Title: Pennsylvania Assembly: Message to the Governor, 22 March 1764
From: Pennsylvania Assembly
To: Penn, John

The Assembly passed its £50,000 supply bill on February 24 and delivered it to Governor Penn. He held it until March 7 when he sent it back with a message of rejection. It was expressly contrary to the decree of the Privy Council of Sept. 2, 1760, he said, particularly in the following points: 1. In the manner of taxing the Proprietors’ located, uncultivated lands in the country and their lots in cities and boroughs. 2. In subjecting part of the money to be raised to payment on drafts and certificates issued by order of the Assembly only, without the governor’s consent or prior knowledge. 3. In its mutually contradictory statements stipulating how many commissioners of appeals were needed to settle cases of alleged overassessment brought before them.
On March 10, “after a considerable Debate,” the House appointed a committee to bring in a new supply bill, this time for £55,000. With unprecedented speed the committee reported the bill on the same morning. After two days’ debate the Assembly passed and sent it to Penn on March 14. No copy of the original £50,000 bill has been found, but the short time the committee devoted to preparing its successor indicates that they could have made few changes to meet the governor’s objections. A surviving copy of the very long bill passed by the House on March 14, certified by Charles Moore, clerk of the Assembly, is in the American Philosophical Society Library and provides a basis for understanding Penn’s chief objection to both bills.
The critical issue was the assessment of the Proprietors’ located but uncultivated lands. The £55,000 bill (and clearly also the rejected £50,000 bill) provided that such lands should not be assessed “higher than the lowest Rate at which any located uncultivated Lands belonging to the Inhabitants thereof, under the same Circumstances of Situation, Kind and Quality [italics added], shall be assessed”; and that ungranted land of the Proprietors lying in boroughs and towns should be deemed located, uncultivated lands and assessed accordingly. The words printed in italics above were the crux of the problem. They do not appear in the corresponding passage of the stipulations incorporated into the order in council of Sept. 2, 1760. The question was: did the Privy Council intend that the Proprietors’ located, uncultivated lands should be assessed at the same rates as comparable lands of the inhabitants, or that even the best of such proprietary country lands and town lots should be assessed at only the same rate as the worst country lands of other taxpayers? In the protracted dispute the Assembly contended for the first interpretation as the only just one, while the governor insisted that the literal second interpretation represented the true intention of the Privy Council.
Penn returned the £55,000 bill to the Assembly, March 19, with a verbal message stating that it was liable to the same objection as its predecessor on this matter of the proprietary lands. The Assembly immediately sent two members to the governor to ask what he took to be the intention of the stipulation in the order in council. He replied the next day, quoting the pertinent clauses of the order and adding that the words were “so express and certain as to admit no Doubt or Ambiguity.” He asked the House “to insert in the Bill the above Clauses in the very Words of the Decree.” The Assembly immediately tried to pin him down to a direct assertion “that the best and most valuable of the Proprietaries Lands and Lots should be taxed no higher than the worst and least valuable of the Lands or Lots belonging to the People.” He shrewdly refused to use any such words and declined to enter into any dispute “about the Intent or Meaning of the Agents in the Stipulation they made” (Franklin, one of those agents, was there in the Assembly), but Penn insisted that the lords of the committee of the Privy Council “most certainly understood the Force of the Words they made use of to convey their Ideas,” and that “the English Language does not afford Words more forcible, clear and explicit” than those contained in the disputed stipulation.
Thereupon the Assembly resolved without dissent on the morning of March 21 to adhere to the bill as it stood, and appointed a committee of eight members, including Franklin, to prepare a message to the governor. The committee presented its draft message the same afternoon, and “after some Alterations” it was agreed to and ordered transcribed. On the morning of the 22d the message was again read, was signed by the speaker, and sent to Governor Penn.

May it please your Honour,
March 22, 1764.
The House, upon Review of the Messages that have passed between your Honour and them, concerning the Money Bill, beg Leave to declare, that they had the sincerest Desire to comply with the Requisitions of His Majesty’s General, and therefore immediately, at your Honour’s Instance, voted the Number of Men required, and the Sum necessary to raise, cloathe and pay them; and are sorry they should be obliged to say, that the Delays and Difficulties they have met with in compleating a Bill to carry that Vote into Execution, have arisen wholly from the Intervening of Proprietary Interests and Instructions, which your Honour, who are “no Stranger to the long Disputes and Differences that unhappily subsisted, for many Years, between the two Branches of the Legislature, on Bills of the like Nature,” must know were ever the great and sole Obstruction to His Majesty’s Service in this Province.
To prevent a Revival of those Disputes, the House have, in the present Bill, complied, to the best of their Understanding, with the Opinion of the Lords of the Committee, approved by His late Majesty, respecting our Supply Bills, and therefore had the greatest Reason to hope that no Objection could now arise to its Passage.
But your Honour is pleased to refuse your Assent to the Bill, unless in two of the six Alterations proposed by their Lordships, the very Terms by them made use of in their Report are inserted in the Bill, alledging that you cannot in Duty deviate from them.
Such a Reason for not passing this Bill appears the more extraordinary to us, as the six Articles in that Report are evidently Heads only of proposed Amendments, and do not appear to be ever intended as formed Clauses, the very Words of which were to be inserted in our future Supply Bills.

For Instance, one is, “That the real Estates to be taxed be defined with Precision, so as not to include the unsurveyed waste Lands belonging to the Proprietaries.” Can it be thought that these Words ought to make a Part of the Bill? Another is, “That the Governor’s Consent and Approbation be made necessary to every Issue and Application of the Money to be raised by Virtue of such Act.” Another, “That Provincial Commissioners be named to hear and determine Appeals brought on the Part of the Inhabitants, as well as of the Proprietaries.” Another, “That the Payments by the Tenants to the Proprietaries of their Rents, shall be according to the Terms of their respective Grants, as if such Acts had never been passed.” All these appeared to us to be merely Heads of Provisions to be made in the Bill, and the Provisions are accordingly made, though in very different Words, but such as fully and particularly express the same Meaning: Thus the last, “That the Payments by the Tenants to the Proprietaries of their Rents, shall be according to the Terms of their respective Grants, as if such Act had never been passed,” is provided for in the Clause that makes the Paper Money a legal Tender in all Payments whatsoever, by adding these Words, “the Sterling Rents due, or to become due, to the Proprietaries of this Province only excepted;” which Words we conceived would effectually answer that Purpose. And these Changes your Honour has not disapproved. If the “very Terms” of the Order in Council are so sacred that they must be made use of, and no other, and your Honour cannot in Duty deviate from them, the House are at a Loss to account for your agreeing to all those Alterations, and particularly to the latter, without the least Objection.
Their Lordships Words, relating to the Points now under Consideration, are these:
“That the located uncultivated Lands belonging to the Proprietaries, shall not be assessed higher than the lowest Rate at which any located uncultivated Lands belonging to the Inhabitants shall be assessed.” And, “That all Lands not granted by the Proprietaries within Boroughs and Towns, be deemed located uncultivated Lands, and rated accordingly, and not as Lots.”
Those Provisions in our Bill are thus expressed, viz.
And be it further enacted and provided nevertheless, that the located uncultivated Lands belonging to the Proprietaries of this Province shall not, by Virtue of this Act, be assessed higher than the lowest Rate at which any located uncultivated Lands belonging to the Inhabitants thereof, under the same Circumstances of Situation, Kind and Quality, shall be assessed; and that all Lands not granted by the Proprietaries within Boroughs and Towns, be deemed located and uncultivated Lands, and rated accordingly, any Thing in this Act to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.
We thought, may it please your Honour, that we had herein expressed the true Intention of those two Articles; but you have been pleased to let us know that you think otherwise, and that, in your Opinion, “the Words made use of in those Articles convey a meaning very different from the Provisions made respecting these Matters in the present Bill.” We then, by a Message, requested your Honour would be pleased to acquaint us, what Meaning you conceive they do convey. This you have refused. We then endeavoured to conjecture, from the former Tenor of Proprietary Measures, what Sense your Honour might possibly be willing to understand them in; and by another Message, after setting forth, that as your Honour and the House differed in their Opinion of the Meaning of those Articles, it was very probable the Commissioners and Assessors of the several Counties, who were to execute the Act, might, if the same Terms only were used, differ likewise in their Opinion, and thence differ in the Modes of Taxation, we requested you would be pleased to acquaint us, whether you understood the Meaning to be, that the best and most valuable of the Proprietaries Lands and Lots, should be taxed no higher than the worst and least valuable of the Lands belonging to the People? This your Honour has been pleased neither to own nor deny; but continue to insist, that the Words of those Articles are so clear and explicit, that any Additions to them will rather tend to perplex than explain them; and therefore urge us again to put them, and no others, in the Bill.
We beg your Honour would be pleased to reflect for a Moment, how absurd it would be for the two Branches of the Legislature to agree to pass an Act in Terms which both of them have, in public Messages, declared beforehand that they understand very differently; and particularly, how extremely wrong in the Assembly, when the other Branch, the Executive, will not declare what it understands by those Terms, but reserves that till the Law shall come to be executed.

Under these Circumstances it is impossible for us to use, in this Bill, the Terms unexplained, which your Honour insists upon.
We do therefore unanimously adhere to our Bill, and once more earnestly request your Honour would be pleased to pass the same without further Delay, as His Majesty’s Service, and the present deplorable Circumstances of the Frontiers, require its being carried into immediate Execution. Signed by Order of the House,
Isaac Norris, Speaker.


Title: Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, 24 March 1764
From: Pennsylvania Assembly
To: Penn, John

Governor Penn apparently spent most of the morning of March 23 composing a reply to the Assembly’s message of the 22d (see immediately above). He signed it in the afternoon and sent it to the Assembly. In it he expressed his deep concern that in the critical military situation the supply bill must be lost unless the Assembly should insert the clauses of the Privy Council report, but he insisted that the failure of the supply would not be his fault. He reviewed the dispute up to date and then for the first time stated flatly what he believed the disputed stipulations to mean: “The only Construction I can put upon them or that they can bear, without torturing is, that if Five, Ten, or Fifteen Pounds, is the lowest at which any such Lands of the Inhabitants are assessed, none of the located uncultivated Lands of the Proprietors shall be assessed higher.” If, as the Assembly had asserted in their previous verbal messages, the wording of the Privy Council’s stipulations was so ambiguous as probably to cause varying interpretations among the local assessors, he explained, the provincial Board of Appeals provided for in the bill would quickly bring about uniformity of assessment.
Upon hearing this message the Assembly voted, again without dissent, to adhere to the bill as it stood, and appointed a new committee of eight, including Franklin, to prepare a response to the governor. The committee presented its draft on the 24th; “some Alterations” were made; it was agreed to, transcribed, signed by the speaker, and sent to Penn the same day.
The rising temper of the Assembly can be readily detected in the phraseology of the final paragraphs of this message.

May it please your Honour,
March 24, 1764.
We have considered your Honour’s Message of Yesterday Afternoon, sent down to us with our Supply Bill, and are extremely concerned to find, that notwithstanding His Majesty’s Service, and the present Situation of our Affairs, which you well describe in the first Lines of the Message, do so plainly mark the Utility and Necessity of passing that Bill, yet it must, you are pleased to say, be rejected.
We are sensible that your Honour did make to a former Bill the Objection you mention, concerning the incidental Charges; but as the House long since dropt that Bill, and, out of Zeal for the Service, broke through their Rules, and in the same Sitting prepared and presented another Bill, free from that Objection, we cannot conceive why it is repeated here, unless to swell, in Appearance, the Number of supposed Faults in the present Bill, with which it has nothing to do.
It obliges us now, however, to explain that Matter. The incidental Charges of the current Year are well known, and cannot be, as your Honour unkindly says, “every Thing that the Assembly shall please to certify to be such.” The Sum they may amount to, is not indeed so certain, varying a little in different Years; but was always, and must be small, compared to the Sum granted in the Bill. The Course relating to them, even since the Order of Council, has been, for the Governor to request an Estimate of the Particulars, and for the House to give it, as near as they could; and his passing the Bill, after receiving such Estimate, was understood, both by him and the House, to be his Consent to that Application, and those Issues. The Clause was inserted in Compliance with that Practice, and your Honour might, and would, have had the Estimate as soon as it could be prepared, on the least Intimation; but it seems you were better pleased with the Opportunity you supposed it gave you, of making some Charge against us, as contravening the fourth Article in the Order of Council, viz. “That the Governor’s Consent and Approbation be made necessary in every Issue and Application of the public Money.” It was a Matter of so small Consequence, that we did not think it worth a Word of “Controversy,” at such a Time, and therefore, in the new Bill, totally dropt the Clause, leaving those incidental Charges to be provided for in some other Way we might afterwards agree upon; but your Honour chuses to repeat the Accusation, though now so evidently out of Time.
You are pleased to say, “you know of no other certain Rule of judging of the Intentions of another, than by the plain Import of the Words made use of to convey them.” We beg Leave to point out to your Honour another Rule, and, we think, a better. Laws and Ordinances, though composed by the wisest Men, in Councils and Parliaments, practiced in using the greatest Clearness and Precision, are sometimes found to contain Obscurities and Uncertainties, which those who are to execute them, find difficult to clear and settle: It is no Reflection on such Bodies, to say this: Every Thing human is subject to Imperfection: But where the Words are, by Construction, capable of two opposite Meanings, the one manifestly unjust and unequal, and the other perfectly consistent with Justice and Equity, we conceive it a good Rule to judge that the Intention is with the latter. Respect to the Body forming such Law requires it. Common Candour demands it. Now, in the present Case, the Intention of the Lords of the Council, in certain Words by them made use of, is to be judged of by your Honour and the Assembly, in order to form a Law agreeable to them. The House, in the Bill, put a Construction on them, conformable to common Justice and Equity; your Honour was pleased to tell us, that the Words have a very different Meaning, but for some Time refused to say what you conceived that different Meaning to be, insisting on our using the very Words, without Explanation. It was not till after three Messages, requesting your Honour’s Judgment of that Meaning, and several Days spent in our Endeavours, that we have been able to obtain it; and now that we have it, and consider it, we do not wonder it should be so long refused. It is at length this, “That if Five, Ten, or Fifteen Pounds, is the lowest at which any such [i.e. located uncultivated] Lands of the Inhabitants are assessed, none of the located uncultivated Lands of the Proprietaries shall be assessed higher.” Had we been fortunate enough to have used these Words in our Bill, we now have Reason to believe your Honour would not have referred us back to the very Terms of the Report, and insisted, that any Amendments or Additions of ours would rather tend to perplex than explain those Terms. But your Honour must know, that many of the located uncultivated Lands belonging to the Inhabitants cannot, from the Nature of them, be, in Justice, assessed higher than Five Pounds per Hundred Acres, while the best of their Lands must by the Law be assessed at Fifteen Pounds. And can your Honour think it just, that because the worst, and least valuable of the Peoples Lands are rated at Five Pounds, the best, and most valuable of the Proprietaries Lands should be assessed no higher, when it is well known they select and locate the best in every new Purchase, before the People are allowed to take up any? Your Honour will not say this, because it is inconsistent with all our Notions of common Honesty. The same Modesty which so long prevented your Honour’s confessing to us your Opinion of the Meaning of those Words in the Order of Council, will prevent your insisting on that Meaning as a just One. And for our Parts, we dare not put so iniquitous a Construction on their Lordships Words. Respect and Decency forbid it.
Your Honour tells us, that you cannot, “consistent with your Duty,” pass this Bill. If Duty to the Crown is meant, can your Honour seriously attempt to persuade us, that the Crown will be offended with a Proprietary Governor, for giving up an unjust Proprietary Claim to Partiality in Assessments in Favour of Proprietaries private Estate, where no Point of Government, or Prerogative of the Crown, is concerned? But perhaps your Honour means Duty to the Proprietaries, as your honoured Father and Uncle; if so, we must allow that Duty well supported, and enforced by your own private Interest; for such a Partiality in Favour of Proprietary Estates, must not only be extremely agreeable to the present Possessors, (from our Acquaintance with them for some Years past we speak it) but, if it can be established, will be highly advantageous to their Posterity.
Your immediate Predecessor, Governor Hamilton, assured a former Assembly, that “nothing was further from his Thoughts, than to desire that the Proprietaries Estate should be exempted from paying a proportionable Part of the Supplies for the current Service.” And, “that it was of the Essence of free Governments, that the Money raised for public Services should be assessed equally upon all Ranks and Conditions of Men, otherwise the highest Injustice may be committed under the Sanction of Law.” There seems now some Reason to apprehend, that these equitable Sentiments of that Gentleman might possibly have a Share in occasioning his Removal; and we shall not wonder if your Honour, from a nearer Connection with the Proprietaries, has imbibed others extreamly different.
The Inconvenience we mentioned that might arise from the Assessors of different Counties differing in their Opinion of the Meaning of the Terms you require in the Bill, your Honour apprehends will be removed by Means of the Provincial Commissioners of Appeal; which we own we do not see. The Assessors of different Counties may not only fall on different Modes of Taxation, as they differently understand those unexplained Terms, but should Half the Assessors in one County understand them one Way, and the other Half the other, no Tax can be laid, or Money raised in that County, till they agree. The Provincial Commissioners of Appeal too, being nine, and five of them a Board, three of which can determine, may, being of different Opinions, give different Judgments at different Sittings, as often as three, the Majority of a Board, happen to be taken from those who are of one or the other Opinion; besides, though the Assessors below should, from a right Understanding of the unexplained Words, act rightly, if the Provincial Commissioners, for Want of Explanation, understand the Words in the wrong Sense, they may, on Appeals, overthrow every right Assessment in the Province. In short, we conceive that much Confusion must arise from the using of Terms in a Law, that the Governor and the Assembly both declare they understand so differently. We may both be separately clear in our Conceptions of their Meaning, but our differing so widely in those Conceptions, seems to indicate at least some Ambiguity or Obscurity in the Terms; and we believe this is the first Time that ever the Enacting an Obscurity in a Law was insisted upon, in Hopes that some who were to execute it, might possibly see more clearly through it than the Legislators themselves.
Your Honour is pleased to profess great Concern for the “Safety and Security of the Province, and for the Blood of His Majesty’s brave Subjects, which may be spilt on the Frontiers, for Want of a Law to provide for their Protection,” and yet refuse to pass this Bill, unless gross Partiality in taxing is established by it in Favour of the Proprietary Estates. You have twice told us, that “you are not unacquainted with the long and various Contests on this Subject that have been agitated between the legislative Branches here, nor with the Evils and Miseries which were entailed on the Frontier Inhabitants by those Disputes:” As you must then know that those Contests arose solely from Proprietary Injustice, you cannot be ignorant to whom all those Evils and Miseries ought to be imputed. And, on a little further Reflection, will find that you do really “flatter yourself,” as you well express it, when you imagine, that “none of the ill Consequences which may ensue from the Failure of this Bill can justly be imputed to” You. Your Honour has refused to pass it at present, and our Affairs lay us under a Necessity of making an Adjournment; but we now acquaint you, that the Bill continues to lie ready for your Assent, and that we shall chearfully return on your Summons, whenever, upon more mature Consideration, you shall find yourself willing to enact it into a Law. In the mean Time, if any ill Consequences ensue from the Delay, they will undoubtedly add to that Load of Obloquy and Guilt the Proprietary Family is already burdened with, and bring their Government (a Government which is always meanly making Use of public Distress, to extort something from the People for its own private Advantage) into (if possible) still greater Contempt.
For our own Parts, we consider the Artifices now using, and the Steps taking to enflame the Minds of unthinking People, and excite Tumults against the Assembly, as concerted with a View to awe us into Proprietary Measures: But as these Seats were given us from no Solicitations of ours, and as we have no private Interest to serve by retaining them, nor any Pleasure in the Possession of them, we are very willing to quit them, whenever our Constituents think proper to relieve us, by chusing other Representatives, which our annual Elections give them frequent Opportunities of doing. And for the present Safety of the Persons and Properties of the good People of this Province, since the Governor will not pass the equal Militia Bill we offered him, but upon Terms of great Addition to Proprietary Power, which we hope, and are persuaded, no future Assembly will agree to, we must for the present depend on ourselves and our Friends, and on such Protection as the King’s Troops can afford us, which we hope, by the Blessing of God, will be sufficient to defend us, till His Majesty shall graciously think fit to take this distracted Province under His immediate Care and Protection.
Signed by Order of the House,Isaac Norris, Speaker.


Title: Pennsylvania Assembly: Resolves upon the Present Circumstances, [24 March 1764]
From: Pennsylvania Assembly
To:

As soon as the Assembly had considered on March 10 the governor’s message of the 7th rejecting the £50,000 supply bill and had appointed a committee to bring in a new £55,000 bill, it named a second committee of eight members, including Franklin, “to draw up and bring in certain Resolves upon the present Circumstances of this Province, and the Aggrievances of the Inhabitants thereof.” The committee reported on March 24 immediately after the Assembly had approved the reply to the governor of that date (see immediately above). The House “deliberately considered” the draft resolutions and “after some Alterations” adopted them, in each case, according to the record, without a dissenting voice. Soon afterwards the Assembly adjourned to May 14.
This “Necklace of Resolves,” as Franklin called it to his friend William Strahan a few days after its adoption, encompassed virtually all the major complaints of the Assembly against the proprietary government. Some of the grievances were of long standing, others of more recent origin; some were solidly grounded in frustrating experience, others were trivial or perhaps unjustified on the basis of any impartial examination of the circumstances. Taken together, however, they summarize the case which the party dominant in the elective body proposed to make against proprietary authority in the existing system of government of Pennsylvania. To use a modern analogy, they constituted a platform for the Assembly election of 1764.
That this dominant party did not necessarily represent the views of a majority of the inhabitants is obvious from any examination of the distribution of seats in the Assembly. The city of Philadelphia with two seats, and the three counties of Philadelphia, Bucks, and Chester with eight each, together held twenty-six of the thirty-six seats in the House of Representatives, although they included only a little more than half the taxable inhabitants of the colony in 1760. That such a distribution of seats, however fair it had once been, was no longer equitable in a truly democratic sense after the five newer counties had attained substantial populations, can hardly be debated. It may be remarked in passing, however, that equality of representation was far from being a generally accepted principle at this time in the English-speaking world. Pennsylvania’s system was at least as fair at this period as were the systems of several other rapidly growing colonies, and its basis of representation was much more equitable than that of the British House of Commons before 1832.
At the same time, an objective analysis of the political system in Pennsylvania leads to the conclusion that control of the executive branch of government by a private (and nonresident) family which was also vested with extensive rights to the soil as a source of personal income was no longer an appropriate basis of operation in the 1760s, however useful it had been for the first settlement of the colony eighty years before. Conflict of public and private interest on the part of the Penns was virtually inescapable. In this respect the Assembly’s position was fundamentally sound.

These two undesirable conditions, both long in development, reached crisis proportions simultaneously in 1764, largely as the result in both cases of the Indian uprising that demanded active measures of defense and consequent expenditures of money. A paradoxical alignment of political forces ensued. The “democratic” inhabitants of the more exposed counties rose up against the dominant group whose chief political strength lay in the old eastern counties. They accused the Assembly and its leaders of a selfish indifference to the needs of the frontier areas, and in consequence formed a political alliance with the supporters of the essentially obsolete and undemocratic proprietary regime. The dominant party in the east, believing itself to be the champion of the “people’s” rights against the “self-interested” proprietary family, saw the colony in danger of losing the gains the party had so long struggled to obtain, and the party itself in danger of losing its position of political leadership.
The apparent solution, from the Assembly party’s point of view, however naive it may seem in retrospect, was to seek the elimination of the Proprietors from the scene and the assumption of governmental control directly by the Crown. This idea had been privately discussed among the leaders, including Franklin, for about six years. With substantial experience in London, Franklin may not have been as optimistic as some of his fellow assemblymen that royal government would bring Utopia to Pennsylvania. He apparently believed, however, that his colony suffered under special disadvantages experienced nowhere else except in Maryland and that the removal of the Proprietors from a share in the government of Pennsylvania would be a permanent advantage to its people, placing them for the first time in a position of equality with the inhabitants of a majority of the English colonies. In his opinion, we may conclude from his writings of this period, the matter of the claims of the western settlers to political equality with the east was a secondary issue that could be ignored while the more pressing question was being resolved.

[March 24, 1764]
Resolved, N.C.D.
1. That it is the Opinion of this House, that the Proprietaries of this Province, after having delegated their Powers of Government, can be justly or legally considered in no other Light than as private Owners of Property, without the least Share or constitutional Power of Legislation whatever.
  Resolved, N.C.D.
2. That the Obstructions and Delays the Measures of the Crown have so repeatedly met with in this Province, during the late War, were solely owing to Proprietary Instructions, respecting the private Interest of the Proprietaries.
  Resolved, N. C.D.
3. That all the Mischiefs to the Province, which the Governor mentions in his late Messages, as occasioned by those Obstructions, are therefore chargeable wholly to the Proprietaries.
  Resolved, N.C.D.
4. That it is high Presumption in any Subject to interfere between the Crown and the People; and by his private Instructions to a Deputy Governor, enforced by penal Bonds, prevent the Crown’s receiving, and the Peoples granting, the Supplies required, and necessary for the Defence of His Majesty’s Province.
  Resolved, N.C.D.
5. That it has appeared fully to the Assemblies of this Province, on due Enquiry made, that no Injustice has been done the Proprietaries in the Taxation of their Estates, and that not the least Cause has been given them to apprehend any such Injustice.
  Resolved, N.C.D.
6. That the Assemblies of Pennsylvania have, in many Instances, and for a long Course of Years, shewn their affectionate Regard for the Proprietary Family; that Family and its Deputies having received from the mere Benevolence of the People, within these last Forty Years, near Four-score Thousand Pounds.
  Resolved, N.C.D.
7. That in return for this Goodness of the People of Pennsylvania, the present Proprietaries have, ever since their Accession, been endeavouring to diminish and annihilate the Privileges granted by their Honourable Father, to encourage the Settlement of the Province.
  Resolved, N.C.D.
8. That from an Attachment to Proprietary Interest, and to increase the Revenue of their Deputies arising from Licences, the Benevolence of the People in granting the same has been grosly abused, and publick Houses and Dram-shops have been encreased to an enormous Degree, to the great Corruption of Morals in the Populace, and Scandal of the Government; and that, from the same Causes, reasonable Bills presented to Proprietary Governors, for restraining or preventing this Evil, have been from time to time refused.
  Resolved, N.C.D.
9. That after Indian Purchases made by the Proprietaries, their causing to be located and surveyed the best Tracts of Land for themselves and their Dependants, to lie waste in great Quantities for a future Market, is the Cause that our Frontiers are so thinly and scatteringly settled, whereby the poor Inhabitants there have been rendered less able to defend themselves, and become a more easy Prey to the small skulking Parties of the Enemy.
  Resolved, N.C.D.
10. That the Proprietaries having a Monopoly of the Lands of this Province, has enabled them to hold up the vacant unlocated Lands at exorbitant Prices, and the more, as they pay no Quitrent, but a small Acknowledgment only to the Crown, pay no Taxes for those Lands, and are under no Obligation of settling them in any limited Time.
  Resolved, N.C.D.
11. That their exorbitant Demands in the Price of Lands, have driven many Thousands of Families out of this Province into Maryland, Virginia, North and South-Carolina, where Lands are to be had reasonably; the Frontiers of all those Provinces being chiefly settled with People from Pennsylvania, who likewise carried away with them great Sums of Money, and thereby this Province has been doubly weakened, in the Loss of People to defend it, and of Substance and Improvements taxable towards its Defence.
Resolved, N.C.D.
12. That it was therefore the more unreasonable in the Proprietaries to contend as they have done, first, that they should not be taxed at all; then that their Quit-rents should not be taxed; then that their located uncultivated Lands should be exempted; and put the Province to great Expence, in getting those Points decided against them at Home; while their Estate was equally to be defended with others, and the Province, on whom they would throw the Burden, was at the same Time so greatly weakened by Proprietary Avarice only.
Resolved, N.C.D.
13. That the present Proprietary Demand, of having the best and most valuable of their located uncultivated Lands, rated and assessed no higher than the worst and least valuable of the located uncultivated Lands belonging to the Inhabitants, is equally unreasonable and unjust with any of their former Claims.
Resolved, N.C.D.
14. That the Proprietaries taking Advantage of Times of public Calamity to extort Privileges from the People, or enforce Claims against them, with the Knife of Savages at their Throat, not permitting them to raise Money for their Defence, unless the Proprietary arbitrary Will and Pleasure is complied with, is a Practice dishonourable, unjust, tyrannical and inhuman.
Resolved, N.C.D.
15. That the Proprietaries contending for the Power of appointing Judges during their Pleasure, who are to determine in all Causes between the Proprietaries and their Tenants, the Inhabitants of the Province, is unjust, renders the Liberties and Properties of the Subject precarious, and dependant on the Proprietary Will and Pleasure, and is by no Colour of Reason supportable.
Resolved, N.C.D.
16. That the bad Light this Province unhappily stands in with our gracious Sovereign and His Ministers, has been owing to Proprietary Misrepresentations and Calumnies.
Resolved, N.C.D.
17. That it is the Opinion of this House, that the late Militia Bill offered to the Governor was equal and just, with regard to the Freemen of the Province, and sufficient for all good Purposes. And that the sole Appointment of the Officers, insisted on by the Governor, however willing the House might be to comply with the same under a Royal Government, would be an Addition to the Proprietary Power, that by no Means can be safely trusted by the People in their Hands.
Resolved, N.C.D.
18. That the Fines proposed by the Governor, for Offences in the Militia, are enormously high, and calculated to enslave the good People of this Province.
Resolved, N.C.D.
19. That the Power insisted on by the Governor, of marching any Number of the Militia to any Part of the Province, and keeping them there during any Time, at Pleasure, without the Advice and Consent of the Commissioners, who are to pay them, is a Power that may be used so as greatly and unnecessarily to harrass the Freemen of the Province, and cannot safely be trusted in the Hands of a Proprietary Governor.
Resolved, N.C.D.
20. That Courts-martial proposed in the Governor’s Amendments to the Militia Bill, to be held by Officers of the sole Appointment of a Proprietary Governor, with the Power of Life and Death over the Inhabitants of the Province, may be used greatly to their Prejudice, as a destructive Engine of Proprietary Power.
Resolved, N.C.D.
21. That the House, in the present Supply Bill, from a dutiful Respect to the Judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council, and an earnest Desire of promoting His Majesty’s Measures, wisely concerted for the Protection of this Province, have fully complied with the same: And that the Sense in which some of the Articles of their Lordships Report is understood and explained by the Governor, is inconsistent with Reason and Justice, and what therefore their Lordships cannot be supposed ever to have meant or intended.
Resolved, N.C.D.
22. That it is the Opinion of this House, that the Governor’s rejecting the said Bill does not arise from its not being conformable to that Report, but because it is not formed agreeable to Proprietary Instructions.
Resolved, N.C.D.
23. That the House having fully complied with their Duty to His Majesty, and the good People of this Province, in offering an equitable Supply Bill to the Governor for his Assent, all the Distresses and Mischiefs that shall happen on the Failure of the said Bill, are justly imputable to an undue Influence of the Proprietary Interest and Instructions on the Governor.
Resolved, N.C.D.
24. That the sole executive Powers of Government being in the Hands of the Proprietaries, together with the very extensive and growing Power arising naturally from their vast and daily increasing Property, must in future Times, according to the natural Course of human Affairs, render them absolute, and become as dangerous to the Prerogatives of the Crown as to the Liberties of the People.
Resolved, N.C.D.
25. That it is therefore the Opinion of this House, that the powers of Government ought, in all good Policy, to be separated from the Power attending that immense Property, and lodged, where only it can be properly and safely lodged, in the Hands of the Crown.
And as all Hope of any Degree of Happiness, under the Proprietary Government, is, in our Opinion, now at an End,
Resolved, N.C.D.
26. That this House will adjourn, in order to consult their Constituents, whether an humble Address should be drawn up, and transmitted to His Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to take the People of this Province under His immediate Protection and Government, by compleating the Agreement heretofore made with the first Proprietor for the Sale of the Government to the Crown, or otherwise, as to His Wisdom and Goodness shall seem meet.
Ordered,
That the foregoing Resolves be made public.


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Richard Jackson, 29 March 1764
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Jackson, Richard

Dear Sir
Philada. March 29. 1764
In my last I inform’d you that the Agreement between the Governor and Assembly was not likely long to continue. The enclos’d Paper will show you that the Breach is wider now than ever. And ’tis thought there will be a general Petition from the Inhabitants to the Crown, to take us under its immediate Government. I send you this early Notice of what is intended that you may prepare Minds for it, as they fall in your Way. If I can have time I will send you a Copy of the Bill we last sent up, and which was refused. But if it goes not by this Vessel, we shall send it via Lisbon in one that sails in a few Days.
Be assured, that we all think it impossible to go on any longer under a Proprietary Government. By the Resolves you will see, that never was greater Unanimity in any Assembly. Enclos’d I send you a Draft of what I think will be pretty nearly the Petition, that you may see the Tenor of it. Note, There was an Agreement between the First Proprietor W. Penn, and the Crown, for the Sale of the Government at £11,000 of which £2,000 was paid him. Note also, that the Crown has a great Sum in the Proprietaries Hands, half the Quitrents of the Lower Counties belonging to the Crown, of which the Proprietaries are Receivers, and I believe have never render’d any Account.
You will endear yourself to us forever, if you can get this Change of Government compleated.
I write in great haste; but am Dear Friend, Yours most affectionately
B Franklin

P.S. Besides the general Petitions of the Inhabitants the Assembly will present an Address to the same Purpose.
 Endorsed: 29 Mar 1764 Benjn Franklin Esq


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Richard Jackson, 31 March 1764
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Jackson, Richard

Dear Sir,
Philada. March 31. 1764
I wrote to you pretty largely on the 14th Instant, and yesterday a small Letter enclosing a Newspaper, with the late Proceedings of the House. In the former I acquainted you, that our first Money Bill was rejected by the Governor, and that the House would prepare another, which they accordingly did, and herewith you have a Copy of it. By that, and by the Messages, you will see why it did not pass. We are now in the utmost Confusion, Tumults threatned and daily expected, no Money to pay the Troops that have been some time raised, nor any likelihood of obtaining any; violent Animosities between the Presbyterians and Quakers, and nothing in which we seem generally to agree but the Wish for a King’s Government. I enclose you a Copy of the Petition, that is now handing about, and ’tis said will be pretty generally sign’d throughout the Province; tho’ some Pains are taken to prevent it, by frightning the Presbyterians and Quakers with the Bugbears of Bishops and Tythes as if they were necessary Consequences of a Royal Government. For my own Part, I think it impossible to go on longer with the Proprietary Government; the Treatment given by the Governor to the House in return for their most respectful Behaviour towards him, showing the rooted Dislike of that Family to the People; and the sudden Flame in which they (the Assembly) broke out again, showing that the old Coals were only covered, and that the Ill-will is as fix’d as it is mutual: Whence continual Jarrs must arise, and of course Obstructions to all necessary Business. I therefore wish most devoutly for a Change, and join with our other Friends of the Assembly in requesting all your Endeavours and Interest in bringing it about. We confide in the Opinion you once gave on the Case stated, that our Privileges could not, on such a Change, be taken from us, but by Act of Parliament; and we hope there will be no Necessity of Applying to Parliament on this Occasion, as an unfulfill’d Agreement still subsists, (if we are rightly inform’d) between the Crown and the Proprietary for the Sale of the Government for 11, or £12,000 (See W. Penn’s Will) of which £2000 has been paid; and much more than the Remainder must be in the Proprietaries Hands; as Half the Quit-Rents of the three Lower Counties belong to the Crown, and the Proprietaries are Collectors of the same for the Crown, and have never, as I have heard, accounted or paid anything: So that the Agreement may easily be compleated. Tho’ perhaps the Crown may, on Enquiry, find that the present Proprietaries have not the Right of Selling, as being the youngest Branch of the Penn Family; if so, Mr. Life can probably tell where young Springet may be found, who no doubt would willingly surrender to the Crown for such a Sum; as he seems not able to contend for his Right. You will observe in the Resolves the great Unanimity of the House. When they meet again in May, if the Petitions are generally sign’d, they will be sent to you accompanied by one from the House, together with some Cash. You can never, I am persuaded, do us any Service more acceptable, than procuring for us the desired Success to those Petitions.
I this day saw Mr. Daniel Coxe, and mention’d to him your Doubt of the Intention of their Proposals which he immediately explain’d as I understood it; and said that he should in a few Days see his Uncle (William Coxe) now in the Country, would mention the Matter to him, and they would write jointly and explicitly to you upon it.
By the London Ship I sent you 20 of the Maryland Pamphlets. Since the Ship sail’d, I receiv’d the enclos’d from Mr. Ringold, with some Errata, which they wish might be corrected with a Pen. Your Clerk can easily do it, if they are not distributed before this comes to hand. I send you their Supply-Bill also, and the Messages relating to it. The Maryland Assembly will at their next Sitting, as I am told, agree to a Petition for a King’s Government, and I believe the Transacting that Matter will come into your Hands likewise. I mention this, that you may, if you think proper, be occasionally preparing Minds for both. Please to present my best Respects to the Speaker; and believe me ever, with the greatest Esteem, Dear Sir, Your most obedient and most humble Servant
B Franklin
R. Jackson Esqr
 Endorsed: 31st. Mar 1764 B: Franklin Esqr


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Francis Bernard, 9 April 1764
From: Bernard, Francis
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Sir
Boston, Ap 9. 1764
I am favoured with yours of the 28th of March and have ordered £12 12s. philadelphia currency to be paid to Mr. Williams for which I am obliged to you. The present state of the College here makes it more expedient to send my Son to philadelphia: but I am desirous he may be boarded where he may be under a proper restraint. I have heard that Dr. Ellison takes boarders: I should like to have him with the Doctor for whom I have a great regard: I should be obliged to you if you would speak to him if it is proper, and let me know his answer. Give me leave to trouble you to send the inclosed by the first Vessel bound for Madeira. I am &c.
B Franklin Esqr.


Title: Cool Thoughts on the Present Situation of Our Public Affairs, 12 April 1764
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To:

The Resolves of March 24 and the assemblymen’s immediate adjournment for seven weeks “in order to consult their Constituents” (above, pp. 123–33) brought forcefully to public attention the project for a formal appeal to the King to assume direct control of the government of Pennsylvania. A vigorous campaign for support of the scheme began almost at once, as did a similar campaign in opposition to it. Each side produced a series of articles and pamphlets in defense of its position and in attack upon its opponents’ writings. Franklin’s broadside Explanatory Remarks on the Assembly’s Resolves (above, pp. 134–44), five days after the adjournment, seems to have opened the debate on behalf of the anti-proprietary party. At about the same time, or very soon afterwards, an anonymous pamphlet generally attributed to Hugh Williamson, called The Plain Dealer, No. I, appeared in support of the existing system of government and in strong attack on the Quakers. It asserted, and undertook to show, that this faction was responsible for “almost all the contentions, and all the miseries under which we have so long struggled.” A reply soon followed in the form of An Address to the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Province of Pennsylvania, attributed to Joseph Galloway. It pointed out that the Assembly had voted “upwards of £500,000” for defense during recent years, with a resulting annual tax on the inhabitants of 1s. 6d. per pound (7.5 percent) on the yearly value of their property; if there was a failure of defense, it was the fault of the governor, who had appointed the provincial military officers and had exercised general control of the actions of the troops.
Franklin re-entered the lists with his Cool Thoughts. This “Letter to a Friend in the Country” attempted both to explain the advantages Pennsylvania would attain by direct royal government and, more importantly perhaps, to convince doubters that the change would not deprive the inhabitants, especially those of non-Anglican religious affiliation, of any rights or privileges they already enjoyed under the existing system. To these ends Franklin cited the experiences of other colonies which had undergone somewhat similar changes from proprietary to royal government, and of Massachusetts, where the charter of 1691 had greatly increased the direct authority of the Crown.
Franklin’s party gave this pamphlet and Galloway’s Address wide circulation. Copies of Cool Thoughts were “thrown into the Houses of the several Inhabitants of the City” and both pamphlets “were distributed   gratis by thousands,” according to critics. Two further issues of The Plain Dealer undertook to respond. Plain Dealer, No. II, carrying a date line of May 7, 1764, probably written by someone other than Williamson, is a comparatively feeble effort, picking minor flaws in Franklin’s presentation and contributing little to the discussion of the primary questions in the dispute. Plain Dealer, No. III, dated May 12, certainly by the same author as No. I, is a much stronger piece. It presents a vigorous attack on the “Quaker Assemblymen” and other Quaker leaders, guardedly but unmistakably identifying individuals and castigating their actions, and it pointedly criticizes some of Franklin’s arguments and his attempts to draw historical parallels. In order to present as fairly as possible both sides of the dispute, so far as it had developed by the middle of May, footnotes at appropriate points in Franklin’s text will give the gist of the principal replies to his argument.

A Letter To A Friend In the Country.
Sir,
Philadelphia, April 12, 1764.
Your Apology was unnecessary. It will be no Trouble, but a Pleasure, if I can give you the Satisfaction you desire. I shall therefore immediately communicate to you my Motives for approving the Proposal of endeavouring to obtain a Royal Government, in Exchange for this of the Proprietaries; with such Answers to the Objections you mention, as, in my Opinion, fully obviate them.

I do not purpose entering into the Merits of the Disputes between the Proprietaries and the People: I only observe it as a Fact known to us all, that such Disputes there are, and that they have long subsisted, greatly to the Prejudice of the Province, clogging and embarrassing all the Wheels of Government, and exceedingly obstructing the publick Defence, and the Measures wisely concerted by our Gracious Sovereign, for the common Security of the Colonies. I may add it as another Fact, that we are all heartily tired of these Disputes.
It is very remarkable, that Disputes of the same Kind have arisen in ALL Proprietary Governments, and subsisted till their Dissolution; All were made unhappy by them, and found no Relief but in recurring finally to the immediate Government of the Crown. Pennsylvania and Maryland, are the only Two of the Kind remaining and both at this Instant agitated by the same Contentions between Proprietary Interest and Power, and Popular Liberty. Thro’ these Contentions the good People of that Province are rendered equally unhappy with our selves, and their Proprietary, perhaps, more so than our’s; for he has no Quakers in his Assembly to saddle with the Blame of those Contentions, nor can he justify himself with the Pretence, that turning to the Church has made his People his Enemies.
Pennsylvania had scarce been settled Twenty Years, when these Disputes began between the first Proprietor and the original Settlers; they continued, with some Intermissions, during his whole Life; his Widow took them up, and continued them after his Death. Her Sons resum’d them very early,
   (a) See their Message to the Assembly, in which the Right of sitting on their own Adjournments is denied.
 and they still subsist. Mischievous and distressing as they have been found to both Proprietors and People, it does not appear that there is any Prospect of their being extinguish’d, till either the Proprietary Purse is unable to support them, or the Spirit of the People so broken, that they shall be willing to submit to any Thing, rather than continue them. The first is not very likely to happen, as that immense Estate goes on increasing.
Considering all Circumstances, I am at length inclin’d to think, that the Cause of these miserable Contentions is not to be sought for merely in the Depravity and Selfishness of human Minds. For tho’ it is not unlikely that in these, as well as in other Disputes, there are Faults on both Sides, every glowing Coal being apt to inflame its Opposite; yet I see no Reason to suppose that all Proprietary Rulers are worse Men than other Rulers, nor that all People in Proprietary Governments are worse People than those in other Governments. I suspect therefore, that the Cause is radical, interwoven in the Constitution, and so become of the very Nature, of Proprietary Governments; and will therefore produce its Effects, as long as such Governments continue. And, as some Physicians say, every Animal Body brings into the World among its original Stamina, the Seeds of that Disease that shall finally produce its Dissolution; so the Political Body of a Proprietary Government, contains those convulsive Principles that will at length destroy it.

I may not be Philosopher enough to develop those Principles, nor would this Letter afford me Room, if I had Abilities, for such a discussion. The Fact seems sufficient for our Purpose, and the Fact is notorious, that such Contentions have been in all Proprietary Governments, and have brought, or are now bringing, them all to a Conclusion. I will only mention one Particular common to them all. Proprietaries must have a Multitude of private Accounts and Dealings with almost all the People of their Provinces, either for Purchase-money or Quit-rents. Dealings often occasion Differences, and Differences produce mutual Opinions of Injustice. If Proprietaries do not insist on small Rights, they must on the Whole lose large Sums; and if they do insist on small Rights, they seem to descend, their Dignity suffers in the Opinion of the People, and with it the Respect necessary to keep up the Authority of Government. The People, who think themselves injured in Point of Property, are discontented with the Government, and grow turbulent; and the Proprietaries using their Powers of Government to procure for themselves what they think Justice in their Points of Property, renders those Powers odious. I suspect this has had no small Share in producing the Confusions incident to those Governments. They appear, however, to be, of all others, the most unhappy.
At present we are in a wretched Situation. The Government that ought to keep all in Order, is itself weak, and has scarce Authority enough to keep the common Peace. Mobs assemble and kill (we scarce dare say murder) Numbers of innocent People in cold Blood, who were under the Protection of the Government. Proclamations are issued to bring the Rioters to Justice. Those Proclamations are treated with the utmost Indignity and Contempt. Not a Magistrate dares wag a Finger towards discovering or apprehending the Delinquents, (we must not call them Murderers). They assemble again, and with Arms in their Hands, approach the Capital. The Government truckles, condescends to cajole them, and drops all Prosecution of their Crimes; whilst honest Citizens, threatened in their Lives and Fortunes, flie the Province, as having no Confidence in the Publick Protection. We are daily threatened with more of these Tumults; and the Government, which in its Distress call’d aloud on the sober Inhabitants to come with Arms to its Assistance, now sees those who afforded that Assistance daily libell’d, abus’d, and menac’d by its Partizans for so doing; whence it has little Reason to expect such Assistance on another Occasion: In this Situation, what is to be done? By what Means is that Harmony between the two Branches of Government to be obtain’d, without which the internal Peace of the Province can not be well secured? One Project is, to turn all Quakers out of the Assembly; or, by obtaining more Members for the Back Counties, to get a Majority in, who are not Quakers. This, perhaps, is not very difficult to do; and more Members for those Counties may, on other Accounts, be proper; but I much question if it would answer this End, as I see among the Members, that those who are not Quakers, and even those from the Back Counties, are as hearty and unanimous in opposing what they think Proprietary Injustice, as the Quakers themselves, if not more so. Religion has happily nothing to do with our present Differences, tho’ great Pains is taken to lug it into the Squabble. And even were the Quakers extirpated, I doubt whether the Proprietaries, while they pursue the same Measures, would be a Whit more at their Ease. Another Project is, to chuse none for Assembly-men but such as are Friends to the Proprietaries. The Number of Members is not so great, but that I believe this Scheme may be practicable, if you look for Representatives among Proprietary Officers and Dependants. Undoubtedly it would produce great Harmony between Governor and Assembly: But how would both of them agree with the People? Their Principles and Conduct must greatly change, if they would be elected a second Year. But that might be needless. Six Parts in Seven agreeing with the Governor, could make the House perpetual. This, however, would not probably establish Peace in the Province. The Quarrel the People now have with the Proprietaries, would then be with both the Proprietaries and Assembly. There seems to remain then but one Remedy for our Evils, a Remedy approved by Experience, and which has been tried with Success by other Provinces; I mean that of an immediate Royal Government, without the Intervention of Proprietary Powers, which, like unnecessary Springs and Movements in a Machine, are so apt to produce Disorder.
It is not to be expected that the Proposal of a Change like this, should meet with no Objections. Those you have mention’d to me concerning Liberty of Conscience and the Privileges of Dissenters, are, however, not difficult to answer; as they seem to arise merely from want of Information, or Acquaintance with the State of other Colonies, before and after such Changes had been made in their Government. Carolina and the Jerseys, were formerly Proprietary Governments, but now immediately under the Crown; and their Cases had many Circumstances similar to ours. Of the First we are told,
“There was a natural Infirmity in the Policy of their Charter, which was the Source of many of the Misfortunes of the Colony, without any Imputation on the noble Families concern’d. For the Grantees, [the Proprietors] being eight in Number, and not incorporated, and no Provision being made to conclude the whole Number by the Voices of the Majority, there could not be timely Measures always agreed on, which were proper or necessary for the good Government of the Plantation. In the mean Time the Inhabitants grew unruly and quarrelled about Religion and Politicks; and while there was a mere Anarchy among them, they were expos’d to the Attacks and Insults of their Spanish and Indian Neighbours, whom they had imprudently provok’d and injur’d; and as if they had conspir’d against the Growth of the Colony, they repealed their Laws for Liberty of Conscience, though the Majority of the People were Dissenters, and had resorted thither under the publick Faith for a compleat Indulgence, which they considered as Part of their Magna Charta. Within these four Years an End was put to their Sorrows; for about that Time, the Lords Proprietors and the Planters, (who had long been heartily tir’d of each other) were, by the Interposition of the Legislature, fairly divorced for ever, and the Property of the Whole vested in the Crown.”
   * New and accurate Account of Carolina, p. 14. Printed at London, 1733.
 And the above-mention’d injudicious and unjust Act, against the Privileges of Dissenters, was repeal’d by the King in Council.
Another Historian tells us, “Their intestine Distractions, and their foreign Wars, kept the Colony so low, that an Act of Parliament, if possible to prevent the last ruinous Consequences of these Divisions, put the Province under the immediate Care and Inspection of the Crown.”
   †Account of the British Settlements in America. Page 233 concerning Carolina.

And Governor Johnson, at his first meeting the Assembly there, after the Change, tells them, “His Majesty, out of his great Goodness and Fatherly Care of you, and at the earnest Request and Solicitation of your selves, has been graciously pleased, at a great Expence, to purchase seven Eights of the late Lords Proprietaries Charter, whereby you are become under his immediate Government; a Blessing and Security we have been long praying for, and solicitous of; the good Effects of which we daily experience by the Safety we enjoy, as well in our Trade, by the Protection of his Ships of War, as by Land, by an Independant Company maintain’d purely for our Safety and Encouragement. The taking off the Enumeration of Rice, is a peculiar Favour, &c.”
   ‡Historical Register, No. 63, for 1731.

By these Accounts we learn, that the People of that Province, far from losing by the Change, obtain’d internal Security and external Protection, both by Sea and Land; the Dissenters a Restoration and Establishment of their Privileges, which the Proprietary Government attempted to deprive them of; and the whole Province, Favours in point of Trade with respect to their grand Staple Commodity, which from that Time they were allowed to carry directly to foreign Ports, without being oblig’d, as before, to enter in England.

  With regard to the neighbouring Province of New-Jersey, we find, in a Representation from the Board of Trade to the Crown, dated Whitehall, Oct. 2, 1701, the following Account of it, viz. “That the Inhabitants in a Petition to his Majesty the last Year, complained of several Grievances they lay under by the Neglect or Mismanagement of the Proprietors of that Province, or their Agents; … unto which they also added, that during the whole Time the said Proprietors have govern’d, or pretended to govern, that Province, they have never taken care to preserve or defend the same from the Indians, or other Enemies, by sending or providing any Arms, Ammunition or Stores, as they ought to have done; and the said Inhabitants thereupon humbly prayed, his Majesty would be pleased to commissionate some fit Person, to be Governor over them. That it has been represented to us by several Letters, Memorials and other Papers, as well from the Inhabitants as Proprietors; that they are at present in Confusion and Anarchy, and that it is much to be apprehended, lest by the Heats of the Parties that are amongst them, they should fall into such Violences, as may endanger the Lives of many Persons; and destroy the Colony.”
   (b) Grants and Concessions, and original Constitutions of New-Jersey, printed at Philadelphia by W. Bradford. p. 606.

In Consequence of these Disorders, and Petitions from the People, the Proprietors were oblig’d to surrender that Government to the Crown; Queen Anne then reigning; who of all our Crowned Heads since the Revolution, was by far the least favourable to Dissenters; yet her Instructions to Lord Cornbury, her first Governor, were express and full in their Favour, viz. Instr. 51.”You are to permit a Liberty of Conscience to all Persons, (except Papists) so that they may be contented with a quiet and peaceable Enjoyment of the same, not giving Offence or Scandal to the Government.”
Instr. 52. “And whereas we have been informed that divers of our good Subjects inhabiting those Parts, do make a religious Scruple of Swearing, and by reason of their refusing to take an Oath in any Court of Justice and other Places, are or may be liable to many Inconveniencies, our Will and Pleasure is, that in Order to their Ease in what they conceive to be Matter of Conscience, so far as may be consistent with good Order and Government, you take Care that an Act be passed in the General Assembly of our said Province, to the like Effect as that passed here in the Seventh and Eighth Years of his late Majesty’s Reign, entitled, An Act that the solemn Affirmation and Declaration of the People called Quakers, shall be accepted instead of an Oath in the usual Form; and that the same be transmitted to us, and to our Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, as before directed.”
Instr. 53. “And whereas we have been farther informed, that in the Settlement of the Government of our said Province, it may so happen, that the Number of Inhabitants fitly qualified to serve in our Council, in the General Assembly, and in other Places of Trust and Profit there, will be but small; it is therefore our Will and Pleasure, that such of the said People called Quakers, as shall be found capable of any of those Places and Employments, and accordingly be elected or appointed to serve therein, may, upon their taking and signing the Declaration of Allegiance to us, in the Form used by the same People here in England, together with a solemn Declaration for the true Discharge of their respective Trusts, be admitted by you into any of the said Places or Employments &c. “
   (b) Grants and Concessions, &c. page 633.

And the same Privileges have been, and still are, fully enjoy’d in that Province by Dissenters of all Kinds; the Council, Assembly, and Magistracy, being fill’d with Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Quakers, promiscuously, without the least Distinction or Exclusion of any. We may farther remark, on the above Report of the Board of Trade, That the Defence of a Proprietary Province was originally look’d upon as the Duty of the Proprietaries, who receiv’d the Quit-rents, and had the Emoluments of Government; whence it was, that in former Wars, when Arms, Ammunition, Cannon, and Military Stores of all Kinds, have been sent by the Crown to all the Colonies under its immediate Government, whose Situation and Circumstances requir’d it; nothing of the Kind has been sent to Proprietary Governments. And to this Day, neither Pennsylvania nor Maryland have receiv’d any such Assistance from the Crown; nor did Carolina, till it became a King’s Government.
Massachusetts-Bay, in New-England, lost its Charter in the latter End of King Charles’s Reign, when the Charters of London, and all the Corporations in England, were seized. At the Revolution the Crown gave them a better Constitution, which they enjoy to this Day: No Advantages were taken against the Privileges of the People, tho’ then universally Dissenters. The same Privileges are enjoy’d by the Dissenters in New-Hampshire, which has been a Royal Government ever since 1679, when the Freeholders and Inhabitants petition’d to be taken under the immediate Protection of the Crown. Nor is there existing in any of the American Colonies, any Test imposed by Great-Britain, to exclude Dissenters from Offices. In some Colonies, indeed, where the Episcopalians and in others, the Dissenters, have been predominant, they have made partial Laws in favour of their respective Sects, and lay’d some Difficulties on the others; but those Laws have been, generally, on Complaint, repealed at home.
It is farther objected, you tell me, that if we have a Royal Government, we must have with it a Bishop, and a Spiritual Court, and must pay Tythes to support an Episcopal Clergy. A Bishop for America has been long talk’d of in England, and probably from the apparent Necessity of the Thing, will sooner or later be appointed; because a Voyage to England for Ordination is extreamly inconvenient and expensive to the young Clergy educated in America; and the Episcopal Churches and Clergy in these Colonies cannot so conveniently be governed and regulated by a Bishop residing in England, as by one residing among these committed to his Care. But this Event will happen neither sooner nor later for our being, or not being, under a Royal Government. And the Spiritual Court, if the Bishop should hold one, can have Authority only with his own People, if with them, since it is not likely that any Law of this Province will ever be made to submit the Inhabitants to it, or oblige them to pay Tithes; and without such Law, Tithes can no more be demanded here than they are in any other Colony; and there is not a single Instance of Tithes demanded or paid in any Part of America. A Maintenance has, indeed, been established in some Colonies, for the Episcopal Clergy; as in Virginia, a Royal Government; and in Maryland, a Proprietary Government: But this was done by Acts of their own, which they were not oblig’d to make if they did not chuse it.
That we shall have a standing Army to maintain, is another Bugbear rais’d to terrify us from endeavouring to obtain a King’s Government. It is very possible that the Crown may think it necessary to keep Troops in America henceforward, to maintain its Conquests, and defend the Colonies; and that the Parliament may establish some Revenue arising out of the American Trade to be apply’d towards supporting those Troops. It is possible too, that we may, after a few Years Experience, be generally very well satisfy’d with that Measure, from the steady Protection it will afford us against Foreign Enemies, and the Security of internal Peace among ourselves without the Expence or Trouble of a Militia. But assure yourself, my Friend, that whether we like it or not, our continuing under a Proprietary Government will not prevent it, nor our coming under a Royal Government promote and forward it, any more than they would prevent or procure Rain or Sunshine.
The other Objections you have communicated to me, are, that in case of a Change of Proprietary for Royal Government, our Judges and other Officers will be appointed and sent us from England, we must have a Legislative Council; our Assembly will lose the Right of Sitting on their own Adjournments; we shall lose the Right of chusing Sheriffs, and annual Assemblies, and of voting by Ballot. I shall not enter into the Question, whether Judges from England would probably be of Advantage or Disadvantage to our Law Proceedings. It is needless, as the Power of appointing them is given to the Governor here, by a Law that has receiv’d the Royal Assent, the Act for establishing Courts. The King’s Governor only comes in Place of a Proprietary Governor; he must (if the Change is made) take the Government as he finds it. He can alter nothing. The same Answer serves for all the subsequent Objections. A Legislative Council under proper Regulations might perhaps be an Amendment of our Constitution, but it cannot take Place without our Consent, as our Constitution is otherwise establish’d; nor can our Assembly lose the Right of Sitting on their own Adjournments; nor the People that of chusing Sheriffs, and annual Assemblies, or of Voting by Ballot. These Rights being all confirm’d by Acts of Assembly assented to by the Crown. I mean the Acts entitled An Act to ascertain the Number of Members of Assembly and to regulate the Elections; and An Act for Regulating the Elections of Sheriffs and Coroners; both past in the 4th of Queen Anne. I know it has been asserted, to intimidate us, that those Acts, so far from being approved by the Crown, were never presented. But I can assure you, from good Authority, that they, with forty-eight others (all pass’d at the same Time by Governor Evans,) were duly laid before the Queen in Council; who on the 28th of April 1709 referred the same to the Board of Trade. The Board on the 8th of September 1709, reported upon the said Fifty Acts, that they had considered the same, and had taken the Opinion of the Attorney General upon several of them in point of Law; and they represented against Six of them, as unfit to be continued in force; but as to the other forty-four, the Titles of which are given at large, and among them the two material Acts above mentioned, they had no Objection to the same. Whereupon there issued two Orders of the Queen in Council both dated at the Court at Windsor, the 24th of October 1709, one repealing the Six Laws objected to; and the other, approving the remaining Forty-four. This is a Fact that you may depend upon. There is therefore nothing now that can deprive us of those Privileges but an Act of Parliament; and we may rely on the united Justice of King, Lords, and Commons, that no such Act will ever pass, while we continue loyal and dutiful Subjects. An Act of Assembly, indeed may give them up; but I trust, urgent as they are for Admission, we shall never see Proprietary Friends enow in the House, to make that detestable Sacrifice.
In fine, it does not appear to me, that this Change of Government can possibly hurt us; and I see many Advantages that may flow from it. The expression, Change of Government, seems, indeed, to be too extensive; and is apt to give the Idea of a general and total Change of our Laws and Constitution. It is rather and only a Change of Governor, that is, instead of self-interested Proprietaries, a gracious King! His Majesty who has no Views but for the Good of the People will thenceforth appoint the Governor, who, unshackled by Proprietary Instructions, will be at Liberty to join with the Assembly in enacting wholesome Laws. At present, when the King requires Supplies of his faithful Subjects, and they are willing and desirous to grant them, the Proprietaries intervene and say, unless our private Interests in certain Particulars are served, Nothing Shall Be Done. This insolent Tribunitial VETO, has long encumbered all our Publick Affairs, and been productive of many Mischiefs. By the Measure proposed, not even the Proprietaries can justly complain of any Injury. The being oblig’d to fulfill a fair Contract is no Injury. The Crown will be under no Difficulty in compleating the old Contract made with their Father, as there needs no Application to Parliament for the necessary Sum, since half the Quit-Rents of the Lower Counties belongs to the King, and the many Years Arrears in the Proprietaries Hands, who are the Collectors, must vastly exceed what they have a Right to demand, or any Reason to expect.
   *In 1722 the Arrears then in their Hands were computed at £18,000 Sterling.

On the whole, I cannot but think, the more the Proposal is considered, of an humble Petition to the King, to take this Province under his Majesty’s immediate Protection and Government, the more unanimously we shall go into it. We are chiefly People of three Countries: British Spirits can no longer bear the Treatment they have received, nor will they put on the Chains prepared for them by a Fellow Subject. And the Irish and Germans have felt too severely the Oppressions of hard-hearted Landlords and arbitrary Princes, to wish to see, in the Proprietaries of Pennsylvania, both the one and the other united.
I am, with much Respect, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant.
A.B.


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Richard Jackson, [13 April 1764]
From: Jackson, Richard
To: Franklin, Benjamin

[April 13, 1764]
[First part missing] K. William. I send you a List of Papers I found entered in Books in 1699 besides these there is a long Memorial of Dr. Coxes in 1719 I suppose just before his Death, to the B of T pressing much to have his claim insisted on at the Court of France by the Commisssary then going there on the Subject of Ste Lucie &c. This Memorial contains much the same Matter as his former Paper and his printed Book and as it says not a Word of K. Williams Grant it is impossible to suppose such a grant exists. No Instruction was given to the Commissarys on this Head. I then looked over the Instruction.
I do not however quite give up the Claim, whatever may become of our Project, but as I am satisfied that after the length of Time elapsed since the grant to Sir Robert Heath, and the Settlement of the Carolinas in the Country granted, it is too hazardous (especially since the Determination of the Council on Lord Cadigans Claim to St. Lucie and St. Vincent) to venture a Petition on the meer Rights. I think it most Advisable to put the Claim on foot in Conversation, where it may never reach those who have laid down Principles inconsistent with Mr. Coxe’s Claim and if we can but remove (which I Hope I see a prospect of) the Prepossessions against Settlements on the Mississippi and in what is called the back Country, I hope a Project for a Settlement on that River may be approved and the Title of Messrs. Coxes, may be at least considered as a Title to favour, being till then kept on [torn] as an Obstacle to any Designs the Crown might entertain of ma[king Co]lonies in that part of America.
I have had 2 or 3 interviews with Sir Matthew Featherstone on this Subject as well as with Mr. Sargent. We dined at Sir Matthews House a Week ago, however I expect little from either of them at present.
A Project for putting all the Colonies in America on an equal footing with respect to Paper Currency has been on foot at the Board of Trade most part of this Winter, you know my Sentiments on that Subject, I have been always inclined against a Paper Currency, I mean a legal Tender Paper Currency and though I conceive Difficultys occurring for want of it at times, I am satisfied they are to be removed by a Bank, subject to none of the Objections made to a P. C. and (if insurmountable Objections should arise in the Way of a Publick Bank, I wish it were a Provincial one) by private Bankers on a sufficient Foundation.
However when there was a Meeting at the Board of Trade of the Lords, the former Governor of Provinces, Commanders of Forces &c. at which I was present, I gave my Opinion flatly against any Bill in Parliament this Session, founded chiefly on this, that I thought it one thing to prevent an Evil, another to cure it, and that no Provision could be made by way of Remedy, but might produce great Mischiefs for want of our knowing the exact state of the Paper Currency, in every Province, as well as the Objections that might be against the Bill. Besides which I urged that I judged it rather an Indecorum to make Laws respecting People so remote without their even knowing what we were about. Mr. Penn was of the same Opinion on this Point. Nobody else said much on the Subject against a Bill, except that both Monckton and [Sir Charles Hardy?] agreed that they had seen the good Effects and even Necessity of Paper Money. The Board seemed to have dropped their Project for this year, it was [under]stood the Treasury would not support a Bill in the House. About a fortnight before the House was to rise, upon my Return from Norfolk where I went to support the Election of the Sollicitor Generals Brother, I found a Bill [remainder missing].


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Francis Bernard, 21 April 1764
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Bernard, Francis

Sir
Philada. April 21. 1764
Mr. Williams has acknowledg’d the Receipt of the £12 12s. 0d.
Dr. Allison is out of Town, and not expected home these 10 Days. As soon as he returns I will speak to him, and write you his Answer.
I communicated your Favour of the 1st. ult. to my Son, who desired me to return his grateful Acknowledgements for your kind Intimation relating to the Seizure made within his Government, concerning which he is now, I believe, taking some Steps to obtain what may be his Right.
Mr Hall, one of the House at Madeira, being here, I sent your Letter to him. With sincere Respect, I am, Your Excellency’s most obedient humble Servant
B Franklin
Govr. Bernard


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Jonathan Williams, 21 April 1764
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Williams, Jonathan

Loving Kinsman
Philada. April 21. 1764
I have received yours of the 12th Inst. As to the Mistake I mention’d, I find on Revisal that it was not in your Account but in my Eyes, which mistook one Figure for another.
I wrote to you from Burlington that I should pay your Order in favour of Robinson as soon as I return’d to Town, which I accordingly did. The Sum £47 15s. 4d.

I should be glad to know what Sum your Government has paid for the Bounty on Wheat last Year, if you can get at it easily.
It grieves me that the Glasses are not yet come for the Armonica. How does Cousin Josiah go on with his Spinnet? But I make no doubt he improves very fast.
We all join in Love to you and all yours. I am Your affectionate Uncle
B Franklin

Addressed: To / Mr Jonathan Williams / Mercht / Boston / Free / B Franklin
Endorsed: April 21 1764 F Franklins letter


Title: Smith, Wright & Gray Account Book, 1764–1774
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Smith, Wright & Gray

[April 24, 1764]
In the spring of 1764 Franklin opened an account with the London banking firm of Smith, Wright & Gray; he kept it at least moderately active until the summer of 1774. A record of this account, separate from his other financial books and records, survives among his papers in the form of a comparatively small volume, of which 24 pages have been used. His deposits are entered on the left-hand pages, his withdrawals and drafts, and some other charges against the account, are listed on the right-hand pages. The earliest entry credits him with a bill of exchange for £1000 sterling received by the bankers on April 24, 1764; the last entry records a cash withdrawal of £21 on Aug. 24, 1774. Between these dates a balance was struck on six occasions. The first of these shows that he was overdrawn in June 1767 to the extent of £86, but all the other balances are in his favor, the amount reaching as high as £1283 7s. 6d. in July 1770. The last recorded withdrawal left 10s. 3d. still deposited to his credit. Comparison of this account book with his Memorandum Book, 1757–1776, for the period before he left Philadelphia in November 1764, and with the Journal and Ledger he maintained while on his second mission to England, shows that all but a very few transactions found in the Smith, Wright & Gray account are also entered in one form or another in those more generalized records. When the annotation of documents belonging to the period covered requires reference to this record it will be cited as Smith, Wright & Gray Account Book, 1764–1774.


Title: A Letter from a Gentleman in Crusoe’s Island, [April? 1764]
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To:

This fragment of a projected pamphlet or newspaper article in Franklin’s hand, apparently never finished, is dated at the end of April 1764 because of its statement that John Penn, “young Cruso,” arrived in Pennsylvania with a commission as governor six months ago—Penn arrived on October 30, 1763. Though Franklin not infrequently employed the allegorical or analogical form in pamphlets, the approach in the present fragment may have been suggested to him by a pamphlet published in Boston in 1720, entitled New News from Robinson Cruso’s Island, in a Letter to a Gentleman at Portsmouth.

  [April 1764?]
  A Letter from a Gentleman in Crusoe’s Island to his Friend in Pennsylvania.
Dear Sir,

You desire a particular Account of the present State of our Public Affairs, which I shall endeavour to give you.
Young Cruso Grandson to honest old Robinson our first Proprietor arriv’d about 6 Months since, with a Commission to be Governor of the Island. He was received with universal Joy, and welcom’d by all Ranks and Orders of People with the greatest Cordiality. For our old Disputes with the Proprietary Family had slept some time, and were almost forgotten. The young Gentleman was known to us, having visited the Island formerly.


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Richard Jackson, 1 May 1764
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Jackson, Richard

Dear Sir
Philada. May 1. 1764
I have receiv’d your Favours of Dec. 27. Jan. 14. Jan. 26. and Feb. 11.
I wrote to you Dec. 24. Jan. 16. Feb. 11. March 8. 14. and 31. I could wish your Letters would from time to time mention which of mine come to hand.
Since my last I have had a Conversation with Mr. William Coxe, on the Subject of our being at any or no Expence in the Pursuit of their Right. And he tells me, that their Proposal was, to be at all Expence themselves as far as £500 Sterling would go; and if the Expence should exceed that Sum, such Excess to be equally divided between them and us. He thinks his Letter to you very clear in that respect.
We continue in great Disorder here; Reports frequently spreading that the Frontier People are assembling to come down again; and ’tis thought they will certainly be here when the Assembly sit, the Middle of this Month. Petitions to the King are handing about, and signing in most parts of the Province for a Change of Government. I have written the enclos’d Pamphlet to promote it, as I see no Prospect or Probability of any Agreement with the Proprietaries, and, in the Way we are in, publick Business cannot go on, nor the internal Peace of the Province be preserved. I enclose you also a little Piece of Mr. Galloway’s. The Rhodeisland People, too, are tired of their Charter Government, as you will see by one of their late Papers, which I send you.
You have in some of your late Letters mention’d a Post you hold under the Prime Minister, but do not say what it is.
I long to hear what has been done in Parliament relative to America. Your Objection to internal Taxes is undoubtedly just and solid. Two distinct Jurisdictions or Powers of Taxing cannot well subsist together in the same Country. They will confound and obstruct each other. When any Tax for America is propos’d in your Parliament, how are you to know that we are not already tax’d as much as we can bear? If a Tax is propos’d with us, how dare we venture to lay it, as the next Ship perhaps may bring us an Account of some heavy Tax impos’d by you. If you chuse to tax us, give us Members in your Legislature, and let us be one People.
You mention that you could interest me in a Grant in Nova Scotia. I wish then that you would do it if in any Part likely for Settlement. As I have some Money to spare, I know not how better to dispose of it for the Advantage of my Children. And since there is no Likelihood of my being engag’d in any Project of a new Government, the Popular Character I have in America may at least be of Use in procuring Settlers for some Part under an old one. St. John’s Island, I see by the Papers, is granted to Lord Egmont. The Nantucket Whalers, who are mostly my Relations, wanted a Settlement there, their own Island being too full. At their Request I drew a Petition for them last Year, to General Amherst; but he had no Power to settle them any where. They are desirous of being somewhere in or near the Bay of St. Lawrence, where the Whale—as well as other—Fishing is excellent.
This brings me to mention another Affair of the same kind. There are in the Government of Quebec, two Tracts of vacant Land, the Right of which is at present in the Crown. Inclos’d you have a short Account of their Situation. They were discover’d by two Friends of mine, Mr. John Baynton, and Mr. Samuel Wharton, Merchants of this Place, who desire to obtain a Grant of them, in which they would be glad to have me joined. Can you obtain such a Grant for us, and will you share my Third with me? If it be practicable and you like the Proposal, the sooner ’tis push’d the better; as ’tis fear’d that Governor Murray, when he receives his Commission may otherwise grant the Land away. That Tract in Bay Chaleur may probably suit my Nantucket Friends extreamly well.
Three of your Convicts are to be executed here next Week for Burglaries, one of them suspected of a Murder committed on the Highway. When will you cease plaguing us with them?
Your Complaints of that old Fever on your Spirits, give me real Concern. Take care of yourself for the sake of your Friends, among whom none can interest themselves more cordially in whatever relates to your Welfare and Happiness, than, Dear Sir, Your affectionate and most obedient humble Servant
B Franklin
R. Jackson, Esq.

Endorsed: Philada. May 1st. 1764 Benjn. Franklin Esqr


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to William Strahan, 1 May 1764
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Strahan, William

Dear Straney
Philada. May 1. 1764
I receiv’d your Favour of Decemr. 20. You cannot conceive the Satisfaction and Pleasure you give your Friends here by your political Letters. Your Accounts are so clear, circumstantial and compleat, that tho’ there is nothing too much, nothing is wanting to give us, as I imagine, a more perfect Knowledge of your Publick Affairs than most People have that live among you. The Characters of your Speakers and Actors, are so admirably sketch’d, and their Views so plainly open’d, that we see and know every body; they all become of our Acquaintance. So excellent a Manner of Writing, seems to me a superfluous Gift to a mere Printer. If you do not commence Author for the Benefit of Mankind, you will certainly be found guilty hereafter, of burying your Talent. It is true that it will puzzle the Devil himself to find anything else to accuse you of, but remember that he may make a great deal of that. If I were King (which may God, in Mercy to us all, prevent) I should certainly make you the Historiographer of my Reign. There could be but one Objection. I suspect you might be a little partial in my Favour. But your other Qualifications for an Historian being duly consider’d, I believe we might get over that.
Our petty publick Affairs here are in the greatest Confusion, and will never, in my Opinion, be compos’d, while the Proprietary Government subsists. I have wrote a little Piece (which I send enclos’d) to persuade a Change. People talk of sending me to England to negociate it, But I grow very indolent. Bustling is for younger Men.
Mrs. Franklin, Sally, and my Son and Daughter of the Jerseys, with whom I lately spent a Week, all join in best Wishes of Prosperity to you and all yours, with Dear Sir, Your affectionate humble Servant
B Franklin
P.S. I will do every thing in my Power to recommend the Work Mr. Griffith mentions, having the same Sentiments of it that you express. But I conceive many more of them come to America than he imagines. Our Booksellers perhaps write for but few; but the Reason is, that a Multitude of our People trade more or less to London; and all that are bookishly dispos’d receive the Reviews singly from their Correspondents as they come out.
Mr. Strahan