honored Father,
Burlington March 2d. 1769

The Mail which [left?] England in December is arriv’d, but I have not [heard?] from you, nor had I one by the November Mail. I apprehend that it must be owing either to the Letters being detain’d at the Post Office in London, or else to their being intercepted by some impertinently curious Person between New-York and here. At first I was apprehensive that you might be indisposed, and not able to write, but I have just had the Pleasure of hearing from Mr. Galloway that he has receiv’d a Letter from you by the last Mail. Perhaps Lord H. may have given Orders to the Postmasters General to stop your Letters to me, for I have heard from good Authority, that Secretarys of State frequently do things of [this?] kind, which occasion’d me to write Office Account [in the?] Manner I did upon a Cover of the Packet I sent you in January—in hopes that, if it was stopt, they would, upon seeing that Indorsement, examine no further. My Packet of London Chronicles which came by the two last Mails were both broke open and several of them stole, which I think must have been done either by the Posts or Postmasters between this and New York, and possibly your Letters, if you wrote any to me, are gone the same Way. Should this be the Case, it would be best for the future, when you write to me by the Packet, to enclose your Letter to Parker, or Colden, and desire him to send it under a Cover of his own directed to the Postmaster at Burlington.
I sent you a Copy of Lord H—’s last Letter to me, No. 16, by Mr. Wharton, and I now send you a Duplicate of it, and of my Answer; the latter of which, if you have no Objection to it, please to fo[rward in] any way you think proper to his Lordship. If you receiv’d and altered the Original perhaps it may not be necessary to send a Duplicate. I have receiv’d no Letters from him since the above-mentioned. I likewise send a short one to him (No. 16) which should be seal’d and forwarded.
Nothing new of a public Nature has occurr’d since my last, except what you will see in the Papers. The Boston People continue their Attacks on Governor B[ernar]d and the Commissioners and have lately begun, in their Journal of Occurrences, to attack the Military, which seems very impolitic, (as the Officers are as little fond of the Governor as the Bostonians themselves are) and probably will be productive of some ill Blood among them.
The Piece sign’d Francis Lynn, in Answer to Crawley’s Letter is much admir’d, and has been reprinted, I believe, in all the Papers on the Continent. Every Body attributes it to you, and some have had Sagacity enough to discover that the Signature is a Pun on the real Name of the Author. I fancy Mr. Crawley will not be fond of continuing the Correspondence.
I lately saw at a Gentleman’s House, Priestly History of Electricity, in which very honorable Mention is made of your Experiments: Pray who is Dr. Priestly. I find he writes upon a great Variety of Subjects, and as far as I can judge from some Extracts which I have seen in the Reviews, &c he seems a Man of great Ability. A new Edition of your Experiments is advertised, with Corrections and Additions, which I long much to see. It is surprizing how you could find Time to attend to T[hings?] of that Nature a[mid all?] your Hurry of public Business, and Variety of other Engagements.
I have employ’d a good deal of my Time lately in reading Books of Husbandry, as I am soon to be put in Possession of my Farm; and I have engaged an English Farmer to act as Overseer, who is strongly recommended to me as a Person every way qualified for that Employment. The worst on it is, that he has no Knowledge of the Drill or New Husbandry (as it is called) which, from some Trials lately made, promises to succeed well in America. I have a first Vol. of Mills’s Husbandry belonging to you, and I have a Notion that you had one or more Volumes of that Work, and lent them to Mr. Bartram, but am not certain. I understand that there are in all 5 Volumes of that Work, and should be glad to have them complete, as they are said to contain almost all that is valuable in the best Books on the Subject. If there is any Likelihood of their being a Second Edition publish’d soon, I would rather wait for that, as new Discoveries and Improvements in Agriculture are making every Day. I send you enclosed a List of several other Books, which I shall be much oblig’d to you, if you would purchase for me, and charge to my Account.
In the Gentleman’s Magazine for Janry. 1767, is a Description of a new invented Plough for Cutting Trenches and making Drains; for the constructing of which the Inventor receiv’d a Premium of 50 Guineas from the Society for the Encouragement of Arts. There are likewise some Improvements in it proposed by the Editor of the Magazine, which make it a much more simple Instrument. A Plough of this kind would be one of the most useful Things that could be introduced int[o this? cou]ntry, where Labor is so dear. I wish you would make some Enquiry concerning it, and if you think it will answer have one constructed in the best Manner for me, and sent over. Perhaps some farther Improvements may occur to you, or some of your Friends, on seeing it.
Pray what is become of the Machine for Pulling [stumps] by the Roots. Was it ever so improv’d in England as to answer the Purpose? I have some Thoughts of trying whether I can’t pull them down by applying the Power of a Screw, such as they have in the Timber Wheels in Philadelphia. I have likewise thought of a Windlas, and have had the Model of one made, on a new Construction, the Axis turning in a Gudgeon like that of a Wheelbarrow, whereby the Friction is much less than in the common Way; but I think if [I can] contrive a Method of fixing the Screw, so that I can turn it with Levers, I shall be able to exert a much greater Force. Had I your Genius for Mechanics I should not doubt of Success. I likewise want a good Hand-Mill, and should be glad to know whether any of those communicated to the Society of Arts are got into general Use?

I make no Apology for troubling you with Things of this Nature, as I know you love to encourage whatever has a useful Tendency.
Young Dunlap has publish’d an Edition of the Sermons to Asses, and to give them a Sale, has had the Impudence to attribute them to you. I am told Mein the Bookseller at Boston has done the same.
I send you enclosed one of Mr. Odell’s Poems on Liberty.
If Mr. Wharton is arriv’d, please to acquaint him that I have lately wrote to him via Bristol.
Betsy sends her Duty; and desires to know if you receiv’d a Letter from her during my Absence? I am always Honored Sir, Your dutiful and obliged Son
Wm. Franklin


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from James Parker, 4 March 1769: résumé
From: Parker, James
To: Franklin, Benjamin

[March 4, 1769. Repeats the substance of his letters of February 17 and March 1, printed above. Adds that he has received another bill of exchange from Postmaster Hubbart for £100, drawn by Nathaniel Rogers on a London merchant. The worst of the winter was in February, which is unusual. He hopes his gout will not lose him his place.]


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Joseph Galloway, 9 March 1769
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Galloway, Joseph

Dear Sir
London March 9. 1769
I wrote a few Lines to you per Packet, in which I mention’d that at a late Meeting of the Agents they had agreed to join in a Petition for the Repeal of the Duty Act. I was desir’d to make a Draft, which I did. The Proposition came from Mr. Garth, who is a Member of Parliament and Agent for S. Carolina. The Opinion was that the Ministry might probably wish to get rid of that Act if they had a fair Opportunity given them; that they could not do it on any of the Petitions that had been offer’d, because those Petitions denied the Right of Parliament and therefore could not be receiv’d: And if we were to petition, giving other Reasons, our Petition must be receiv’d, and would give Government an Opening to relieve itself and America if so disposed. I accordingly drew a Petition of which I send you the Copy, wherein, tho’ we did not mention the Right, we avoided saying anything that might be construed as a Relinquishing of it; and I used some Words that should imply what they would not allow us to mention. The Draft was approv’d at our next Meeting by all present; but two being absent it was agreed to shew it to them before we proceeded farther, and to meet again as last Tuesday. At this Meeting their Minds began to change, from an Apprehension that their Constituents might think the not mentioning the Right was a tacit relinquishing of it, and be offended with them for taking such a Step; and that even Government here might pretend so to construe it. After debating it some time, and one declaring that his Instructions were express not to ask for a Repeal on any other Foundation than the Incompetency of the Right, it was found that no one car’d to sign it unless it was to be sign’d by all; and being besides assur’d that the Ministry were absolutely determin’d to do nothing farther in the Affairs of America this Session, we broke up, concluding to drop the Petition. Mr. Jackson however privately told me, he intended to move for the Repeal in the House on the Grounds of the Petition, tho he had no Prospect of Success; but it would give an Opportunity for some Debates which might be of Use.
Gov. Pownall has taken the Part of being a warm Friend for the Colonies in Parliament. I sent you with the Votes his Speech against the Resolutions: He had it printed to communicate privately to his Friends among the Members, that they might see what they could not hear; for the Court Party kept a continual Talk during the whole time of his Speaking, to prevent his being heard. He has given me some Copies, and I send you herewith another. If it should be publish’d with you, his Name must not be mention’d.
On the whole it is my clear Opinion that nothing will bring on a Change of Measures here but our unanimous Resolution to consume no more of their Goods, while these Acts are continued: We mention’d but one in the Petition, leaving the other for a future Attempt, as apprehending we might by asking too much at once fail of getting anything. If our People enter into such Engagements, I could wish it were not among the Members only, but all the Inhabitants. The Clamours of the Manufacturers here are the most likely thing to bring the American Minister to his Senses. But whether the Acts are ever repeal’d or not, the Frugality and Industry will work greatly to our Advantage, and make Money plenty among us, tho we should never be allow’d to issue Paper. I am Dear Sir Your most obedient humble Servant
B Franklin

In Franklin’s hand: I have been oblig’d by Hurry to make use of Help in Copying. But it is a faithful trusty Hand, tho’ not a neat one.
B F.
Jos. Galloway, Esqr


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to John Winthrop, 11 March 1769
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Winthrop, John

Dear Sir,
London, March 11. 1769
At length after much Delay and Difficulty I have been able to obtain your Telescope that was made by Mr. Short before his Death. His Brother, who succeeds in the Business, has fitted it up and compleated it. He has followed the Business many Years at Edinburgh, is reckon’d very able, and therefore I hope every thing will be found right; but as it is only just finish’d, I have no time left to get any philosophical or astronomical Friends to examine it as I intended, the Ship being on the Point of sailing, and a future Opportunity uncertain. Enclos’d is his Direction Paper for opening and fixing it. I have not yet got the Bill of the Price: it is to be made from the deceased Mr. Short’s Book of Memorandums of Orders, in which he enter’d this Order of ours and as it is suppos’d the Price: I do not remember, it is so long since, whether it was £100 or 100 Guineas; and the Book is in the Hands of the Executors, as I understand; When I have the Account, I shall pay it as I did Bird’s for the Transit Instrument, which is 40 Guineas, and then shall apply for the whole to Mr. Mauduit. By the way, I wonder that I have not heard from you of the Receipt of that Instrument, which went from hence in September per Capt. Watt. I hope it got safe to hand, and gave Satisfaction: The Ship was the same that Mr. Rogers went in, who I hear is arriv’d, and by him too I sent the Philosophic Transactions, with a Number of Copies of your Paper as printed separately. But I have no Letter from you since that by the young Gentleman you recommended to me, Grandson to Sir Wm. Pepperell, which I think was dated about the Beginning of October, when you could not have receiv’d them.
By a late Ship, I sent your College a Copy of the new Edition of my Philosophical Papers; and others I think for yourself and for Mr. Bowdoin. I should apologize to you for inserting therein some part of our Correspondence with out first obtaining your Permission: But as Mr. Bowdoin had favour’d me with his Consent, for what related to him; I ventur’d to rely on your Good Nature as to what related to you, and I hope you will forgive me.
I have got from Mr. Ellicot the Glasses, &c. of the long Galilean Telescope which he presents to your College. I put them into the Hands of Mr. Nairne, the Optician, to examine and put them in Order. I thought to have sent them by this Ship, but am disappointed; they shall go by the next if possible.
There is nothing new here in the philosophical Way at present. With great and sincere Esteem, I am, Dear Sir, Your most obedient and most humble Servant
B Franklin
P.S. There is no Prospect of getting the Duty Acts repeal’d this Session if ever. Your steady Resolutions to consume no more British Goods may possibly if persisted in have a good Effect another Year. I apprehend the Parliamentary Resolves and Address will tend to widen the Breach. Inclos’d I send you Governor Pownall’s Speech against these Resolves; his Name is not to be mention’d. He appears to me a hearty Friend to America; tho’ I find he is suspected by some on Account of his Connections.
John Winthrop Esqr


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from James Parker, 20 March 1769
From: Parker, James
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Honoured Sir
New-York, March 20, 1769
Inclosed in this comes a Bill of Exchange for Fifty-five pounds Sterl. on Messrs. Sargent, Chambers & Co. which from a presumption of your Goodness, I have troubled you with on the following Occasion: Having collected up all that I could of Mr. Balfour of Edinburg’s Books, I got them sold at Auction, which produced as much Money as purchased £25 Sterl. but as I could not get a single Bill so small, and Mr. Relfe, (now in our Jail) being desirous of purchasing a Bill for £30 Sterl. to send to one Mr. Bird of London, the Person who tried to get a Bill for him, found it also not practicable, as Nobody would draw under £50 Sterl. so we at last agreed to join the Stock, and purchase the inclosed. And to this purpose I have given an Order of this same Day’s Date, to Mr. Relfe for him to send to Mr. Bird, to call upon you for the £30 which I am sure you will pay, when you receive it: but if this Bill should not be accepted or paid, and so protested you will not pay that Money, as he must run that Part of the Risk as well as I. I have also sent another Order to Mr. Balfour, acquainting him with the same Matter, and don’t doubt, but the same Measures will be taken in Regard to him: and if Charges shall accrue on this Affair, I must see you paid them.
I have also sent you the second of a Bill of £100, I received from Mr. Hubbart, the first of which I sent you by the Packet, the 5th of this Instant, which I hope you will have received. I will write again per next Packet. Mean while I am Your most obliged Servant
James Parker.

Addressed: For / Dr Benjamin Franklin / Craven-Street / London


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Joseph Galloway, 21 March 1769
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Galloway, Joseph

Dear Sir
London, March 21. 1769
Inclos’d is a Bill of Lading for the Telescope; I hope it will get safe to hand, and give Satisfaction. I have not yet got the Maker’s Account. It was with great Difficulty got done to go by this Ship.
  We have been greatly alarmed last Week by a Project of Lord Barrington’s (Secretary at War) to bring in a Clause to be added to the American Mutiny Bill, impowering Military Officers in America to quarter their Troops in private Houses. He had very insidiously conceal’d his Intention, in order to surprize the House into it when the Bill was gone thro’ and just ready for engrossing: But we made such a Clamour about it, that the Ministry disclaim’d the Measure. Mr. Barré roasted him on it very severely; and the House would not come into it. I was so taken up in running about on this Occasion for two or three days, that I could not attend to examine the Telescope: but as it is made by the best Workman we now have, and a very honest Man, I rely on its being good, and well pack’d up.
Inclos’d is an additional Clause for the Mutiny Bill as propos’d by Mr. Pownall; part of it is adopted with some Variations; I cannot yet say precisely what they are; but you shall know per next Packet. With great Esteem, I am, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant
B Franklin
P.S. The Session hastens to a Conclusion, and no Probability yet appears that the Acts will be repealed.
Jos. Galloway Esqr


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from James Parker, 29 March 1769
From: Parker, James
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Honoured Sir
N York, March 29. 1769
This Day yours of the 22d December and 4th January via Philadelphia, came to Hand. And tho’ I had determined not to trouble you with long Epistles, yet at this Time I think I shall tire your Patience: if so, lay the Letter by, till you have more Leisure.
My Son arrived here the Beginning of January, when I had been laid up with the Gout five or 6 Days. He knew not of his Wife’s Death till he came within the Hook. After sauntering about the Town, a whole Week, our Election was to come on, and several little Jobs offering, and I unable myself, I asked him to go to Work; he pretended to be very willing and desirous to do so; He was in the Office some Days, but not so much Work done as I should have thought—and the News was much behind-hand on the Sunday at Noon, and tho’ he saw it, and I had only two poor Prentices, he went off, and I saw him no more till Tuesday Morning. My two poor Boys stood it out all Night, and happily accomplished it by Monday Morn. Tuesday Morn I received a Note from him telling me he had a Mind to go down to Woodbridge. I told him he might go where he pleased forever; for I could put no Dependance on him. He went. That Week more electioneering Jobs presenting: and I being just able to crawl, I ventured myself and work’d two Days, and in that Week with my Boys did as much Work as they had done the Week before, but at the same time knock’d myself up, to such a Degree, that I could not move a Fortnight after: He staid there about 3 Weeks and then wrote me several Supplicating Letters, that if I would give him Encouragement he would come, and be diligent; I told him, unless he could resolve to act rationally and to be depended on, he need never to come. He came however, and the third Day, he went out in the Forenoon, at a Time he saw the Boy that work’d, taken from Work to carry in some Wood, and the Work standing still. A few Hours after a small Job came in, and we were obliged to let the Wood lye till Night, and set the Boy about the Job, which being wanted in Haste gave me double Pain in not having a Hand capable of doing it speedily: he never came near us, till Night, when I told him, I was sorry he attempted to come; for I found he was a broken Reed, and wish’d him to leave me forever; for he only would ruin me, and himself also; upon which he went off again. While he was at Woodbridge, he had contracted another Acquaintance with a young Woman, to whom he went, and immediately married again. It is one small Comfort, that she was a Woman of good Character, and has with her only Sister, a Small Plantation worth about £700, or perhaps £800, which I suppose he will try to attain, to enable him to spend more of his Days in Idleness and Dissipation. You may remember I had a Brother who went to North-Carolina, whose Children by his first Wife, were lost, with my other Brother at Sea. This Brother got married again, and being a Ship-Carpenter by Trade, he had purchased a Tract of Cedar Land on the Banks of Currituck Inlet in North Carolina, where he made a Living by getting Ship Timber and selling it. It pleased God to take him away the 27th of December, 1767, leaving a Wife with 7 young Children, and his Wife pregnant with the 8th. On his Death Bed he saw he should leave his Wife destitute of the Means of living: and he could only recommend them to the Care of Heaven, and to me: As I was not born for myself, and all I have is the Gift of God, who has made me Steward only of it, when he Calls, I should obey: therefore looking on this as one of the Calls of Heaven, I sent for her, with a View to place them at my House in Woodbridge, where the Children might have some Education, to enable them to be something more than Savages. As she was with Child she could not come till she was delivered And accordingly she was delivered in the Summer following, and arrived here with all her Infants the 5th Day of October last, two Days before Sammy’s Wife died. Full of Trouble on every Quarter, I blessed God, it was no Worse: I carried the Corps to Woodbridge to inter with her Family: at the same Time carried my poor Sister and her Children down there: There is House-Room enough: She is a good sort of a Woman, the two eldest are Daughters, whom I employ there in spinning, the 6 young ones are Boys, the youngest but a few Months old, and having not been named yet, I directed her to call it Franklin, in Remembrance of my Friend and Patron: The Boys I send to School: they are good-looking Children, brave and hearty, and I flatter my self they may possibly become good Members of the Community in Time, if it please God to spare my Life and give me Ability to support them till they can help themselves: My Son’s Misconduct, and my own Infirmities, make this Load the heavier: but I am determined to struggle on, and never give out while I have Life: and tho’ the Hand of God seems often heavy on me, I trust it is for wise Ends, and that in his Providence, I shall not be forsaken, whilst I continue to do my possible, which I will do, as long as I can. I keep my Press and Letter yet at Woodbridge, and as I still have the Jersey Work, I chuse to keep it there, and go down thither, when I have publick Work to do: Soon after my Son was married, he begged of me, to let him live in that House, as that belonging to his Wife was leased out, and to work with the Materials, if any Work offered; but I assured him, I would not suffer him to insult or abuse his Aunt, nor to let him into the House without her Leave and Consent: but that he readily got: and he now promises to reform: How far, or how honest his Pretensions may be, God only knows, but I have told him, I would not trust him with any Thing, till he had given better Proofs than he has hitherto done, of being trust-worthy: In this State they stand at present. There is little or no Work to be had there, only at the Time of the Assembly sitting, unless its forced, as I have experienced for 12 or 13 Years. The Times are really distressing here: and yet every Thing very dear, much more so than ever I knew it: I print full 30 Quire of News-papers, but they will not subsist me, tho’ 16 Year ago, Money might be saved at that: Provisions being here more than double what they were then: My Sickness prevents me from working much myself; and I am chiefly a Sufferer by not being able to go out to collect News: I have but one Journey man, and he is not capacitated for such Work, and three Boys, neither of which are good for such a Business. I have tried to get a suitable one, but hither to not able: Lewis Jones left me soon after he was free, and went to work with a new Printer just setup, who had got Mein & Fleeming of Boston’s Plan for a Newspaper which they have published, but murdered in the Publication: but they are going to publish a New York Chronicle, large as Goddard’s. I don’t think them equal to the Task, as I had the Trial of the best Hand, and never had a Worse. They are Scots Lads: and if they be fortunate Fools, they will have no Need of Wisdom, otherwise they will fall through. I hear they have a tolerable Run of Subscribers, as the Plan is specious, if they are capable of executing it but This Time must shew. Lewis now works with Game, and I hear is married.
But enough of these Matters, I come now to one that gives me some pain to relate; tho’ it is done to prevent any Misrepresentations taking place with you, and what I say shall be strictly Truth.
You may remember, when Benny Mecom surrendered up at New York, and quitted the Place, he went to New-Haven: I had offered him that Place in the following Manner: He should go up and see it, and if we could agree for the Rent he should have it: My Words were this, That Goddard had given Green for the Press and Letter at Providence 100 Dollars per An. that I thought that was too much by one Half; but that if he thought one Half too much, he should make his own Proposal: I shall pass by the Difficulties I had to move him: but he went, he saw, he liked, and wrote me word, that if I would consent, he would be willing to allow me 20 Dollars for the first Year, 30 for the 2d—40 for the 3d—and 50 for the 4th—which would be 35 on an Average, if I would engage it for 4 Years. I told him, content, on Condition, I own’d it so long: for as I was probably to dispute it with Holt or Col. Hunter, I could not absolutely promise so long; but if not his first Years were low. The whole Time elapsed, without a Copper of Rent, tho’ I trusted him also on his going up with about £10 of Paper: He had the Post-Office, and he fell short with that, and is so still, and on my scolding at him about that, he resigned it, saying it did him more Harm than Good. When his 4 Years were out, and I could get Nothing, I told him, I could not afford to support him any longer, nor trust him with the Materials any more: And as Green came to New Haven, and set up in Opposition to him, and gained Ground on him I told him, that I did not think he would ever do as a Master: for that he had not Courage or Spirit enough to drive himself: but that I believed he would do better as a Journey man, and as he had try’d Boston and New York, there did not appear good Prospects there: but inasmuch as Goddard had both wrote to me, and advertised for Hands, I believed he might do the [work?]. Accordingly he went first thither, and agreed with Goddard for 35s. per Week (higher Wages than ever I had or could give) and then went back, and took his Wife and Family. I believe would he have been careful and diligent, he might have there done well: but Goddard says he found he could place no Dependance on him, while Benny says he was slack in paying his Wages: they parted, and Ben’s Distresses I suppose touch’d Mrs. Franklin, and she lays all the Blame on me: Now, Sir, I dare appeal to you, if I were to blame; I was unable to support him any longer, My Tools were worn out, and if ever I came to Account about them, I must allow all his Rent. I have since had part of the Letters brought here, and hired the Press and Letter to Green, at the Rate of 30 Dollars per An. the first Year’s Rent he has paid me since Benny’s Absence. Benny owes the Post-Office yet a good Sum, which I believe he will never be able to pay. I would do all I could for him, but it was hard for me to bear him, when I had so many other Pressures.
By Capt. Townsend who saild a few Days ago, I sent the first of a Bill of Exchange for £55 Sterl. the 2d comes with this. Of that Bill £30 belongs to Mr. Relfe, now in Jail here, to be paid by you on his Account to one John Bird of London: the other £25 is for Mr. John Balfour, of Edinburgh, being the Amount of all the remaining Books I could find of his, which I got sold at Auction: I hope you will receive it, and pay it as desired: Our Reason for it, was I could not get a small Bill, so join’d with him for this: I have sent to each of them respectively by Townsend, an Order on you for the Sum: but if Townsend should be lost, you can pay them without and take their Receipt which will answer the same End. I sent also by Townsend, the 2d Bill of a Set I had from Boston, the first of which I sent by the last Packet.
After your Post-Office Suit was determin’d at New Haven the Money was paid, and the Attachment on Holt’s House and Land taken off. I immediately attach’d it on my own private Account, on Holt’s Bond I had. I got Judgment last April, on Condition of Stay of Execution till November, as Holt pleaded he did not owe me much, if Accounts were settled, and he would get them done before November. The Time came, but no Settlement. Execution was delay’d till January, when no Accounts appearing the Place was apprized [appraised], and Execution writ[;] the Place I was by their Laws obliged to take at the Appraisement—but it leaves near £70 unpaid on the Bond and Judgment. These were appraised at something more than £350 our Money, and as the Title is now in me, I will try to sell them. So far, so good. No Accounts yet settled: I hitherto have had Writs out for Holt, but I this Day made him Propositions, which I hope he will accept—and tho’ I do not expect much more of him, being apprehensive he is really on the decline, yet I will try to dye in Peace with him: Not that I doubt but he would fall in my Debt, but I will be placable and forgiving.
You’ll say, what an Itch of Scribbling this tedious Fellow has. What Nonsense! Dear Sir, consider its all I can do just now. Mr. Foxcroft is daily expected here from Virginia. All my Family desires their respectful Complements. They are all well. My little Grand-Daughter is with me. My Daughter single yet so I have told you all, except what I have often told you, that I am Your most obliged Servant
James Parker
PS With Regard to the Custom-House, I have been confined near 3 Months, and fear they’ll turn me out for Non-Attendance; if they do, let them, but I won’t resign without, as I have stood the first Brunt, the Unpopularity wear off: tho’ if they don’t turn me out, I shall continue till further orders.


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Noble Wimberly Jones, 3–21 April 1769
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Jones, Noble Wimberly

Sir
London April 3d [-21] 1769
I received duely your favour of December 24th with the Address of your Commons House of Assembly to the King. I directly waited on Lord Hillsborough Secretary of State for American Affairs, and delivered it to him to be presented to his Majesty, which he assured me he would do immediately, and I understand he has transmitted the Answer to your Governor this is the present Channel of Communication chosen by his Lordship who seems to think Agents unnecessary (perhaps troublesome) and says all applications from the Colonies to Government here ought to be thro’ the hands of the Respective Governors, and thro’ the same hands The Assemblies should receive the Answers. But I apprehend America, will in many Cases find this new Mode inconvenient and perhaps not readily come into it. As your Address was on Business of a Publick and very important kind, it was necessary it should be communicated to the Secretary of State and by him be laid before the King, I could not with propriety present it my Self as I might have done if it had been meerly an Address of Compliment.
The Resolutions and Address proposed by his Lordship and by the Duke of Bedford of which I send you a Copy passed both Houses and the King in his Answer to the address has promised to give the Orders they request of him. They did not pass without opposition in the Commons, several of our Friends spoke warmly against them, some of the arguments used you will see in a printed Speech, of which I send you a copy.
It was as well that you did not send Petitions to the Lords and Commons, they would not have been received if they Contained any Expressions denying the right of Parliament to tax us. Pensilvania, and New York, are the only Provinces who have Petitioned Parliament, and their Petitions have been refused.
The Agents however, have done their utmost by Seperate Sollicitations to Obtain a Repeal of the Injurious Acts, but hitherto in vain And we are told, it is not to be expected this Sessions. Hints are indeed given, that if every thing remains quiet in America, possibly, they may be repealed next Year and probably none of the like Kind will ever be made hereafter, but the Possibilities and Probabilities are not much relyd on by our Friends who think that if we bear without Complaining another Year, it will be supposed that we may bear forever, and all thoughts of repealing will be dropt.
Certainly nothing can be of more Importance to the Welfare of the whole British Empire than what you recommend, a Restoration of that Harmony which heretofore subscribed [sic] between the Mother Country and its Colonies. The Agents earnestly wish it and will endeavour it by all possible means consistent with the just rights and essential Privileges of their Constituents.
The Secretary at War, on occasion of continuing the Act for Quartering Troops in America talk’d of proposing a Clause for enabling the Officers in case of Necessity to quarter the Soldiers in private Houses. This alarmed us greatly as it would always be in the Power of the Military to create the Necessity by bringing more Troops to any Place they had a mind to distress, than the Publick Houses, or Barracks could accomodate. We therefore opposed it so strongly that the Ministry disownd the Measure, and the Secretary was obliged to give it up. On the other Hand the Act is made rather more favourable than it was being declared not to extend to any Colony, that has or shall make such Provision by Acts of its own for Quartering the Troops as shall have received the Kings Assent, and even leaving the Mode open to be varied by an Agreement between the Magistrates and Officers. I enclose a Copy of the Act as it passed.
I send you also a Pamphlet which I think very well written in our Favour, and therefore have distributed many of them the author is yet unknown. Be pleased to present my best respects to your Assembly when you have one, and assure them of my most faithful Services. I am with great Regard Sir Your most Obedient and most humble Servant
B. Franklin
PS. April 21. The Ships not being sailed, I have an opportunity of informing you, that, on Wednesday last, a Motion was mad [sic] in the House of Commons for repealing the Duty Acts, which was supported by Gen. Conway, Sir George Saville, and a number of our Friends, but not carried. An Act, however, will pass, for granting a Bounty, during 21 Years, on all raw Silk imported from the Colonies, of £25 for every £100 value during the first Seven Years £20 for Do. during the next Seven Years, and £15 for Do. during the last Seven Years. The Act permitting the exportation of Rice from Carolina and Georgia to more Southern Parts of America is also Continued.


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Richard Price: Observations on the Expectations of Lives, 3 April 1769
From: Price, Richard
To: Franklin, Benjamin

The document that follows is only in form a letter to Franklin. Price addressed it to him, presumably as a way of acknowledging the latter’s work on population; Franklin transmitted it to the Royal Society, where it was read on April 27 and May 4 and subsequently printed in the Transactions. How fully he recognized the importance of what he was transmitting no one can say. Although he doubtless appreciated Price’s use of his own findings, he may well have found the rest of the paper hard going; for he was not the mathematician that his friend was.
For some years Price had been concerned with mathematical probability. He had recently been asked for advice on annuity systems, which were of crucial importance in the rise of benefit societies; annuities had led him into the problem of life expectancy as a particular form of probability, and he had mastered the literature on the subject. The paper that follows was his first contribution to the field, but far from his last: another appeared in the Transactions in 1770 and was followed almost at once by his Observations on Reversionary Payments … (London, 1771). The book, which went through a number of editions, established him as an authority on what was then the infant science of vital statistics, and hence on the theory of life insurance and annuities. Franklin’s transmission of this paper to the Royal Society, in other words, marked the beginning of a major development.

Dear Sir,
Newington-Green, April 3, 1769.
I beg leave to submit to your perusal the following observations. If you think them of any importance, I shall be obliged to you for communicating them to the Royal Society. You will find that the chief subject of them is the present state of the city of London, with respect to healthfulness and number of inhabitants, as far as it can be collected from the bills of mortality. This is a subject that has been considered by others; but the proper method of calculating from the bills has not, I think, been sufficiently explained.
No competent judgment can be formed of the following observations, without a clear notion of what the writers on Life Annuities and Reversions have called the Expectation of Life. Perhaps this is not in common properly understood; and Mr. De Moivre’s manner of expressing himself about it is very liable to be mistaken.
The most obvious sense of the expectation of a given life is, “That particular number of years which a life of a given age has an equal chance of enjoying.” This is properly the time that a person may reasonably expect to live; for the chances against his living longer are greater than those for it; and, therefore, he cannot entertain an expectation of living longer, consistently with probability. This period does not coincide with what the writers on Annuities call the expectation of life, except on the supposition of an uniform decrease in the probabilities of life, as Thomas Simpson has observed in his Select Exercises for Young Proficients in the Mathematicks (London, 1752), p. 273. It is necessary to add, that, even on this supposition,  it does not coincide with what is called the expectation of life in any case of joint lives. Thus, two joint lives of 40 have an even chance, according to Mr. De Moivre’s hypothesis, of continuing together only 13½ years. But the expectation of two equal joint lives being (according to the same hypothesis) always a third of the common complement, it is in this case 15⅓ years. It is necessary, therefore, to observe, that there is another sense of this phrase which ought to be carefully distinguished from that now mentioned. It may signify “The mean continuance of any given single, joint, or surviving lives, according to any given table of observations:” that is, the number of years which, taking them one with another, they actually enjoy, and may be considered as sure of enjoying, those who live or survive beyond that period, enjoying as much more time in proportion to their number, as those who fall short of it enjoy less. Thus, supposing 46 persons alive, all 40 years of age, and that, according to Mr. De Moivre’s hypothesis, one will die every year till they are all dead in 46 years, half 46 or 23 will be their expectation of life: that is, The number of years enjoyed by them all will be just the same as if every one of them had lived 23 years, and then died; so that, supposing no interest of money, there would be no difference in value between annuities payable for life to every single person in such a set, and equal annuities payable to another equal set of persons of the same common age, supposed to be all sure of living just 23 years and no more.
In like manner, the third of 46 years, or 15 years and 4 months, is the expectation of two joint lives both 40; and this is also the expectation of the survivor. That is, supposing a set of marriages between persons all 40, they will, one with another, last just this time, and the survivors will last the same time; and annuities payable during the continuance of such marriages would, supposing no interest of money, be of exactly the same value with annuities to begin at the extinction of such marriages, and to be paid, during life, to the survivors. In adding together the years which any great number of such marriages and their survivorships have lasted, the sums would be found to be equal.
One is naturally led to understand the expectation of life in the first of the senses now explained, when, by Mr. Simpson and Mr. De Moivre, it is called, the number of years which, upon an equality of chance, a person may expect to enjoy; or, the time which a person of a given age may justly expect to continue in being; and, in the last sense, when it is called, the share of life due to a person. But, as in reality it is always used in the last of these senses, the former language should not be applied to it: and it is in this last sense that it coincides with the sums of the present probabilities that any given single or joint lives shall attain to the end of the 1st, 2d, 3d, &c. moments from this time to the end of their possible existence; or, in the case of survivorships, with the sum of the probabilities that there shall be a survivor at the end of the 1st, 2d, 3d, &c. moments, from this time to the end of the possible existence of survivorship. This coincidence every one conversant in these subjects must see, upon reflecting, that both these senses give the true present value of a life-annuity secured by land, without interest of money.

This period in joint lives, I have observed, is never the same with the period which they have an equal chance of enjoying; and in single lives, I have observed, they are the same only on the supposition of an uniform decrease in the probabilities of life. If this decrease, instead of being always uniform, is accelerated in the last stages of life, the former period, in single lives, will be less than the latter; if retarded, it will be greater.
It is necessary to add, that the number expressing the former period, multiplied by the number of single or joint lives whose expectation it is added annually to a society or town, gives the whole number living together, to which such an annual addition would in time grow. Thus, since 19, or the third of 57, is the expectation of two joint lives whose common age is 29, or common complement 57, twenty marriages every year between persons of this age would, in 57 years, grow to 20 times 19, or 380 marriages always existing together. The number of survivors also arising from these marriages, and always living together, would, in twice 57 years, increase to the same number. And, since the expectation of a single life is always half its complement, in 57 years likewise 20 single persons aged 29, added annually to a town, would increase to 20 times 28.5 or 570; and when arrived at this number, the deaths every year will just equal the accessions, and no further increase be possible.
It appears from hence, that the particular proportion that becomes extinct every year, out of the whole number constantly existing together of single or joint lives, must, wherever this number undergoes no variation, be exactly the same with the expectation of those lives at the time when their existence commenced. Thus, was it found that a 19th part of all the marriages among any body of men, whose numbers do not vary, are dissolved every year by the deaths of either the husband or wife, it would appear that 19 was, at the time they were contracted, the expectation of these marriages. In like manner, was it found in a society, limited to a fixed number of members, that a 28th part dies annually out of the whole number of members, it would appear that 28 was their common expectation of life at the time they entered. So likewise, were it found in any town or district, where the number of births and burials are equal, that a 20th or 30th part of the inhabitants die annually, it would appear that 20 or 30 was the expectation of a child just born in that town or district. These expectations, therefore, for all single lives, are easily found by a Table of Observations, shewing the number that die annually at all ages, out of a given number alive at those ages; and the general rule for this purpose is “to divide the sum of all the living in the Table at the age whose expectation is required, and at all greater ages, by the sum of all that die annually at that age, and above it; or, which is the same, by the number in the Table of the living at that age; and half subtracted from the quotient will be the required expectation.” Thus, in Dr. Halley’s Table, the sum of all the living at 20 and upwards is 20,724. The number living at that age is 598; and the former number divided by the latter, and half unity subtracted from the quotient, gives 34.15 for the expectation of 20. The expectation of the same life by Mr. Simpson’s Table, formed from the bills of mortality of London, is 28.9.
These observations bring me to the principal point which I have had all along in view. They suggest to us an easy method of finding the number of inhabitants in a place from a Table of Observations, or the bills of mortality for that place, supposing the yearly births and burials equal. “Find by the Table, in the way just described, the expectation of an infant just born, and this, multiplied by the number of yearly births, will be the number of inhabitants.” At Breslaw, according to Dr. Halley’s Table, though half die under 16, and therefore an infant just born has an equal chance of living only 16 years, yet his expectations, found by the rule I have given, is near 28 years; and this, multiplied by 1238 the number born annually, gives 34,664, the number of inhabitants. In like manner, it appears from Mr. Simpson’s Table, that, though an infant just born in London has not an equal chance of living 3 years, his expectation is 20 years; and this number, multiplied by the yearly births, would give the number of inhabitants in London, were the births and burials equal. The medium of the yearly births, for the last 10 years, has been 15,710. This number, multiplied by 20, is 314,200, which is the number of inhabitants that there would be in London, according to the bills, were the yearly burials no more than equal to the births: that is, were it to support itself in its number of inhabitants without any supply from the country. But for the last 10 years, the burials have, at an average, been 22,956, and exceeded the christenings 7,246. This is, therefore, at present, the yearly addition of people to London from other parts of the kingdom, by whom it is kept up. Suppose them to be all, one with another, persons who have, when they remove to London, an expectation of life equal to 30 years. That is, suppose them to be all of the age of 18 or 20, a supposition certainly far beyond the truth. From hence will arise, according to what has been before observed, an addition of 30 multiplied by 7,246, that is 217,380 inhabitants. This number, added to the former, makes 531,580; and this, I think, at most, would be the number of inhabitants in London were the bills perfect. But it is certain that they give the number of births and burials too little. There are many burying-places that are never brought into the bills. Many also emigrate to the navy and army and country; and these ought to be added to the number of deaths. What the deficiencies arising from hence are, cannot be determined. Suppose them equivalent to 6000 every year in the births, and 6000 in the burials. This would make an addition of 20 times 6000 or 120,000 to the last number, and the whole number of inhabitants, would be 651,580. If the burials are deficient only two thirds of this number, or 4000, and the births the whole of it, 20 multiplied by 6000, must be added to 314,290 on account of the defects in the births: and, since the excess of the burials above the births will then be only 5,246, 30 multiplied by 5,246 or 157,380, will be the number to be added on this account; and the sum, or number of inhabitants will be 591,580. But if, on the contrary, the burials are deficient 6000, and the births only 4000, 80,000 must be added to 314,290, on account of the deficiencies in the births, and 30 multiplied by 9,246, on account of the excess of the burials above the births, and the whole number of inhabitants will be 671,580.
Every supposition in these calculations seems to me too high. Emigrants from London are, in particular, allowed the same expectation of continuance in London with those who are born in it, or who come to it in the firmest part of life, and never afterwards leave it; whereas it is not credible that the former expectation should be so much as half the latter. But I have a further reason for thinking that this calculation gives too high numbers, which has with me irresistible weight. It has been seen that the number of inhabitants comes out less on the supposition, that the defects in the christenings are greater than those in the burials. Now it seems evident that this is really the case; and, as it is a fact not attended to, I will here endeavour to explain distinctly the reason which proves it.
The proportion of the number of births in London, to the number who live to be 10 years of age, is, by the bills, 16 to 5. Any one may find this to be true, by subtracting the annual medium of those who have died under 10, for some years past, from the annual medium of births for the same number of years. Now, tho’, without doubt, London is very fatal to children, yet it is incredible that it should be so fatal as this implies. The bills, therefore, very probably, give the number of those who die under 10 too great in proportion to the number of births; and there can be no other cause of this, than a greater deficiency in the births than in the burials. Were the deficiences in both equal, that is, were the burials, in proportion to their number, just as deficient as the births are in proportion to their number, the proportion of those who reach 10 years of age to the number born would be right in the bills, let the deficiencies themselves be ever so considerable. On the contrary, were the deficiencies in the burials greater than in the births, this proportion would be given too great; and it is only when the former are least that this proportion can be given too little. Thus, let the number of annual burials be 23,000; of births 15,700; and the number dying annually under 10, 10,800. Then 4,900 will reach 10 of 15,700 born annually; that is, 5 out of 16. Were there no deficiencies in the burials, and were it fact that only half die under 10, it would follow, that there was an annual deficiency equal to 4,900 subtracted from 10,800, or 5,900 in the births. Were the births a third part too little, and the burials also a third part too little, the true number of births, burials, and of children dying under 10, would be 20,933, 30,666 and 14,400; and, therefore, the number that would live to 10 years of age would be 6,533 out of 20,933, or 5 of 16 as before. Were the births a third part, and the burials so much as two-fifths wrong, the number of births, burials, and children dying under 10 would be 20,933, 32,200 and 15,120; and, therefore, the number that would live to 10 would be 5,813 out of 20,933, or 5 out of 18. Were the births a 3d part wrong, and the burials but a 6th, the foregoing numbers would be 20,933–26, 833–12,600; and, therefore, the number that would live to 10 would be 8,333 out of 20,933, or 5 out of 12.56: and this proportion seems as low as is consistent with any degree of probability. It is somewhat less than the proportion in Mr. Simpson’s Table of London Observations, and near one half less than the proportion in the Table of Observations for Breslaw, where it appears that above 9 of 16 live to be 10, and that one half live to be 16. The deficiencies, therefore, in the births cannot be much less than double those in the burials; and the least numbers I have given must, probably, be nearest to the true number of inhabitants. However, should any one, after all, think that it is not improbable that only 5 of 16 should live in London to be 10 years of age, or that above two thirds die under this age, the consequence of admitting this will still be, that the foregoing calculation has been carried too high. For it will from hence follow, that the expectation of a child just born in London cannot be so much as I have taken it. This expectation is 20, on the supposition that half die under 3 years of age, and that 5 of 16 live to be 29 years of age, agreeably to Mr. Simpson’s Table. But if it is indeed true, that half die under 2 years of age, and 5 of 16 under 10, agreeably to the bills, this expectation must be less than 20, and all the numbers before given will be considerably reduced.
Upon the whole, I am forced to conclude from these observations, that the second number I have given, or 651,580, though short of the number of inhabitants commonly supposed in London, is, very probably, greater, but cannot be much less, than the true number. Indeed, it is in general evident, that in cases of this kind numbers are very much overrated. The ingenious Dr. Brakenridge, 14 years ago, when the bills were lower than they are now, from the number of houses, and allowing six to a house, made the number of inhabitants 751,800. But his method of determining the number of houses is too precarious; and, besides, six to a house is, probably, too large an allowance. Many families now have two houses to live in. The magistrates of Norwich, in 1752, took an exact account of both the number of houses and individuals in that city. The number of houses was 7,139, and of individuals 36,169, which gives nearly 5 to a house. Another method which Dr. Brakenridge took to determine the number of inhabitants in London was from the annual number of burials, adding 2000 to the bills for omissions, and supposing a 30th part to die every year. In order to prove this to be a moderate supposition he observes that, according to Dr. Halley’s Observations, a 34th part die every year at Breslaw. But this observation was made too inadvertently. The number of annual burials there, according to Dr. Halley’s account, was 1174, and the number of inhabitants, as deduced by him from his Table, was 34,000, and therefore a 29th part died every year. Besides, any one may find, that in reality the Table is constructed on the supposition, that the whole number born, or 1238, die every year; from whence it will follow that a 28th part died every year. Dr. Brakenridge, therefore, had he attended to this, would have stated a 24th part as the proportion that dies in London every year, and this would have taken off 150,000 from the number he has given. But even this must be less than the just proportion. For let three fourths of all who either die in London or migrate from it, be such as have been born in London; and let the rest be persons who have removed to London from the country or from foreign nations. The expectation of the former, it has been shewn, cannot exceed 20 years, and 30 years have been allowed to the latter. One with another, then, they will have an expectation of 22½ years. That is, one of 22½ will die every year. And, consequently, supposing the annual recruit from the country to be 7000, the number of births 3 times 7000 or 21,000, and the burials and migrations 28,000 (which seem to be all high suppositions), the number of inhabitants will be 22½ multiplied by 28,000, or 630,000.
I will just mention here one other instance of exaggeration on the present subject.

Mr. Corbyn Morris, in his Observations on the Past Growth and Present State of the City of London … (London, 1751), supposes that no more than a 60th part of the inhabitants of London, who are above 20, die every year, and from hence he determines that the number of inhabitants was near a million. In this supposition there was an error of at least one half. According to Dr. Halley’s Table, it has been shewn, that a 34th part of all at 20 and upwards, die every year at Breslaw. In London, a 29th part, according to Mr. Simpson’s Table, and also according to all other Tables of London Observations. And in Scotland it has been found for many years, that of 974 ministers and professors whose ages are 27 and upwards, a 33d part have died every year. Had, therefore, Mr. Morris stated a 30th part of all above 20 as dying annually in London, he would have gone beyond the truth, and his conclusion would have been 400,000 less than it is.
Dr. Brakenridge observed, that the number of inhabitants, at the time he calculated, was 127,000 less than it had been. The bills have lately advanced, but still they are much below what they were from 1717 to 1743. The medium of the annual births, for 20 years, from 1716 to 1736, was 18,000, and of burials 26,529; and by calculating from hence on all the same suppositions with those which made 651,580 to be the present number of inhabitants in London, it will be found that the number then was 735,840, or 84,260 greater than the number at present. London, therefore, for the last 30 years, has been decreasing; and though now it is increasing again, yet there is reason to think that the additions lately made to the number of buildings round it, are owing, in a great measure, to the increase of luxury, and the inhabitants requiring more room to live upon.

It should be remembered, that the number of inhabitants in London is now so much less as I have made it, than it was 40 years ago, on the supposition that the proportion of the omissions in the births to those in the burials was the same then that it is now. But it appears that this is not the fact. From 1728, the year when the ages of the dead was first given in the bills, to 1742, near five-sixths of those who were born died under 10, according to the bills. From 1742 to 1752 three quarters; and ever since 1752 this proportion has stood nearly as it is now, or at somewhat more than two-thirds. The omissions in the births, therefore, compared with those in the burials were greater formerly; and this must render the difference between the number of inhabitants now and formerly less considerable than it may seem to be from the face of the bills. One reason why the proportion of the amounts of the births and burials in the bills comes now nearer than it did to the true proportion, may, perhaps, be that the number of Dissenters is considerably lessened. The Foundling Hospital also may have contributed a little to this event, by lessening the number given in the bills as having died under 10, without taking off any from the births; for all that die in this hospital are buried at Pancrass church, which is not within the bills. See the preface to A Collection of the Yearly Bills of Mortality from 1657 to 1758 Inclusive … (Thomas Birch, ed.; London, 1759), p. 15.
I will add, that it is probable that London is now become less fatal to children than it was; and that this is a further circumstance which must reduce the difference I have mentioned; and which is likewise necessary to be joined to the greater deficiencies in the births, in order to account for the very small proportion of children who survived 10 years of age, during the two first of the periods I have specified. Since 1752, London has been thrown more open. The custom of keeping country-houses, and of sending children to be nursed in the country, has prevailed more. But, particularly, the destructive use of spirituous liquors among the poor has been checked.
I have shewn that in London, even in its present state, and according to the most moderate computation, half the number born die under three years of age; and I have observed that at Breslaw half live to 16. At Edinburgh, if I may judge from such of its bills as I have seen, almost as great a proportion of children die as even in London. But it appears from Graunt’s accurate account of the births, weddings, and burials in three country parishes for 90 years; and also, with abundant evidence, from Dr. Short’s collection of observations in his Comparative History, and his treatise entitled, New Observations … on the City, Town, and Country Bills of Mortality; that in country villages and parishes, the major part live to mature age, and even to marry. So great is the difference, especially to children, between living in great towns and in the country. But nothing can place this observation in a more striking light than the curious account given by Dr. Thomas Heberden, and published in the Philosophical Transactions (LVII [1767], 461–3), of the increase and mortality of the inhabitants of the island of Madeira. In this island, it seems, the weddings have been to the births, for 8 years, from 1759 to 1766, as 10 to 46.8; and to the burials as 10 to 27.5. Double these proportions, therefore, or the proportion of 20 to 46.8, and of 20 to 27.5 are the proportions of the number marrying annually, to the number born and the number dying. Let 1 marriage in 10 be a 2d or 3d marriage on the side of either the man or the woman, and 10 marriages will imply 19 individuals who have grown up to maturity, and lived to marry once or oftener; and the proportion of the number marrying annually the first time, to the number dying annually, will be 19 to 27.5, or near 3 to 4. It may seem to follow from hence, that in this island near three-fourths of those who die have been married, and, consequently, that not many more than a quarter of the inhabitants die in childhood and celibacy; and this would be a just conclusion were there no increase, or had the births and burials been equal. But it must be remembered, that the general effect of an increase, while it is going on in a country, is to render the proportion of persons marrying annually to the annual deaths greater, and to the annual births less than the true proportion marrying out of any given number born. This proportion generally lies between the other two proportions, but always nearest to the first; and, in the present case, it is sufficiently evident that it cannot be much less than two-thirds.
In London, then, half die under three years of age, and in Madeira about two-thirds of all who are born live to be married. Agreeably to this, it appears also from the account I have referred to, that the expectation of a child just born in Madeira is about 39 years, or double the expectation of a child just born in London. For the number of inhabitants was found, by a survey made in the beginning of the year 1767, to be 64,614. The annual medium of burials had been, for eight years, 1293; of births 2201. The number of inhabitants, divided by the annual medium of burials, gives 49.89, or the expectation nearly of a child just born, supposing the births had been 1293, and constantly equal to the burials, the number of inhabitants remaining the same. And the same number, divided by the annual medium of births, gives 29.35, or the expectation of a child just born, supposing the burials 2201, the number of births and of inhabitants remaining the same; and the true expectation of life must be somewhere near the mean between 49.89 and 29.35.
Again: A 50th part of the inhabitants of Madeira, it appears, die annually. In London, I have shewn, that above twice this proportion dies annually. In smaller towns a smaller proportion dies, and the births also come nearer to the burials. At Breslaw, I have observed, that, by Dr. Halley’s Table, a 28th part dies annually; and the annual medium of births, for a complete century, from 1633 to 1734, has been 1089; of burials 1256. At Norwich, the annual medium of births, dissenters included for four years, from 1751 to 1754, was 1150; of burials 1214. And as the number of inhabitants was at that time 36,169 (see p. 103 [p. 91 above]), a 30th part of the inhabitants died annually. In general, there seems reason to think that in towns (allowing for particular advantages of situation, trade, police, cleanliness, and openness, which some towns may have), the excess of the burials above the births and the annual deaths are more or less as the towns are greater or smaller. In London itself, about 160 years ago, when it was scarcely a fourth part of its present bulk, the births were nearly equal to the burials. But in country parishes and villages the births almost always exceed the burials; and I believe it seldom happens that so many as a 30th, or much more than a 40th part of the inhabitants die annually. In the four provinces of New England there is a very rapid increase of the inhabitants: but, notwithstanding this, at Boston, the capital, the inhabitants would decrease were there no supply from the country: for, if the account I have seen is just, from 1731 to 1762, the burials have all along exceeded the births. So remarkably do towns, in consequence of their unfavourableness to health, and the luxury which generally prevails in them, check the increase of countries.
Healthfulness and Prolifickness are, probably, causes of increase seldom separated. In conformity to this observation, it appears from comparing the births and weddings, in countries and towns where registers of them have been kept, that in the former, marriages, one with another, seldom produce less than four children each, generally between four and five, and sometimes above five. But in towns seldom above four, generally between three and four, and sometimes under three.
I have sometimes heard the great number of old people in London mentioned to prove its favourableness to health and long life. But no observation can be much more erroneous. There ought, in reality, to be more old people in London, in proportion to the number of inhabitants, than in any smaller towns, because at least one quarter of its inhabitants are persons who come into it, from the country, in the most robust part of life, and with a much greater probability of attaining old age, than if they had come into it in the weakness of infancy. But, notwithstanding this advantage, there are much fewer persons who attain to great ages in London than in any other place where observations have been made. At Vienna, of 22,704 who died in the four years 1717, 1718, 1724, 1725, 109 reached 90 years, that is, 48 in 10,000. But in London, for the last 30 years, only 35 of the same number have reached this age. At Breslaw it appears, by Dr. Halley’s Table, that 41 of 1238 born, or a 30th part, live to be 80 years of age. In the parish of All-saints in Northampton, an account has been kept for many years of the ages at which all die; and, I find, that of 1377, who died there in 13 years, 59 have lived to be 80, or a 23d part. According to Mr. Kersseboom’s Table of Observations, published at the end of Abraham De Moivre, The Doctrine of Chances … (3rd ed., London, 1756), a 14th part of all that are born live to be 80; and, had we any observations in country parishes, this, probably, would not appear to be too high a proportion. But in London, for the last 30 years, only 25 of every 1000 who have died, have lived to be 80, or a 40th part, which may be easily discovered by dividing the sum of all who have died during these years at all ages, by the sum of all who have died above 80.
Among the peculiar evils to which great towns are subject, I might further mention the PLAGUE. Before the year 1666 this dreadful calamity laid London almost waste once in every 15 or 20 years; and there is no reason to think that it was not generally bred within itself. A most happy alteration has taken place, which, perhaps, in part, is owing to the greater advantages of cleanliness and openness, which London has enjoyed since it was rebuilt, and which lately have been very wisely improved.
The facts I have now taken notice of are so important that, I think, they deserve more attention than has been hitherto bestowed upon them. Every one knows that the strength of a state consists in the number of people. The encouragement of population, therefore, ought to be one of the first objects of policy in every state; and some of the worst enemies of population are the luxury, the licentiousness, and debility produced and propagated by great towns.
I have observed that London is now increasing. But it appears that, in truth, this is an event more to be dreaded than desired. The more London increases, the more the rest of the kingdom must be deserted; the fewer hands must be left for agriculture; and, consequently, the less must be the plenty and the higher the price of all the means of subsistence. Moderate towns, being seats of refinement, emulation, and arts, may be public advantages. But great towns, long before they grow to half the bulk of London, become checks on population of too hurtful a nature, nurseries of debauchery and voluptuousness; and, in many respects, greater evils than can be compensated by any advantages.

Dr. Heberden observes that, in Madeira, the inhabitants double their own number in 84 years. But this (as you, Sir, well know) is a very slow increase compared with that which takes place among our colonies in AMERICA. In the back settlements, where the inhabitants apply themselves entirely to agriculture, and luxury is not known, they double their own number in 15 years; and all through the northern colonies in 25 years. This is an instance of increase so rapid as to have scarcely any parallel. The births in these countries must exceed the burials much more than in Madeira, and a greater proportion of the born must reach maturity. In 1738, the number of inhabitants in New Jersey was taken by order of the government, and found to be 47,369. Seven years afterwards the number of inhabitants was again taken, and found to be increased, by procreation only, above 14,000, and very near one half of the inhabitants were found to be under 16 years of age. In 22 years, therefore, they must have doubled their own number, and the births must have exceeded the burials 2000 annually. As the increase here is much quicker than in Madeira, we may be sure that a smaller proportion of the inhabitants must die annually. Let us, however, suppose it the same, or a 50th part. This will make the annual burials to have been, during these seven years, 1000, and the annual births 3000, or an 18th part of the inhabitants. Similar observations may be made on the much quicker increase in Rhode Island, as related in the preface to Dr. Birch’s Collection of the Bills of Mortality, and also in the valuable pamphlet, last quoted, on The Interest of Great Britain with Regard to Her Colonies, p. 36 [above, IX, 87–88]. What a prodigious difference must there be between the vigour and the happiness of human life in such situations, and in such a place as London? The original number of persons who, in 1643, had settled in New England, was 21,200. Ever since it is reckoned, that more have left them than have gone to them. In the year 1760 they were increased to half a million. They have, therefore, all along doubled their own number in 25 years; and, if they continue to increase at the same rate, they will, 70 years hence, in New England alone, be four millions; and in all North America above twice the number of inhabitants in Great-Britain. But I am wandering from my purpose in this letter. The point I had chiefly in view was, the present state of London as to healthfulness, number of inhabitants, and its influence on population. The observations I have made may, perhaps, help to shew how the most is to be made of the lights afforded by the London bills, and serve as a specimen of the proper method of calculating from them. It is indeed extremely to be wished that they were less imperfect than they are, and extended further. More parishes round London might be taken into them; and, by an easy improvement in the parish registers now kept, they might be extended through all the parishes and towns in the kingdom. The advantages arising from hence would be very considerable. It would give the precise law according to which human life wastes in its different stages, and thus supply the necessary data for computing accurately the values of all life-annuities and reversions. It would, likewise, shew the different degrees of healthfulness of different situations, mark the progress of population from year to year, keep always in view the number of people in the kingdom, and, in many other respects, furnish instruction of the greatest importance to the state. Mr. De Moivre, at the end of his book on the doctrine of chances, has recommended a general regulation of this kind; and observed, particularly, that at least it is to be wished, that an account was taken, at proper intervals, of all the living in the kingdom, with their ages and occupations; which would, in some degree, answer most of the purposes I have mentioned. But, dear Sir, I am sensible it is high time to finish these remarks. I have been carried in them far beyond the limits I at first intended. I always think with pleasure and gratitude of your friendship. The world owes to you many important discoveries; and your name must live as long as there is any knowledge of philosophy among mankind. That your happiness in this, and every other respect, may continually increase, is the sincere wish of, Sir, Your much obliged, and very humble servant,
Richard Price.


Title: Positions to be Examined, 4 April 1769
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To:

Franklin had long advocated a labor theory of value, and in correspondence with Lord Kames and the French physiocrats he refined his ideas of the relation between labor, agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce. The brief paper below seems to have been a development of the “aphorisms,” as he called them, that he had sent to Lord Kames early in the year. His position relates, at least by implication, to his often expressed views on the dangers to the empire that were inherent in British commercial policies, and to the potential benefits of the nonimportation agreements to American manufacturing. He was not yet ready, however, to abandon the mercantilist system in favor of the theory of free trade then being discussed in France and developed in Scotland by Lord Kames’s protégé, Adam Smith.

April 4. 1769
Positions to be examined.
1 All Food or Subsistence for Mankind arise from the Earth or Waters.
2 Necessaries of Life that are not Foods, and all other Conveniencies, have their Values estimated by the Proportion of Food consumed while we are employed in procuring them.

3 A small People with a large Territory may subsist on the Productions of Nature, with no other Labour than that of gathering the Vegetables and catching the Animals.
4 A large People with a small Territory finds these insufficient, and, to subsist, must labour the Earth to make it produce greater Quantities of vegetable Food, suitable for the Nourishment of Men, and of the Animals they intend to eat.
5 From the Labour arises a great Increase of vegetable and animal Food, and of Materials for Clothing, as Flax, Wool, Silk, &c. The Superfluity of these is Wealth. With this Wealth we pay for the Labour employed in building our Houses, Cities, &c. which are therefore only Subsistence thus metamorphosed.
6 Manufactures are only another Shape into which so much Provisions and Subsistence are turned as were equal in Value to the Manufactures produced. This appears from hence, that the Manufacturer does not in fact, obtain from the Employer, for his Labour, more than a mere Subsistence, including Raiment Fuel and Shelter; all which derive their Value from the Provisions consumed in procuring them.
7 The Produce of the Earth, thus converted into Manufactures, may be more easily carried to distant Markets than before such Conversion.
8 Fair Commerce is where equal Values are exchanged for equal the Expence of Transport included. Thus if it costs A. in England as much Labour and Charge to raise a Bushel of Wheat as it costs B. in France to produce four Gallons of Wine then are four Gallons of Wine the fair Exchange for a Bushel of Wheat. A and B meeting at half Distance with their Commodities to make the Exchange. The Advantage of this fair Commerce is, that each Party increases the Number of his Enjoyments, having, instead of Wheat alone or Wine alone, the Use of both Wheat and Wine.
9 Where the Labour and Expence of producing both Commodities are known to both Parties Bargains will generally be fair and equal. Where they are known to one Party only, Bargains will often be unequal, Knowledge taking its Advantage of Ignorance.
10 Thus he that carries 1000 Bushels of Wheat abroad to sell, may not probably obtain so great a Profit thereon as if he had first turned the Wheat into Manufactures by subsisting therewith the Workmen while producing those Manufactures: since there are many expediting and facilitating Methods of working, not generally known; and Strangers to the Manufactures, though they know pretty well the Expences of raising Wheat, are unacquainted with those short Methods of working, and thence being apt to suppose more Labour employed in the Manufactures than there really is, are more easily imposed on in their Value, and induced to allow more for them than they are honestly worth.
11 Thus the Advantage of having Manufactures in a Country, does not consist as is commonly supposed, in their highly advancing the Value of rough Materials, of which they are formed; since, though sixpenny worth of Flax may be worth twenty shillings when worked into Lace, yet the very Cause of it’s being worth twenty shillings is, that besides the Flax, it has cost nineteen shillings and sixpence in Subsistence to the Manufacturer. But the Advantage of Manufactures is, that under their shape Provisions may be more easily carried to a foreign Market; and by their means our Traders may more easily cheat Strangers. Few, where it is not made are Judges of the Value of Lace. The importer may demand Forty, and perhaps get Thirty shillings for that which cost him but twenty.
12 Finally, there seem to be but three Ways for a Nation to acquire Wealth. The first is by War as the Romans did in plundering their conquered Neighbours. This is Robbery. The second by Commerce which is generally Cheating. The third by Agriculture the only honest Way; wherein Man receives a real Increase of the Seed thrown into the Ground, in a kind of continual Miracle wrought by the Hand of God in his Favour, as a Reward for his innocent Life, and virtuous Industry.
B F


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from James Parker, 14 April 1769: résumé
From: Parker, James
To: Franklin, Benjamin

[Philadelphia, April 14, 1769. John Foxcroft has summoned him there. Encloses a second bill for £60 13s. 9d., the first of which he had sent from New York on February 13. This Foxcroft had returned to him to send to Franklin. Is in poor health but hopes to recover.]


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from the Philadelphia Merchants, 18 April 1769
From: Philadelphia Merchants
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Much Esteemed Friend,
Philada. 18th April 1769.
We are favoured with thy letter of the 19th January, and observe with pleasure the Steps thou hast taken to Serve the Cause of America, which we cannot forbear considering as the Cause of Liberty.
The Committee of Merchants in London inform us of an Application they had made to the proper Department in Administration. But the Answer they received is so very unfavourable, that we have but little prospect of Redress in a way that will put an End to the Dispute between Great Britain and the Colonies.
We observe that both the Merchants and Minister confine themselves to the Act imposing Duties on Glass, Paper, &c. which they agree is Inexpedient, upon the Principles of impropriety in laying Duties on their own Manufactures, but they take no Notice of the other Acts passed for the purpose of raising a Revenue in America. From this we are apprehensive that the Ministry, if pushed, intend only a partial Redress of American Grievances, and though they may suffer the Act laying a Duty on British Manufactures to be repealed, upon a principle of Inexpediency, yet they mean to continue the other Acts; in order to establish the Right of Parliament to tax the Colonies. Now as we are persuaded the Americans will never admit this Right, nor give up the Privilege of solely taxing themselves, we can have little expectation of a cordial Union between both Countries, untill there is an alteration in the Sentiments of Administration.
Untill the Prospect mends the Merchants of this City have agreed to decline the Importation of Goods from Great Britain.
We take the liberty to inclose thee a copy of the Agreement and our Answer to the Committee of Merchants in London.
We have no doubt of thy sincere Wishes for the Welfare of both Countries, nor of thy unremitted Endeavours to bring about a cordial Union between them; to effect which nothing in our Power shall be wanting. We are, with due regard, Thy assured Friends,

Jereah: Warder
Wm. West

William Fisher
James Mease

Abel James
Robt Morris

Henry Drinker
John Cox Junr.

Alex Huston
Tench Francis

John Rhea
Thomas Mifflin

John Gibson
Cha Thomson

Joseph Swift
Geo: Roberts

Conyngham & Nesbitt


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Samuel Cooper, 27 April 1769
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Cooper, Samuel

Dear Sir,
London, April 27. 1769
I received your Favour of Feb. 27. per Capt. Carver, and thank you for giving me an Opportunity of being acquainted with so great a Traveller. I shall be glad if I can render him any Service here.
The Parliament remain fix’d in their Resolution not to repeal the Duty Acts this Session, and will rise next Tuesday. I hope my Country-folks will remain as fix’d in their Resolutions of Industry and Frugality till those Acts are repeal’d. And if I could be sure of that, I should almost wish them never to be repeal’d; being persuaded that we shall reap more solid and extensive Advantages from the steady Practice of those two great Virtues, than we can possibly suffer Damage from all the Duties the Parliament of this Kingdom can levy on us. They flatter themselves that you cannot long subsist without their Manufactures; they believe that you have not Virtue enough to persist in such Agreements; they imagine the Colonies will differ among themselves, deceive and desert one another, and quietly one after the other submit to the Yoke and return to the Use of British Fineries: they think that tho’ the Men may be contented with homespun Stuffs, the Women will never get the better of their Vanity and Fondness for English Modes and Gewgaws. The ministerial People all talk in this Strain, and many even of the Merchants! I have ventur’d to assert, that they will all find themselves mistaken; and I rely so much on the Spirit of my Country as to be confident I shall not be found a false Prophet, tho’ at present not believed.
I hope nothing that has happened or may happen will diminish in the least our Loyalty to our Sovereign, or Affection for this Nation in general. I can scarcely conceive a King of better Dispositions, of more exemplary Virtues, or more truly desirous of promoting the Welfare of all his Subjects. The Experience we have had of the Family in the two preceding mild Reigns, and the good Temper of our young Princes so far as can yet be discovered, promise us a Continuance of this Felicity. The Body of this People too is of a noble and generous Nature, loving and honouring the Spirit of Liberty, and hating arbitrary Power of all Sorts. We have many very many Friends among them. But as to the Parliament!—tho’ I might excuse That which made the Acts, as being surpriz’d and misled into the Measure; [I] know not how to excuse This, which under the fullest Conviction of its being a wrong one, resolves to continue it. It is decent indeed in your publick Papers to speak as you do of the “Wisdom and the Justice of Parliament”; but now that the Subject is more thoroughly understood, if this new Parliament had been really wise it would not have refused even to read a Petition against the Acts; and if it had been just, it would have repealed them and refunded the Money. Perhaps it may be wiser and juster another Year, but that is not to be depended on.
If under all the Insults and Oppressions you are now exposed to, you can prudently, as you have lately done, continue q[uiet,] avoiding Tumults, but still resolutely keeping up your Claims and asserting your Rights, you will finally establish them; and this military Cloud that now blusters over you, will pass away, and do you no more Harm than a Summer Thunder Shower. But the Advantages of your Perseverance in Industry and Frugality will be great and permanent: Your Debts will be paid; your Farms will be better improv’d and yield a greater Produce: Your real Wealth will increase in [a] Plenty of every useful home Production and all the true Enjoyments of Life, even tho’ no foreign Trade should be allow’d you. And this handicraft shopkeeping State will for its own [sake?] learn to behave more civilly to its Customers.
Your late Governor, Mr. Pownall, appears a hearty Friend to America. He moved last Week for a Repeal of the Acts, and was seconded by General Conway, Sir George Saville, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Trecothic and others, but did not succeed. A Friend has favour’d me with a Copy of the Notes taken of Mr. Pownall’s Speech, which I send you, believing it may be agreable to you and some other of our Friends to see them. You will observe in some Parts of it the Language a Member of Parliament is obliged to hold on American Topicks, if he would at all be heard in the House. He has given Notice that he will renew the Motion next and every Session.
All Ireland is strongly in favour of the American Cause. They have reason to sympathize with us. I send you four Pamphlets written in Ireland or by Irish Gentlemen here, in which you will find some excellent well said Things. With the greatest Esteem, I am, my dear Friend, Yours most affectionately
B Franklin
Revd Dr Cooper.


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Jane Mecom, 27 April 1769
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Mecom, Jane

Dear Sister,
London, April 27. 1769.
I received your kind Letter of Jan. 30. Mrs. Stevenson has executed your Order, and sends the Things in a Bandbox directed to you, in the Care of Mr. Jefferies your Neighbour. A new-fashion’d something that was not ready when the Box was pack’d up, is inclos’d in her Letter.
I am now grown too old to be ambitious of such a Station as that which you say has been mention’d to you. Repose is more fit for me, and much more suitable to my Wishes. There is no Danger of such a thing being offer’d me, and I am sure I shall never ask it. But even if it were offer’d, I certainly could not accept it, to act under such Instructions as I know must be given with it. So you may be quite easy on that head.
The Account you write of the growing Industry, Frugality and good Sense of my Country-women gives me more Pleasure than you can imagine: For from thence I presage great Advantages to our Country. I should be sorry that you are engag’d in a Business which happens not to coincide with the general Interest, if you did not acquaint me that you are now near the End of it.
You guess’d right upon the Similitude with Mrs. Blount’s Letter. But hold your Tongue. Love to your Children, from Your affectionate Brother
B Franklin


Title: By Peter Hinrich Tesdorpf: Poem, [April? 1769]
From: Tesdorpf, Peter Hinrich
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Lubek A[pril?] 1769
Upon the unvaluable Contrivance, of Mr. Francklin, k: to carry of the Lightening.

Hail! thou art blessed! said lately the Moon to the Earth, Thy Wish was for a Francklin, and Heaven granted him to be. He arose, that Godlike Man, and delivered thy Seat, like the Happiness of the Angels from the danger of Lightening. He surmounts the limits to make discoveries, and fetters Nature, when Lightening and Thunder are roaring in the Clouds. Mankind having been hitherto discouraged by doubts, had never reflected seriously enough upon the importance of the Matter, till at last thy FRANCKLIN chosen by God for that purpose, has executed the greatest action, that ever was done upon Earth! What dost thou wish more, to fulfill thy Wishes? What can be added to the removal of thy Trouble? Nothing, replied the Earth, but still one Francklin more, to secure us for the Power of Death.
by Peter Henry Tesdorpf

[In another hand:] Translation of German Verses


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Charles Thomson and Thomas Mifflin, 3 May 1769
From: Thomson, Charles,Mifflin, Thomas
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Sir
Philada: 3d. May 1769
Since we had the Pleasure of writing to you an Union has taken place between the principal Librarys in Town. In Consequence of which the Directors have ordered a Review of the Books. And as it is not yet fully known what we have or what we want, The Directors have ordered us to write and request the Favour of you, if you have not laid out our Money not to purchase any Books till you hear from them which will be in a short Time. What you have purchased they desire you will please to forward by the first Opportunity. Among them we hope for the Pleasure of seeing your Works and Robertsons History of Charles 5th. We are, Sir with the greatest Esteem and Respect Your Obedient humble Servants.
Charles ThomsonThomas Mifflin


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from James Parker, 12 May 1769
From: Parker, James
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Honoured Sir
Newyork, May 12. 1769
Before this reaches you, I hope Mr. Foxcroft will be safe arrived with you, as he sail’d from Philadelphia the 20th of last Month. This covers the first of a Set of Bills for £100 Sterling which I purchased here with Money sent me by Mr. Vernon of Rhode-Island, who I have press’d hard for Payment. His Accounts, tho’ kept in Sterling when he sends Cash will not in general procure Sterling tho’ at this Time it has. The 2d Bill I shall send next Week by a Merchant Ship. Mr. Foxcroft will acquaint you with the Affair of Mr. Robinson, to whom I have by his Order paid Twenty Guineas, he is about to embark in a Week or two, but I am not certain yet what Vessel he goes in. I purpose to write fuller by him.
Mr. Foxcroft having given me Locks and Keys, with Orders to have them put upon all the Mails, I accordingly have sent them: but find both those from this City for Boston are neither good Portmanteau’s, or big enough, or have either Chains or Rings, in short, they were absolutely unfit, and the Riders carry the Mails chiefly in Saddle Bags; upon which I have ordered two new Portmanteau’s to be made with Chains and Rings fitting, as it is impracticable to carry on the King’s Service to good purpose without. On my writing to Albany, I received the inclosed Letter about it; and Major Skene, who lives near Crown-point, being down here, he told me, he was ashamed to see the Couriers have Nothing but an Ozenbrigs Bag to carry the Letters in, which could not screan them from wet, as he was a Friend to the Business, he thinks he had wrote to Mr. Foxcroft about it. But as I am assured this is the Truth, I have ordered two more Portmanteaus to be made here, One for Montreal, the other for Quebeck, which being absolutely necessary for the Good of the Service, and the Benefit of the Revenue, I hope it will be allowed me. I did not do this to shew any Authority, but purely because I think it just and reasonable, and flatter myself you will think so too, as I find others careless and dilatory about the Matter, tho’ at the same time dissatisfied.
Some Merchant Vessels sail in 10 or 12 Days hence, by whom I shall write again. I have only respectful Compliments, &c. from Your most obliged Servant
James Parker.

Addressed: For / Dr Benjamin Franklin / Craven-Street / London / per Packet
Endorsed: Parker


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Thomas Gilpin, 16 May 1769
From: Gilpin, Thomas
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Worthy Friend
Philadelphia May 16th. 1769.
By the brig Ketly Capt. Osborne I have sent you the model of a machine the result of a thought occurring to me some time ago which I have realised in the present form. It is that of an horizontal windmill applied to three pumps——this application as one of the most useful for raising water from lands, draining mines or pumping ships in distress at sea; but if the first movement be found effective it may be applied to all the various uses of other windmills, without the inconvenience of turning the house or frame to the wind. I could mention some further objects that have occurred to me on the subject but I daresay they will present themselves to you; when you have examined the model if you think the invention of sufficient importance I would thank you to have it shewn to the Society of Arts or made public in any way you may think it merits. The necessity of regulating and stopping the motion of the mill will no doubt occur to you; that part of it I have omitted at present from want of time, but it is very easy, nearly as much so as that of stopping a water mill and I shall have it fixed to another model I am preparing for the Philosophical Society here. Your sentiments on this invention at a leisure moment will be very gratifying and esteemed a particular favor by your friend
Thomas Gilpin.
P.S. I have an idea that this machine with some alterations would answer well in a current of water.