Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Giambatista Beccaria, 20 February 1767
From: Beccaria, Giambatista
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Beccaria’s letter is known only in the form of a four-page pamphlet, quite probably printed very soon after the indicated date of the letter. It is not clear whether he actually sent a hand-written copy to Franklin, or, following a rather common practice of the time with scientific writings intended for many readers, cast the paper into the form of a letter addressed to one individual well known among students of the particular subject.
The text of this letter offers difficulties, both because of the somewhat cumbersome style of the Latin in which it was written and the unfamiliar terminology Beccaria employed, and also because the scientific concepts and theories that he presented and discussed have, during the last two centuries, become increasingly irrelevant to the progress of electrical science. Because of these difficulties the editors have decided to print both the Latin original and an English translation, so that possibly interested readers may use either one version or the other, or both in combination, when seeking to understand the author’s presentation. Limited annotation is attached to the translation rather than to the Latin original.
The editors gratefully acknowledge the help they have received in preparing the translation from David O. Ross, Jr., assistant professor of Classics in Yale University, and from Alan E. Shapiro, graduate student in the Yale Department of the History of Science and Medicine. It should be made wholly clear, however, that these gentlemen have not seen the final text of the translation before its dispatch to the printer, and that the editor of this series is, here as always in the pages of these volumes, ultimately responsible personally for all errors and shortcomings in the editorial work.

[20 Februarii 1767.]
De Electricitate VindiceJoannis Baptistae Beccariae ex Scholis PiisAd Beniaminum FrankliniumVirum de Re Electrica, et Meteorologica optime meritumEpistola
1. Quod die 11. Septembris 1766. scribebam tibi, FRANKLINI clarissime: Existimare me, errare eos, qui putarent, Simmeriano experimento theoriam infirmari tuam; experimenta ea omnia, queis ego, et Pekinensis, et Simmeriani experimenti analysim eram prosequutus, et totam de electricitate vitrorum historiam auxeram, novum dumtaxat principium postulare, quod tuis adjungeretur, et cum iisdem apprime consentiret; id fusius nunc tandem demonstrare constitui, quum primum per valetudinem licet mihi.
2. Itaque addendum principium est hujusmodi: Facies vitri post explosionem, dum denundatur, electricitatem vindicat sibi, quam habuit ante explosionem. Atque principium hoc est, cui nomen indere placet mihi, rem proxime significans Vindicem Electricitatem.

3. De principii caussa, ipso constituto, quaeremus. Interea nonne magnam Physicae accessionem ii facere sunt censendi, qui experimenta numero longe plurima specia distractissima inveniant, a quo uno principio pendeant omnia, et mutua veluti cognatione colligari singula cum singulis demonstrent, quae disjunctissima videbantur, et quasi pugnantia? Imo vero nonne in omni demum caussarum vestigatione phaenomeno alicui est denique acquiescendum, cujur ulteriorem caussam assequi non licet? Porro principii hujus mei, quod Vindicem Electricitatem appello, caussam proximan explorari posse confido; sed eo ignorato hanc ignorari debere certum est.
4. Id itaque agam in singulari libello, ut demonstrem: Experimenta omnia, quae protuli, Electricitatem Vindicem postulare tamquam constans phaenomenum, ad quod referantur. Hoc posito ilia explicari omnia, et reliqua vere divinari, quae, et qualia debeant existere pro infinita, quae potest occurrere, adjunctorum varietate.
5. Sed tibi interea, Vir clarissime, si prima innuam, et ea certe necessaria principii consectaria, faciam satis abunde. Neque haec memorabo, quo doceam; sed quo facias Tu solidiora, quae natura ipsa compellit nos fundamentis superstruere a Te constitutis.
6. Itaque, si hoc ponatur: Faciem vitri, dum denundatur post explosionem, vindicare sibi electricitatem, quam habuit ante explosionem, consectarium primum est: Eam Electricitatem praepollere debere in faciem adversam; qua voce intelligere me vides, quod est consentaneum theoriae tuae.
7. Ex Te enim ignis extraneus, qui init in unam vitri faciem, dispellit tantumdem ignis proprii ex facie adversa; similiterque ignis proprius, qui eliciatur ex una vitri facie, tantumdem extranei facit, ut affluat in faciem adversam, cujus proprius erat veluti fulcrum. Quamobrem, si facies vitri, quae ante explosionem redundabat, dum post explosionem denudatur, vindicat sibi excessum ignis, quem habebat ante explosionem, hic excessus praepollebit in faciem adversam, quae per hypothesim ab explosione omnem amisit electricitatem; nempe tantumdem ignis nitetur dispellere ex facie adversa, adeoque excitabit in facie adversa atmosphaeram redundantem; scilicet excessus in eam immissus dicetur praepollere in faciem hanc, quatenus faciet, ut haec, quae caeteroquin non haberet nisi ignem nativum proprium, ipsa etiam redundare videatur ob partem ignis proprii, quae pellitur, et explicatur.

8. Similiter, si facies vitri, quae ante explosionem deficiebat, dum post explosionem denundatur, vindicat sibi defectum, quem habebat ante explosionem, hic defectus praepollebit in faciem adversam, quae item per hypothesim ab explosione omnem amisit electricitatem; nempe tantumdem ignis extranei alliciet in faciem adversam; adeoque excitabit in facie adversa atmosphaeram deficientem; scilicet defectus in earn denudatione inditus dicetur praepollere in faciem hanc, quatenus faciet, ut haec, quae caetoroquin haberet ignem nativum suum, ipsa etiam deficere videatur ob partem ignis extranei, quem jam plane expostulat, atque allicit ad sese.
9. Itaque, quo multa paucis, eaque satis perspicue omnia eloqui valeamus, nomina licebit condere aliqua, quibus has, affinesque alias in vitris electricitatum habitudines significemus: Et primo quidem summam ignis redundantis in facie una, et deficientis in facie adversa, quae explosione nullescit tota, et cui adeo proportione respondet explosionis magnitudo, appellabiums nomine, uti puto, satis consentaneo Electricitatem vitri absolutam, et veram; unde similiter totus excessus, aut totus defectus in facie una vitri, dicetur absoluta, et vera ejus faciei Electricitas.
10. Deinde ipsam, quae intercedat aliqua, inter excessum faciei unius, et defectum alterius differentiam, Electricitatem relativam sive apparentem dicemus; quod ea sola appareat, et agat, quum vitrum aut indutum, aut exutum exploratur, quin attrectetur facies utraque simul ad explosionem ciendam.
11. Sed haec iterum apparens electricitas distinguetur excessus adjuncto, si excessus faciei unius sit major defectu adversae, vel contra, si defectus sit major excessu; Sic si vitri facies A, excessum majorem habeat defectu adversae faciei B, in vitro inerit Electricitas apparens excessus; sin defectus faciei B sit major excessu faciei A, vitrum erit electricum defectu apparente.
12. Atque ad singulas distinguendas in singulis faciebus electricitates hujusmodi, faciem A in primo exemplo electricam dicemus excessu determinante, et faciem B excessu determinato electricam dicemus. Contra in exemplo altero faciem B appellabimus electricam defectu determinante, faciem A electricam defectu determinato.
13. Unde etiam universe eae voces obvenient familiares Electricitas, aut Facies determinans, et Electricitas, aut Facies determinata.
14. Neque demum erit supervacaneum electricitatem apparentem aliam dicere solitariam, aliam conjugatam: Ceu cum facies una vitri excessum ignis habet sine ullo respondente in facie adversa defectu, aut contra facies una defectum habet sine ullo respondente in facie adversa excessu, vitrum excessu, aut defectu solitario electricum dicetur. Sin excessui majori aliquis jam respondeat in facie adversa defectus, aut majori defectui excessus aliquis: vitrum excessu, aut defectu apparente conjugato erit electricum.
15. Quibus quidem in partitionibus non vereor, ne videar Tibi ineptire, Franklini clarissime, utpotequi videas, eas vocum differentias expostulari a differentiis rerum, ceu alterum demonstrat, quod ex constituta vindice electricitate sequitur consectarium.
16. Scilicet: Apparens a denundatione electricitas, si coetera constent eadem, maxima sit oportet: Est enim electricitas solitaria excessus, aut defectus, qui primo existit in facie una, dum facies adversa ab explosione egnem nativum habet; prima autem, auqe init in faciem vitri electricitas, maxima est, et maximam habet vim determinandae contrariae in facie adversa electricitatis; sunt enim datae caussae effectus initiales, qui sunt semper maximi. Itaque quemadmodum (ne a re discedamus nostra) cum principio vitrum obijcimus catenae, ut fiat electricum, prima, quae in contiguam vitri faciem init scintilla, est maxima, et maxima est prima, quae a facie adversa dispellitur in solum, et scintillae consequentes decrescunt usque, et usque magis; ita prima, et solitaria, quae a denundatione vitri emicat iterum post explosionem electricitas, maxima sit oportet, et maxima vi contrariam determinet in facie adversa electricitatem.
17. Atque hinc manifestum existit consectarium tertium: Electricitates homologas a denundatione post explosionem apparentes in utraque vitri facie vi maxima tendere ad aequalitatem. Scilicet electricitas determinans vi maxima tendit ad nihilum: intereaque facit, ut electricitas apparens determinata vi maxima nitatur abire in absolutam ipsi sibi contrariam, et aequalem. Quod abstractum consectarium singulari exemplo est omnino perspicuum: Nam, si ponas, post explosionem denundari faciem A, quae ante explosionem redundabat, ipsa vindicabit sibi vi maxima pristinum excessum, qui vi maxima partem ignis nativi pellet ex facie adversa (16); adeoque maxima erit mutua, et contraria ejus excessus in ignem hunc nativum, et ignis hujus nativi in eum excessum actio. Igitur ille excessus ab igne hoc nativo vi maxima retropelletur, ut discedat, et abeat in nihilum, atque interea ille excessus dispellet aequali vi ignem nativum, ut discedat, et defectus ita existat excessui aequalis.
18. Exempli contrarii eadem est ratio. Phaenomena enim omnia ilia tenenda docent principia tua. I. Ignem in vitro librari utrinque cum igne nativo corporum extraneorum, quotiescumque summa ignis in vitro sit utlibet aequalis summae nativae. II. Ignem in vitro praepollere utrinque in ignem nativum corporum extraneorum, quotiescumque summa ignis in vitro sit utlibet major igne nativo. III. Ignem corporum extraneorum praepollere utrinque in ignem vitri, quotiescumque ignis in vitro sit utlibet minor igne nativo.
19. Quare, cum post explosionem denudatur facie vitri B, quae ante explosionem igne deficiebat, ipsa a denundatione sibi vindicat pristinum defectum, quin facie adversa, quae disjuncta est a corporibus deferentibus, respondentem excessum possit comparate sibi; summa ergo ignis nativi vitro contingentis toto eo defectu erit minuta; igitur ignis extraneus praepollebit undique, et nitetur se expandere in faciem deficientem, quo defectum minuat, atque in adversam, quo excessum producat defectui aequalem, itaque nativam ignis dosim restituat vitro. Quae omnia vi contingent maxima ex allata caussa.
20. Reenimvera, quae post explosionem a denudatione reviviscunt electricitates, signa electrica pro sua magnitudine edunt maxima omnia, scintillas, motus, auram.
21. Quae ipsa res quartum ferme facit Electricitatis Vindicis consectarium, nempe: Si facies post explosionem denudata iterum induatur, et vitrum attrectetur, aut amittit electricitatem vindicatam, si attrecteur in facie determinante, quae suit denudata, aut absolutam acquirit, et illi contrariam, et aequalem, si attractetur in facie adversa; etenim attrectare, seu universe objicere corpus deferens corpri, cujur electricitas vi maxima tendat in nihilum, est quasi viam electricitati ipsi facere, qua evanescat; Itaque quando ex proximo consectario electricitas determinans denudatione excitata vi maxima tendit in nihilum, attrectatione facei ipsius determinantis in nihilum abibit.
22. Similiter attrectare, seu corpus deferens objicere corpori electricitatem appetenti est viam facere, qua ipsam assequatur; sed ex proximo consectario facie vitri determinata vi maxima appetit electricitatem absolutam contrariam, et aequalem determinanti; igitur attrectatione hanc assequetur.
23. Neque vero in sola denudatione obtinet electricitas vindex; sed adhuc magis universe decremento ipsi, quod capit electricitas dati corporis cohibentis, dum admovetur ad datam a dato corpore distantiam, electricitas respondet, quae ipsi a vi vindice restituitur, cum iterum removetur.
24. Atque ex his paucis, quae ab uno fluunt omnia principio, quasi necessariis consectariis reliqua jam fluunt omnia, quae scribebam in specimine altero. Quemadmodum enim, denudata una facie, invalescit utrinque in vitro ejus faciei electricitas, quae obtinebat ante denudationem; Ita liquet, denudata altera, invalescere debere utrinqué alterius electricitatem; Unde intelligitur, quemadmodum a denudatione facierum vitri, aut vitorum plurium, quae ante et post explosionem fiat ordine eodem, electricitates ante et post explosionem appareant contrariae; quam rem primam appellabam ex explosione electritatum oscillationem; quae tamen appariturae sin eaedem, si facies vitri, aut vitrorum ante et post explosionem denudentur ordine contrario.
25. Atque huic rei si addas Vis Vindicis constantiam, qualem experientia demonstrat, ut nempe duret dum vitra ad horas integras denundantur, et iterum induuntur; perspicua est ratio electricitatis in vitro, vel in vitris admirabiliter horas integras oscillantis ex indusii a vitro, aut vitri a vitro disjunctione, et conjunctione.
26. Evanescit similiter omnis earum oscillationum admirabilitas, quas inveni contingere ex inversione vitri tenuioris. Quam tamen ad rem hoc facit experimentum.
27. Duas laminas vitreas tenuem aliam, aliam crassiorem, caetera aequales singulis catenae ramis objicio singulas, ut eodem tempore vi eadem electricaefiant; Turn praehensas angulis subtraho ambas laeva unam, dextera aliam. Socius adest, qui bacillis cerae signatoriae separatos singulis singulos duos habet in promptu arcus ex metallicis virgis sinuatos in formam literae S. Continuo uno eorum arcuum communicationem insert inter facie duas unam redundantem in vitro uno, aliam in alio deficientem; Similiter alio eorum arcuum facit, ut communicent reliquae duorum vitrorum facies duae: Singulis singulorum arcuum ad vitrorum facies appulsibus scintillulae existunt, quas theoria tua postulat, atque appulsu ultimo, quo communicatio absolvitur, explosio existit. Sed turn, si digitis attrecto utrinque vitrum crassius, ipsum quidem jam nullatenus explodit; si tenujus, explosionem experior ab ipso reliquam crassitiei vitri alterius proportionalem:

28. Quamobrem pro majore vitri crassitie major necessaria est ad inferenda electricitates contrarias in oppositas ejus facies. Quidni igitur quod tenuius est vitrum majore vi pristinam sibi a mutua, quae fiat post explosionem, interiorum facierum per disjunctionem denudatione, vindicet electricitatem? Atqui dum vitrum tenuius invertitur, interior quae fit ab inversione facie, ante explosionem electricitatem habebat illi contrariam, quae faciei contingebat antea interiori.
29. Adde demum ultimum, quod est plane necessarium, Vis Vindicis consectarium: Electricitati primo immissae ipsam magnitudine respondere; et jam liquet, quamobrem in experimento Pekinensi longe omnium pulcherrimo, utpote primo in eo genere, abeant in contrarias electricitates inversione vitri, quod unum principio electricum factum est, non item inversione alterius, quod electricitatem accepit illius communicatione.
30. Atque ex his, ut inquiebam, non experimenta ipsa solum, sed et experimentorum limites, atque varietates omnes facile intelliguntur. Non vereor vero ego, ne obscurior videar Tibi, dum studui esse brevior, qui paucis assueveris docere longe plurima. Vale.
Augustae Taurinorum die 20. Februarii 1767.
31. P. S. Quae de vitro dixi, eadem constituenda de corporibus cohibentibus omnibus, quae non transmeat electricus ignis, et analoga de aliis cohibentibus, quae transmeat, ceu sunt tibialia Simmerii, ad quae omnia latissime pertinet Electricitas Vindex, ceu necessaria vis cohibentis affectio pro ipsius vis modo, et magnitudine.
32. Fit inde, ut etiam ante explosionem vitra, ubi jam semel sunt denudata, Vim Vindicem habeant aliquam.
33. Ad modum vero quod attinet ejus Vis Vindicis, cum nitor ego electricum facere vitrum, vel vitra, quae calent admodum, scintillae utrinque existunt perpetuae. Ignis ergo electricus tum vel permeat, vel circuit. Experimentum habeo, quo rem plane definiam. Interea id videre videor: Electricitates in vitro, vel in vitris hujusmodi, quae admodum caleant, per explosionem neutiquam abire in contrarias, neque per inversionem.
34. Episcopus Mutinensis vir doctissimus aeque, et spectatissimus, et Pater Troilius e Societate Jesu nuper scripserunt de lapide, qui superiore aestate observatus est Alboreti dilabi e caelo. Perspecta observationum historia, opinatus sum: Lapidem hunc a fulmine in aerem disjectum, similiter ac electrica scintilla aquae guttulam disjiciente explodere ego soleo ligneum globulum ad hexapedas duas, aut etiam quatuor. Reenimvera eo tempore fulminabat, tonabat, tonitru exauditum, observata fulguratio socia fulminis phaenomena, perspectae scintillae in facie proximi rivi. Similia fulminantis caeli adjuncta consectabantur similes lapidum lapsus, quorum historiam apte refert Troilius. Placuit opinio mea, et visa scientiam facere portenti naturae, quod summan omni aevo habuit adjunctam admirabilitatem aeque, ac vanam superstitionem. Atque, uti addit doctissimus Episcopus, id etiam perbelle congruit, solum Mutinense scatere undique proxima aqua. Quare fulmen per lapidem, qui erat metallicus, effundens se in subiectam aquam debuit disjicere hanc, efferre ilium in sublime obvolutum luce sua, ne cerneretur, nisi postmodum cum relaberetur.

[Translation:]On Vindicating ElectricityOf Giambatista Beccaria of the Sacred SchoolsA Letter to Benjamin FranklinA Man of Great Merit in Electrical and MeteorologicalMatters
Turin, February 20, 1767.
1. I wrote to you, my distinguished Franklin, on September 11, 1766, that I thought they are wrong, who think your theory is invalidated by Simmer’s experiment; that all those experiments (in which I followed up the analysis of the Pekin and Simmer’s experiment, and furthered the whole investigation of the electricity of glasses) demand a new principle, which may be joined with yours, and which especially agrees with yours. This I have now at last decided to demonstrate more fully, when my health first allows me.
2. Thus the principle to be added is as follows: A surface of glass after an explosion, while it is discharged, frees [vindicat] for itself the electricity which it had before the explosion. And this is the principle to which I am pleased to give the name, closely expressing the effect: Vindicating Electricity.
3. Now that the principle has been set up, we shall seek to learn its cause. Are not they to be regarded as having made a great advance in Physics, who devise experiments, the greatest in number and most diverse in appearance, and show from what one principle all of them depend, and that separate phenomena are bound with each other as if by a mutual relationship—[phenomena] which before appeared most independent and almost contrary? Indeed, in every investigation of causes, must one not be finally content with any phenomenon, the more remote cause of which one cannot pursue? Hence I trust that I am able to explore the immediate cause of my principle, which I call Vindicating Electricity; but while the principle itself remains unknown, it is certain that the cause must remain unknown.
4. Therefore I shall do that in a special book, to demonstrate: That all the experiments that I have devised demand that we postulate Vindicating Electricity as a constant phenomenon to which the experiments may be referred; once this is posited, all those things are explained, and others truly deduced, what and of what sort ought to exist in relation to the infinite variety of adjuncts that can occur.
5. But if in the meantime, illustrious Sir, I sketch for you my basic propositions and the really important inferences, I shall certainly have done enough.
6. Thus, if this is posited: that a surface of glass, after an explosion, frees [vindicare] for itself the electricity it had before the explosion, the first inference is: that electricity ought to charge [praepollere] into the opposite surface—by which word you see that I understand what agrees with your theory.
7. For, according to you, the excess fire, which enters one surface of a glass, drives out from the opposite surface the same amount of fire; and likewise its own fire which is drawn out of one surface of a glass makes the same amount of excess fire flow into the opposite surface, of which its own [fire] was like a fulcrum. Wherefore, if the surface of a glass, which had an excess before the explosion, frees for itself the excess fire it had before the explosion, the excess charges into the opposite surface, which according to the hypothesis set free all its electricity with the explosion; for, of course, it will try to drive out the same amount of fire from the opposite surface, and so will produce in the opposite surface an excess atmosphere; obviously the excess sent into it will be said to charge into that surface, with the result that what would otherwise have only its own natural fire seems itself to have an excess on account of its own fire that is driven out and set free.
8. Similarly, if the surface of a glass that was deficient before the explosion is discharged after the explosion, it frees for itself the deficiency it had before the explosion, this deficiency will charge into the opposite surface, which, likewise according to the hypothesis, has set free all its electricity with the explosion; for, of course, it will attract the same amount of fire into the opposite surface; and so will produce in the opposite surface a deficient atmosphere; of course, the deficiency imposed on it by the discharging will be said to charge into that surface, with the result that that which otherwise would have its own natural fire, seems itself even to be deficient because of the part of the excess fire it now clearly demands and attracts to itself.
9. Therefore, to speak briefly but clearly, it will be desirable to invent some terminology by which we may signify these and other related conditions of electricity in glasses: First, even the total sum of excess fire in one surface and of deficient fire in the opposite surface, all of which is nullified by the explosion and to which the magnitude of the explosion corresponds proportionately, we shall call by a name appropriate enough, I think: the absolute and true electricity of glass; whence similarly the total excess or total deficiency in one surface of a glass will be called: the absolute and true electricity of that surface.
10. Then the difference itself, which somehow occurs between the excess of one surface and the deficiency of the other, we shall call relative or apparent electricity, because that only appears and acts when a glass charged by excess or deficiency is tested, unless both surfaces are touched simultaneously to produce an explosion.
11. But again this apparent electricity will be distinguished by the characteristic of excess if the excess of one surface is greater than the deficiency of the opposite one, or on the contrary, if the deficiency is greater than the excess; thus, if the surface A of the glass has a greater excess than the deficiency of the opposite surface B, there will be in the glass apparent excess electricity; but if the deficiency of surface B is greater than the excess of surface A, the glass will be electric by apparent deficiency.
12. In order to distinguish the different electricities of this sort in each of the surfaces, we shall call surface A in the first example electric by the determining [determinante] excess, and surface B electric by the determined [determinato] excess. On the other hand, in the other example we shall call surface B electric by the determining [determinante] deficiency, and surface A electric by the determined [determinato] deficiency.
13. Whence will come the universally familiar terms: determining Electricity or the determining surface, and determined Electricity or the determined surface.
14. Nor finally will it be superfluous to call one apparent electricity simple [solitariam], the other conjugate [conjugatam]: just as when one surface of a glass has an excess of fire with no corresponding deficiency in the opposite surface, or on the other hand one surface has a deficiency with no corresponding excess in the opposite surface, the glass will be called electric by simple excess or deficiency. But if to a greater excess some deficiency responds on the opposite side, or to a greater deficiency some excess, then the glass will be electric by apparent conjugate excess or deficiency.
15. In these definitions I have no fear that I might seem silly to you, illustrious Franklin, since you will see that these distinctions in terminology are demanded by real distinctions, as the other inference shows, which follow from the posited principle of vindicating electricity.

16. Obviously, electricity arising from discharge, if other things are constant, must be the greatest; for there is simple electricity by excess or by deficiency, which exists in one surface while the opposite surface has natural fire from the explosion; the first electricity, however, which enters the surface of the glass is the greatest and has the greatest power of determining contrary electricity in the opposite surface; the initial results of a given cause are always the greatest. Thus, according to our principle (lest we depart from our present subject) in whatever way we touch the glass to the chain to make it electric, the first spark to enter the contiguous surface of the glass is the greatest, and the first to be driven out from the opposite surface into the ground is the greatest, and subsequent sparks decrease more and more; thus the first, simple electricity which flashes forth from the discharge of the glass again after the explosion must be the greatest and must determine with the greatest force the contrary electricity in the opposite surface.
17. And from this there exists a third inference: homologous electricities arising from the discharge after an explosion tend toward equality in each surface of the glass with the greatest force. For of course determining electricity tends with the greatest force to nothing; and meanwhile it causes apparent determined electricity with the greatest force to try to pass into absolute [electricity] equal and opposite to itself. Which abstract inference is altogether clear from a single example: for, if you assume that surface A is discharged after the explosion and that before the explosion it had an excess, then it frees for itself with the greatest force its original excess, which drives with the greatest force part of the natural fire from the opposite surface (16); and thus the mutual action of its excess upon its natural fire, and of its natural fire upon its excess, will be contrary and maximum. Therefore that excess will be repelled with the greatest force by the natural fire, so that it vanishes and passes into nothing, and meanwhile that excess drives out the natural fire with an equal force, so that it vanishes, and thus a deficiency exists equal to the excess.
18. The reason for the opposite example is the same. All these phenomena show that your principles must be maintained. I. The fire in a glass is held in balance on both sides with the natural fire of external bodies, whenever the total of the fire in the glass is equal to the natural quantity. II. The fire in a glass charges from both sides into the natural fire of external bodies, whenever the total of the fire in the glass is greater than the natural fire. III. The fire of the external bodies charges from both sides into the fire of the glass, whenever the fire in the glass is less than the natural fire.
19. Therefore, when after the explosion the surface B of the glass is discharged, which before the explosion had a deficiency of fire, it frees for itself by the discharge the original deficiency without the opposite surface, which has been separated from conducting [deferentibus] bodies, being able to obtain for itself a corresponding excess; therefore, the quantity of natural fire touching the glass will be decreased by that total deficiency; and therefore, the excess fire will discharge everywhere and will try to expand itself into the deficient opposite surface, by which it lessens the deficiency and produces an excess equal to the deficiency, and thus restores to the glass its natural quantity of fire. All which things happen with the greatest force from the assumed cause.
20. For indeed, the electricities which are recovered from the discharge after an explosion give all the greatest signs in proportion to their magnitude, sparks, movements, wind.
21. Which thing itself makes the fourth inference of Vindicating Electricity, that is: If a surface discharged after an explosion is again charged by excess, and the glass is touched, either it loses the vindicating electricity, if it is touched in the determining surface that was discharged, or it acquires absolute electricity contrary to that and equal, if it is touched on the opposite surface; for to touch, or generally to present a deferent body to a body whose electricity tends with the greatest force into nothing is as it were to make a path for the electricity itself through which it vanishes; and thus since from the previous inference determining electricity excited by discharge tends with the greatest force into nothing, by the touching of the determining face itself it will pass into nothing.
22. Likewise to touch, or to present a deferent body to a body seeking electricity, is to make a path by which it may obtain [electricity]; but from the previous inference the determined surface of the glass seeks with the greatest force absolute electricity contrary and equal to the determining electricity; therefore it follows this by the touching.
23. Nor indeed does vindicating electricity hold in discharge, but still more generally the electricity corresponds to the decreasing of itself, which the electricity held by a given body within itself experiences, while it is moved to a given distance from a given body; and this electricity is restored to it by the vindicating force when it is again removed.
24. And now from these few, if necessary, inferences, all of which follow from one principle, all the remaining inferences follow, which I wrote about in another publication. For just as, once one surface is discharged, the electricity of that surface, which was acquired before the discharge, grows stronger on each side of the glass, so it will follow that when the other surface is discharged the electricity of the other on each side ought to grow stronger; whence it is understood how, from the discharge of a glass, or of several glasses, which discharge came about before and after the explosion in that same order, opposite electricities appear before and after the explosion, which phenomenon I first called from the explosion oscillation of electricities; which nevertheless would appear the same, if the surface of a glass, or glasses, are denuded before and after the explosion in the opposite order.
25. And if you add to this phenomenon the constancy of the Vindicating Force, which constancy, experiment shows, lasts for whole hours while the glasses are discharged and charged again, the reason is clear for the oscillation of the electricity in glass (it lasting surprisingly for whole hours in glasses) whether by the separation of cloth from glass or of glass from glass, or their conjunction.
26. Likewise all the wonder of their oscillations disappears, which [oscillations] I found to happen from the inversion of a thinner glass. This is shown by this experiment:
27. I connect two glass plates, one thinner, the other thicker, but equal in other respects, individually to separate branches of a chain, so that they become electric at the same time and with the same force. Then I remove both of them, taking them by the corners, one on the left, the other on the right. An assistant is present, who has ready two separate curved metal rods, each with a handle of sealing wax, bent into the shape of the letter S. With one of these rods he promptly establishes communication between two surfaces, one charged to excess in one glass, the other charged by deficiency in the other glass. Likewise, with the other of these rods he connects the remaining two surfaces of the glasses. From each contact of each of the curved rods sparks arise to the surfaces of the glasses, which your theory demands, and at the final contact, by which the communication is ended, an explosion takes place. But then, if I touch with my finger the thicker glass on each side, it now does not explode at all; but if I touch the thinner, I experience a subsequent explosion proportional to the thickness of the other glass.
28. Wherefore, in proportion to the greater thickness of the glass a greater force is necessary to bring contrary electricity into its opposite surfaces. Is it not, therefore, because a thinner glass frees for itself with greater force the original electricity from the mutual discharge that occurred after the explosion of the interior surfaces through separation? Then, while a thinner glass is inserted, the surface, which becomes the inner from the inversion, had, prior to the explosion, electricity contrary to that which was previously on the inner surface.
29. Add a final inference of Vindicating Force that is clearly necessary: The Force corresponds in magnitude to the electricity first admitted. And now one can see why in the Pekin experiment (that most splendid of all, as well as the first of its kind) electricities change into the contrary by the inversion of the glass that alone was made electric in the beginning, not similarly by the inversion of the other that receives electricity by the communication with it.
30. And from these things, as I was saying, not only are the experiments themselves easily understood, but the boundaries of the experiments and all their variety. In truth, I do not fear that, while I am eager to be concise, I will seem to you rather obscure, you who are accustomed to teach many things in a few words. Farewell.
31. P.S. What I have said about glass must also be established for all insulating [cohibendibus] bodies through which electric fire does not pass, and is analogous to other insulating bodies through which electric fire does not pass, just as Symmer’s stockings, to all which things Vindicating Electricity most broadly pertains, as a necessary aspect of restraining force in relation to the manner and magnitude of the force itself.
32. It happens then that once glasses are discharged they have some Vindicating Force even before an explosion.
33. In connection with the manner of this Vindicating Force, when I try to make a very warm glass or glasses electric, continual sparks arise on both sides. Therefore the electric fire either goes through or around. I have an experiment by which I clearly define the phenomenon. Meanwhile, I seem to see this: electricities in glass or glasses of this sort, which are very warm never change into contrary electricities by an explosion or by inversion.
34. The Bishop of Modena, a man equally learned and revered, and the Jesuit Father Troilius recently wrote about a stone which was observed last summer to fall from heaven at Alboretium. When the history of these observations is reviewed I believe that the stone was cast into the air by a thunderbolt, just as I am accustomed to explode an iron ball a distance of two or even four rods by an electric spark dispersing a drop of water. For indeed at that time it was thundering and lightning, thunder was heard, lightning (the allied phenomenon of the bolt) was observed, sparks were seen on the surface of a nearby stream. Similar effects of lightning in the sky accompanied similar falling stones, of which Troilius gives a good account. My judgment is that these sights explain the portent of nature, which in every age has excited the greatest wonder as well as vain superstition. And, as the learned bishop adds, this confirms remarkably that the soil at Modena is everywhere full of the nearby water. Wherefore the bolt, driving through the stone, which is metallic, into the water beneath should scatter the water and hurl the stone into the air while covered in its own flash, so that it be not seen until afterwards, when it falls back down.


Title: Lewis Morris and Hugh Roberts: List of Apple Scions Sent to Benjamin Franklin, 21 February 1767
From: Morris, Luke,Roberts, Hugh
To:

Philada: 21. 2 mo. 1767
This Canister contains

No 1
a bundle of Cions from an Apple Tree of the best flat Newtown Pippins
2
a bundle do. of the Preistly-Apple, so Called, this Apple preserves its lively juices, longer than any Other; and the Tree is remarkably beautiful; for it naturally grows strong and in the form of a Cone.
3
a small bundle of Cions from an excellent Vandever apple Tree
No 4
a bundle of Newark Pippins, this Apple in the fall of the year has at least all the fragrance and excellency of Taste, that a Newtown Pippin has in the Spring. This Tree generally has feeble twigs that hang down, but if the middle Spire is not Cut off, the Tree will appear and be the better.

Apples appear fairest with us, that grow in a rich light Soil; And the Fruit is generally knotty, if in poor Land or Clay.

The spare twigs, put in lose, to fill up the Canister, are Newtown Pippins, the same as No 1 above.
Carefully Collected, Sealed and Packed for Dr. Franklin by his real Friends
L MorrisH Roberts
 Addressed: to Dr. Franklin / per L M / H R / 21: 2 mo: 1767


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Gale, 23 February 1767
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Gale, Benjamin

Dear Sir,
[London, Feb. 23d, 1767]
I receiv’d your favour of Nov. 15, with a letter inclos’d to Dr. Huxham, relating to a mistake in the account given of your success in inoculation, as printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine of August last, which seems to give you great uneasiness. It seems you have not known that your letter to Dr. Huxham, concerning Inoculation in New England, was read at the royal society the 23d of May, 1765, and is printed at full length in their transactions, Vol. LV for that year, it there appears that you give the accounts of the success of Inoculation, without and with Mercury, viz. I in 80 or 100 without, and 1 in 800 or 1000 with Mercury, as accounts receiv’d from Boston about the time of your writing, viz. in 1764, and not as accounts of your own practice, of which in the last Paragraph you expressly speak, as being so small, that it was “unnecessary to mention your method, as you had not opportunity to Inoculate no more than 70 or 80 persons before Inoculation was wholly interdicted by the legislature of the colony,” that you see in the Magazines are only abridg’d accounts or notes of what is contained in that volume, these abridgers often make such mistakes, which nobody regards and as the account stands right, is the only authentic publication, the transactions; I think it needless to give Dr. Huxham the trouble you request him to take of contradicting the Magazine, therefore as you leave it with me, to seal and forward your letter to him or to suppress it, as I might think proper I have chosen the latter, which I hope you will approve, &c. &c.
Ben. Franklin


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from James Parker, 23 February 1767
From: Parker, James
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Honoured Sir
New-York. Feb 23. 1767
Some Time ago, I wrote requesting you to send me a Fount of Pica and one of Long-Primer. If this be not too late I would counter order the Pica only for this Reason: The Low Dutch Congregation here, are about having part of their Time of Worship to be English, and so got the Psalms turn’d into Verse in English to suit their Dutch Tunes: for which purpose, they sent to Holland for Musical Types and to England for a small Font of Pica, which came. They had partly agreed with Holt to do them, and when he began, he was Three Months before he got one Sheet, and then made so many Obstacles in it, that they sent for me, and have given me the Job, on Condition, I take that Fount of Pica in part of Pay: tho’ it is rather too small for common use, and has no Italick: yet it will do for the present, and if it be not too late I would not have the other, but only Long-Primer: But if it is sent, I shall say no more.
My dunning B. Mecom about the Post-Office Money has occasioned him to resign his Commission, sending it back to me: he has not settled the Accounts, but says he will soon: I wrote to Mr. Ingersol to recommend one there to take the Office, and I expect to hear next Post.
Mr. Holt drives on, and yet keeps close House: My Papers do increase a Little: but have not 200 Subscribers yet—However I shall continue till I hear from you: I received not one Word from you these two Packets: nor any News-papers from any Body, tho’ I flatter’d myself you would recommend it to somebody to send me some: as I shall expect to make ’em satisfaction.
I have reason to be thankful all our Healths are restored [to us?] I had mine for some time past, till yesterday I was taken with a small Paroxysm of the Gout again and am lame to-day with it; I hope it maynt last long—as I have had none all Winter before, but it always has a gloomy Attendance.
I send you the Papers since the last Packet, and with all our respectful Salutations remain Your most obliged Servant
James Parker
 Addressed For / Dr Benjamin Franklin / Craven Street / London / per Packet / Capt. Goddard
Endorsed: J Parker Feb. 23. 67


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Lord Kames, 25 February 1767
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Kames, Henry Home, Lord

This letter appears in two forms and offers a puzzle that the editors are unable wholly to solve. One manuscript, dated Feb. 25, 1767, and marked at the top “Copy,” is entirely in Franklin’s hand except for two of its three endorsements on the final page. The other manuscript, dated April 11, 1767, is in an unidentified hand except that the date line at the top, the signature, and the address and franking on a separate but accompanying address sheet, are in Franklin’s hand. Most of the phraseology in the body of the letter is identical in the two manuscripts, but differences, generally of little importance, appear in twelve places.
Subsequent letters from Franklin to Lord Kames dated Feb. 28, 1768, Jan. 1, 1769, and Feb. 21, 1769, all in the Scottish Record Office, establish clearly that Franklin wrote a long letter to Kames in February or early March 1767 “on the Subject of the Disputes with America,” but that the letter apparently “miscarried,” and that Kames never received it. With his letter of Feb. 21, 1769, therefore, Franklin sent “a Copy of it from my Book.” The editors believe that the surviving manuscript dated Feb. 25, 1767, marked “Copy” and wholly in Franklin’s hand is the replacement Franklin made from his letterbook copy of the lost original and sent to Kames on Feb. 21, 1769.
The manuscript dated April 11, 1767, mostly in an unidentified hand but with date, signature, address, and frank written by Franklin, also found among Kames’s papers, leaves the present editors at a loss for satisfactory identification and explanation. Several remotely plausible reconstructions of events are possible, though none seems truly satisfying. It is conceivable, for example, that on April 11, 1767, Franklin started to write a letter to one of his correspondents but was interrupted after completing only the date line. Then some unidentified helper whom he had asked to make a copy of the February letter to Kames took this sheet of paper and, without bothering to rewrite the date line, began his copying task. Later Franklin signed this copy and prepared an address sheet without noticing that the date at the top of the first page was not that of the original letter. But if some such procedure as this took place, it is hard to understand how this copy got among Kames’s papers without his reading it and replying to Franklin sooner or later with lengthy comments on the political and constitutional issues his American friend had raised.
So far as internal evidence is concerned, Franklin could have written everything in the letter either in February or in April 1767. It is true that British displeasure with the New York Assembly’s refusal to obey the Quartering Act (to which Franklin devoted considerable space in this letter) seems to have increased between February and April, but there is plenty of evidence in private letters and in newspapers that this British resentment was already strongly and openly enough expressed by the latter part of February to explain Franklin’s giving the topic so much concerned attention at that time. There is nothing else in the letter that could not have been said equally well in both months.
Ever since Lord Kames’s biographer first printed this letter in 1814 from the April 11 version and with the April date, other writers and editors have followed suit. The present editors, however, prefer to use the February 25 version. Its date conforms to Franklin’s memory, twice expressed, as to when he first wrote the letter; this manuscript, moreover, is closer to the author: its text is entirely in his handwriting, and we have his word that he copied it from his own letterbook. The differences in phraseology between the two versions may represent errors of the scribe who wrote out the April 11, 1767, version, or changes Franklin introduced while making the copy in February 1769, or a combination of the two explanations. Whatever their sources, these differences are all pointed out in footnotes below, and the reader may accept whichever version his or her own judgment prescribes.

My dear Friend,
London, Feb. 25. 1767.
I Received your Favour of Jan. 19. You have kindly reliev’d me from the Pain I had long been under. You are Goodness itself.
I ought long since to have answered yours of Decr. 25. 1765. I never receiv’d a Letter that contain’d Sentiments more suitable to my own. It found me under much Agitation of Mind on the very important Subject it treated. It fortified me greatly in the Judgment I was inclined to form (tho’ contrary to the general Vogue) on the then delicate and critical Situation of Affairs between Britain and her Colonies; and on that weighty Point their Union: You guess’d aright in supposing I could not be a Mute in that Play. I was extreamly busy, attending Members of both Houses, informing, explaining, consulting, disputing, in a continual Hurry from Morning to Night till the Affair was happily ended. During the Course of it, being called before the House of Commons, I spoke my Mind pretty plainly. Inclos’d I send you the imperfect Account that was taken of that Examination; you will there see how intirely we agree, except in a Point of Fact of which you could not but be mis-inform’d, the Papers at that time being full of mistaken Assertions, that the Colonies had been the Cause of the War, and had ungratefully refus’d to bear any part of the Expence of it. I send it you now, because I apprehend some late Incidents are likely to revive the Contest between the two Countries. I fear it will be a mischievous one. It becomes a Matter of great Importance that clear Ideas should be formed on solid Principles, both in Britain and America, of the true political Relation between them, and the mutual Duties belonging to that Relation. Till this is done, they will be often jarring. I know none whose Knowledge, Sagacity and Impartiality, qualify them so thoroughly for such a Service, as yours do you. I wish therefore you would consider it. You may thereby be the happy Instrument of great Good to the Nation, and of preventing much Mischief and Bloodshed. I am fully persuaded with you, that a consolidating Union, by a fair and equal Representation of all the Parts of this Empire in Parliament, is the only firm Basis on which its political Grandeur and Stability can be founded. Ireland once wish’d it, but now rejects it. The Time has been when the Colonies might have been pleas’d with it; they are now indifferent about it; and, if ’tis much longer delay’d, they too will refuse it. But the Pride of this People cannot bear the Thoughts of it. Every Man in England seems to consider himself as a Piece of a Sovereign over America; seems to jostle himself into the Throne with the King, and talks of OUR Subjects in the Colonies. The Parliament cannot well and wisely make Laws suited to the Colonies, without being properly and truly informed of their Circumstances, Abilities, Temper, &c. This it cannot be without Representatives from thence. And yet it is fond of this Power, and averse to the only Means of duly acquiring the necessary Knowledge for exercising it, which is desiring to be omnipotent without being omniscient.
I have mentioned that the Contest is like to be revived. It is on this Occasion. In the same Session with the Stamp Act, an Act was pass’d to regulate the Quartering of Soldiers in America. When the Bill was first brought in, it contain’d a Clause impowering the Officers to quarter their Soldiers in private Houses; this we warmly oppos’d, and got it omitted. The Bill pass’d however, with a Clause that empty Houses, Barns, &c. should be hired for them; and that the respective Provinces where they were, should pay the Expence, and furnish Firing, Bedding, Drink, and some other Articles, to the Soldiers, gratis. There is no way for any Province to do this, but by the Assembly’s making a Law to raise the Money. Pensilvania Assembly has made such a Law. New York Assembly has refus’d to do it. And now all the Talk here is to send a Force to compel them.
The Reasons given by the Assembly to the Governor for their Refusal, are, That they understand the Act to mean the furnishing such things to Soldiers only while on their March thro’ the Country, and not to great Bodies of Soldiers, to be fixt as at present in the Province, the Burthen in the latter Case being greater than the Inhabitants can bear: That it would put it in the Power of the Captain General to oppress the Province at pleasure, &c. But there is suppos’d to be another Reason at bottom, which they intimate, tho’ they do not plainly express it; to wit, that it is of the nature of an internal Tax laid on them by Parliament, which has no Right so to do. Their Refusal is here called Rebellion, and Punishment is thought of.
Now waiving that Point of Right, and supposing the Legislatures in America subordinate to the Legislature of Great Britain, one might conceive, I think, a Power in the superior Legislature to forbid the inferior Legislature’s making particular Laws; but to enjoin it to make a particular Law, contrary to its own Judgment, seems improper, an Assembly or Parliament not being an executive Officer of Government, whose Duty it is, in Law-making, to obey Orders; but a deliberative Body, who are to consider what comes before them, its Propriety, Practicability, or Possibility, and to determine accordingly. The very Nature of a Parliament seems to be destroy’d, by supposing it may be bound and compell’d by a Law of a superior Parliament to make a Law contrary to its own Judgment.
Indeed the Act of Parliament in question has not, as in other Acts, when a Duty is injoined, directed a Penalty on Neglect or Refusal, and a Mode of Recovering that Penalty. It seems therefore to the People in America as a mere Requisition, which they are at Liberty to comply with or not as it may suit or not suit the different Circumstances of different Colonies. Pensilvania has therefore voluntarily comply’d. New York, as I said before, has refus’d. The Ministry that made the Act, and all their Adherents, call out for Vengeance. The present Ministry are perplext, and the Measures they will finally take on the Occasion are unknown. But sure I am, that, if Force is us’d, great Mischief will ensue, the Affections of the People of America to this Country will be alienated, your Commerce will be diminished, and a total Separation of Interests be the final Consequence.
It is a common but mistaken Notion here, that the Colonies were planted at the Expence of Parliament, and that therefore the Parliament has a Right to tax them, &c. The Truth is, they were planted at the Expence of private Adventurers, who went over there to settle with Leave of the King given by Charter. On receiving this Leave and these Charters, the Adventurers voluntarily engag’d to remain the King’s Subjects, though in a foreign Country, a Country which had not been conquer’d by either King or Parliament, but was possess’d by a free People. When our Planters arriv’d, they purchas’d the Lands of the Natives without putting King or Parliament to any Expence. Parliament had no hand in their Settlement, was never so much as consulted about their Constitution, and took no kind of Notice of them till many Years after they were established; never attempted to meddle with the Government of them, till that Period when it destroy’d the Constitution of all Parts of the Empire, and usurp’d a Power over Scotland, Ireland, Lords and King. I except only the two modern Colonies, or rather Attempts to make Colonies, (for they succeed but poorly, and as yet hardly deserve the Name of Colonies) I mean Georgia and Nova Scotia, which have been hitherto little better than Parliamentary Jobbs. Thus all the Colonies acknowledge the King as their Sovereign: His Governors there represent his Person. Laws are made by their Assemblies or little Parliaments, with the Governor’s Assent, subject still to the King’s Pleasure to confirm or annul them. Suits arising in the Colonies, and Differences between Colony and Colony, are not brought before your Lords of Parliament, as those within the Realm, but determined by the King in Council. In this View they seem so many separate little States, subject to the same Prince. The Sovereignty of the King is therefore easily understood. But nothing is more common here than to talk of the Sovereignty of Parliament, and the Sovereignty of this Nation over the Colonies; a kind of Sovereignty the Idea of which is not so clear, nor does it clearly appear on what Foundations it is established. On the other hand it seems necessary for the common Good of the Empire, that a Power be lodg’d somewhere to regulate its general Commerce; this, as Things are at present circumstanc’d, can be plac’d no where so properly as in the Parliament of Great Britain; and therefore tho’ that Power has in some Instances been executed with great Partiality to Britain and Prejudice to the Colonies, they have nevertheless always submitted to it. Customhouses are established in all of them by Virtue of Laws made here, and the Duties constantly paid, except by a few Smugglers, such as are here and in all Countries; but internal Taxes laid on them by Parliament are and ever will be objected to, for the Reasons that you will see in the mentioned Examination.
Upon the whole, I have lived so great a Part of my Life in Britain, and have formed so many Friendships in it, that I love it and wish its Prosperity, and therefore wish to see that Union on which alone I think it can be secur’d and establish’d. As to America, the Advantages of such an Union to her are not so apparent. She may suffer at present under the arbitrary Power of this Country; she may suffer for a while in a Separation from it; but these are temporary Evils that she will outgrow. Scotland and Ireland are differently circumstanc’d. Confin’d by the Sea, they can scarcely increase in Numbers, Wealth and Strength so as to overbalance England. But America, an immense Territory, favour’d by Nature with all Advantages of Climate, Soil, great navigable Rivers and Lakes, &c. must become a great Country, populous and mighty; and will in a less time than is generally conceiv’d be able to shake off any Shackles that may be impos’d on her, and perhaps place them on the Imposers. In the mean time, every Act of Oppression will sour their Tempers, lessen greatly if not annihilate the Profits of your Commerce with them, and hasten their final Revolt: For the Seeds of Liberty are universally sown there, and nothing can eradicate them. And yet there remains among that People so much Respect, Veneration and Affection for Britain, that, if cultivated prudently, with kind Usage and Tenderness for their Privileges, they might be easily govern’d still for Ages, without Force or any considerable Expence. But I do not see here a sufficient Quantity of the Wisdom that is necessary to produce such a Conduct, and I lament the Want of it.
I borrow’d at Millar’s the new Edition of your Principles of Equity, and have read with great Pleasure the preliminary Discourse. I have never before met with any thing so satisfactory on the Subject. While Reading it, I made a few Remarks as I went along: They are not of much Importance, but I send you the Paper.
I know the Lady you mention, having, when in England before, met with her once or twice at Lord Bath’s. I remember I then entertain’d the same Opinion of her that you express. On the Strength of your kind Recommendation, I purpose soon to wait on her.
This is unexpectedly grown a long Letter. The Visit to Scotland, and the Art of Virtue, we will talk of hereafter. It is now time to say, that I am, with increasing Esteem and Affection, My dear Friend, Yours ever
B Franklin
Lord Kaims
 Endorsed: [By BF:] Copy of former Letter [In another hand:] Letters from Doctor Franklin [In a third hand:] 25 Feb. 1767.
[Address Sheet of the April 11 Version:]
Addressed: [By BF] To / The Rt. honourable Lord Kaims / Edinburgh/B Free Franklin
 Endorsed [In two different hands:] April 11. 1767 April 11, 1767


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Thomas Pownall, [February 1767–May 1767]
From: Pownall, Thomas
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Dear Sir.
Sunday [February–May 1767]
I come to Town on tuesday if you are not Engaged in the Ev’ning I will call upon you about seven if you are Engaged or whether you  arez not, be so good to give me a Line by the Penny post to my House in Portugal Street. I find some People are Determined to decide that NA is in Rebellion, and to come to an open rupture. Your Obligd and Obedient
T Pownall
 Addressed: To / Benj Franklin Esqr / Mrs Stevenson’s / Craven Street / Strand / London


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Jane Mecom, 2 March 1767
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Mecom, Jane

Dear Sister
London, March 2. 1767
I received your kind Letter of Nov. 8. for which I thank you. It rejoices me to hear that you and your Children continue well. I thank God that I too enjoy a greater Share of Health, Strength and Activity than is common with People of my Years, being now Threescore and one. You mention my Opinion of this being a good sort of World, in which you differ from me. Every one should speak as they find. Hitherto I have found it so, and I should be ungrateful to Providence if I did not own it. As to the Abuses I meet with, which you bring as an Argument against my Opinion, you must know I number them among my Honours. One cannot behave so as to obtain the Esteem of the Wise and Good, without drawing on one’s self at the same time the Envy and Malice of the Foolish and Wicked, and the latter is a Testimony of the former. The best Men have always had their Share of this Treatment, and the more of it in proportion to their different and greater degrees of Merit. A Man has therefore some Reason to be asham’d of himself when he meets with none of it. And the World is not to be condemn’d in the Lump because some bad People live in it. Their Number is not great, the Hurt they do is but small, as real good Characters always finally surmount and are established, notwithstanding these Attempts to keep them down. And in the mean time such Enemies do a Man some good; while they think they are doing him harm, by fortifring the Character they would destroy; for when he sees how readily imaginary Faults and Crimes are laid to his Charge, he must be more apprehensive of the Danger of committing real Ones, as he can expect no Quarter, and therefore is more on his Guard to avoid or least to conceal them. So, my dear Sister, when you meet with any more such Letters as that you mention, don’t let them give you the least Uneasiness; but call to mind what your Friend good Mr. Whitefield said to me once on such an Occasion; “I read the Libels writ against you, says he, when I was in a remote province, where I could not be inform’d of the Truth of the Facts; but they rather gave me this good Opinion of you that you continued to be useful to the Publick: For when I am on the Road, and see Boys in a Field at a Distance, pelting a Tree, though I am too far off to know what Tree it is, I conclude it has fruit on it.”
I send you per Capt. Freeman a little Box containing some few Articles of Millenery, which Mrs. Stevenson has bought for you. Her Letter enclos’d will inform you what they are. Be so good as to accept them from me as the Beginning of a little Stock, which if sold to Advantage after being made up by your good Girls, may by degrees become greater–for on your remitting the Produce to Mrs. Stevenson, she will always readily buy more for you, till by the repeated and accumulated Profits, the Girls grow rich. They may think it a very small beginning. But let them know ’tis more than I had to begin the World with; and that Industry and Frugality early practis’d and long persisted in, will do Wonders. My Love to them, and to all enquiring Friends, and believe me ever My dear Sister Your affectionate Brother
B Franklin


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from John Pownall, 4 March 1767
From: Pownall, John
To: Franklin, Benjamin

March. 4. 1767
Mr. Pownall presents his respectfull Compliments to Dr. Franklyn and shall be greatly obliged to him if he can give him any Information as to the person and [illegible] mentioned below.
One -- Dimsdale died in the Province of Pensylvania in 1764 or 1765. possessed of a Plantation there, which he left by will in general Terms to his relations in the North of England.
Q. Mr. Dimsdales Christend name and the Value of his Plantation?
 Addressed: To / Dr. Franklyn / J Pownall
Endorsed in an unknown hand: Gosset in Berwick street Soho facing the Chapell


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Mr. and Mrs. John Sargent, 6 March 1767
From: Sargent, John,Sargent, Rosamund
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Downing Street Friday 6 March [1767]
Mr. and Mrs. Sargent present Their Compliments to Dr. Franklin, and will be glad of the Favour of his Company, if He will take a Family Dinner with Them on Sunday next. at half past Three.
 Addressed: To Dr. Franklin / Mrs. Stephenson’s / Craven Street / Strand


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from R[obert] A[lexander], 8 March 1767
From: Alexander, Robert
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Dear Sir,
Sunday MorningLeicester Fields 8 March 1767
I send my [sic] by the Bearer the Portfolio containing my Papers the Key to which you will find here inclosed, I shall send for them back betwixt twelve and one in order to convey them to our other Friend who is so kind as to keep himself disengaged thorough [sic] the day in order to give them a serious Perusal. There is a Letter I received from my Brother by yesterday’s post of the 3 Inst. to shew you his further sentiments. I am ever most affectionately Dear Sir, your &c.
R A
 Addressed: To / Dr Franklyn / Craven Street


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to [Robert] Willock, [9 March 1767]
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Willock, Robert

[Monday March 9, 1767]
Dr. Franklin presents his compliments to Mr. Willock, and requests he would forward the enclos’d with his respects to Dr. Lewis. Dr. F. has just received it from Germany.


Title: Remarks and Facts Relative to the American Paper Money, 11 March 1767
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To:

During January and early February 1764 the Board of Trade had held several discussions about recommending an extension to all the colonies of the act of 1751 forbidding the New England colonies to issue bills of credit that should be legal tender. Merchants trading to America, the colonial agents, and several other experienced or interested individuals were given a chance to express their views. At the end the agents asked for time to consult their constituents in America, but the Board declined to grant such a delay. On Feb. 9, 1764, therefore, the Board signed a long representation to the King that, among other matters, set forth in detail its objections to legal-tender issues in the colonies and recommended the extension of the prohibition. The result was the passage, April 19, of the Currency Act of 1764. During subsequent years Franklin and Jackson, along with other colonial agents, were under strict orders to work for the repeal or significant modification of that act.
  As the document following this one makes clear, some of the British merchants supported the agents’ efforts; to persuade them of their error the Board of Trade gave them a copy of that part of their representation of Feb. 9, 1764, which related to the currency question. At the merchants’ request Franklin then prepared and gave them this point-by-point reply to the Board’s arguments. He sent copies of both to Joseph Galloway, probably about the middle of March 1767 (below, pp. 123–4) together with another paper of his own on the same subject, believed to be the one printed above, pp. 32–9. Galloway, probably working in conjunction with William Franklin, arranged for the publication of the Board of Trade’s representation and Franklin’s reply in the Chronicle and the Gazette in Philadelphia. According to William, his father’s piece won “general Approbation” in Pennsylvania.

London, March 11, 1767.
Remarks on the Report published in our last Chronicle. By B. F. Esq;
In the Report of the Board of Trade, dated February 9, 1764, the following Reasons are given for restraining the Emission of Paper Bills of Credit in America, as a legal Tender.
1. That it carries the Gold and Silver out of the Province, and so ruins the Country, as Experience has shewn in every Colony, where it has been practised in any great Degree.
2. That the Merchants trading to America have suffered and lost by it.
3. That the Restriction has had a beneficial Effect in New-England.

4. That every Medium of Trade should have an intrinsic Value, which Paper Money has not. Gold and Silver are therefore the fittest for this Medium, as they are an Equivalent, which Paper never can be.
5. That Debtors, in the Assemblies, make Paper Money with fraudulent Views.
6. That in the Middle Colonies, where the Credit of the Paper Money has been best supported, the Bills have never kept to the nominal Value in Circulation, but have constantly depreciated to a certain Degree whenever the Quantity has been increased.
To consider these Reasons in their Order. The first is, That Paper Money carries the Gold and Silver out of the Province, and so ruins the Country, as Experience has shewn in every Colony where it has been practised in any great Degree. This seems to be a mere speculative Opinion, not founded on Fact in any of the Colonies. The Truth is, that the Balance of their Trade with Britain being generally against them, the Gold and Silver is drawn out to pay that Balance; and then the Necessity of some Medium of Trade has induced the making of Paper Money, which could not be carried away. Thus, if carrying out all the Gold and Silver ruins a Country, every Colony was ruined before it made Paper Money. But, far from being ruined by it, the Colonies, that have made Use of Paper Money, have been and are all in a thriving Condition. Their Debt indeed to Britain has increased, because their Numbers, and of course, their Trade, has increased; for all Trade having always a Proportion of Debt outstanding, which is paid in its Turn, while fresh Debt is contracted, that Proportion of Debt naturally increases as the Trade increases; but the Improvement and Increase of Estates in the Colonies has been in a greater Proportion than their Debt. New-England, particularly, in 1696, about the Time they began the Use of Paper Money, had in all its four Provinces but 130 Churches or Congregations, in 1760 they were 530; the Number of Farms and Buildings is increased in Proportion to the Number of People, and the Goods exported to them from England in 1750, before the Restraints took Place, were near five Times as much as before they had Paper Money. Pennsylvania, before they made any Paper Money, was totally stript of its Gold and Silver, though they had from Time to Time, like the neighbouring Colonies, agreed to take Gold and Silver Coins at higher and higher nominal Values, in Hopes of drawing Money into, and retaining it for the internal Uses of the Province. During that weak Practice, Silver got up by Degrees to 8s. 9d. an Ounce, and English Crowns were called 6, 7, and 8s. Pieces long before Paper Money was made. But this Practice of increasing the Denomination was found not to answer the End. The Balance of Trade carry’d out the Gold and Silver as fast as it was brought in, the Merchants raising the Price of their Goods in Proportion to the increas’d Denomination of the Money. The Difficulties for want of Cash were accordingly very great, the chief Part of the Trade being carry’d on by the extreamly inconvenient Method of Barter, when in 1723 Paper Money was first made there, which gave new Life to Business, promoted greatly the Settlement of new Lands, by lending small Sums to Beginners on easy Interest, to be repaid by Installments, whereby the Province has so greatly increas’d in Inhabitants, that the Export from hence thither is now more than tenfold what it then was, and by their Trade with foreign Colonies they have been able to obtain great Quantities of Gold and Silver to remit hither, in return for the Manufactures of this Country. New-York and New Jersey have also increas’d and improv’d greatly during the same Period, with the Use of Paper Money; so that it does not appear to be of the ruinous Nature ascrib’d to it. And if the Inhabitants of those Countries are glad to have the Use of Paper among themselves, that they may thereby be enabled to spare for Remittance hither the Gold and Silver they obtain by their Commerce with Foreigners, one would expect no Objection against their Parting with it could arise here in the Country that receives it.

The second reason is, That the Merchants trading to America have suffered and lost by the Paper Money. This may have been the Case in particular Instances at particular Times and Places, as in South-Carolina about 50 Years since, when the Colony was thought in danger of being destroy’d by the Indians and Spaniards; and the British Merchants, in fear of losing their whole Effects there, call’d precipitately for Remittances; and the Inhabitants to get something lodg’d in safer Countries, gave any Price in Paper Money for Bills of Exchange, whereby the Paper as compar’d with Bills or with Produce or other Effects fit for Exportation, was suddenly and greatly depreciated. The unsettled State of Government for a long Time in that Province had also its Share in depreciating its Bills. But since that Danger blew over, and the Colony has been in the Hands of the Crown, their Currency became fixed, and has so remain’d to this day. Also in New-England, when much greater Quantities were issued than was necessary for a Medium of Trade, to defray the Expedition against Louisbourg; and, during the last War, in Virginia and North Carolina, where great Sums were issued to pay the Colony Troops, and the War made Tobacco a poorer Remittance from the higher Price of Freight and Insurance: In these Cases the Merchants trading to those Colonies may sometimes have suffered by the sudden and unforeseen Rise of Exchange. By slow and gradual Rises they seldom suffer, the Goods being sold at proportional Prices. But War is a common Calamity in all Countries, and the Merchants that deal with them cannot expect to avoid a share of the Losses it sometimes occasions by affecting Publick Credit. It is hoped however, that the Profits of their subsequent Commerce with those Colonies may have made them some Reparation. And the Merchants trading to the Middle Colonies New York, New Jersey and Pensilvania, have never suffer’d by any Rise of Exchange, it having ever been a constant Rule there to consider British Debts as payable in Britain, and not to be discharged but by as much Paper (whatever might be the Rate of Exchange) as would purchase a Bill for the full Sterling Sum. On the contrary, the Merchants have been great Gainers by the Use of Paper Money in those Colonies, as it enabled them to vend much greater Quantities of Goods, and the Purchasers to pay more punctually for them. And the People there make no Complaint of any Injury done them by Paper Money with a legal Tender; they are sensible of its Benefits and petition to have it so allowed.
The 3d Reason is, That the Restriction has had a beneficial Effect in New England. Particular Circumstances in the New England Colonies made Paper Money less necessary and less convenient to them. They have great and valuable Fisheries of Whale and Cod, by which large Remittances can be made. They are four distinct Governments; but having much mutual Intercourse of Dealings, the Money of each us’d to pass currant in all: But the whole of this common Currency not being under one common Direction, was not so easily kept within due Bounds, the prudent Reserve of one Colony in its Emissions, being rendred useless by Excess in another. The Massachusetts therefore were not dissatisfied with the Restraint, as it restrain’d their Neighbours as well as themselves, and perhaps they do not desire to have the Act repealed: They have not yet felt much Inconvenience from it; as they were enabled to abolish their Paper Currency by a large Sum paid them in Silver from Britain, to reimburse them their Expence in taking Louisburgh; which with the Gold brought from Portugal by means of their Fish, kept them supply’d with a Currency till the late War furnish’d them and all America with Bills of Exchange, so that little Cash was needed for Remittance. Their Fisheries too, furnish them with Remittance thro’ Spain and Portugal to England which enables them the more easily to retain Gold and Silver in their Country. The Middle Colonies have not this Advantage, nor have they Tobacco, which in Virginia and Maryland answers the same Purpose. Where Colonies are so different in their Circumstances, a Regulation that is not inconvenient to one or a few may be very much so to the rest. But the Pay is now become so indifferent in New England, at least in some of its Provinces, through the Want of Currency, that the Trade thither is at present under great Discouragement.
The 4th. Reason is, That every Medium of Trade should have an intrinsic Value, which Paper Money has not. Gold and Silver are therefore the fittest for this Medium, as they are an Equivalent, which Paper never can be. However fit a particular Thing may be for a particular Purpose, wherever that Thing is not to be had, or not to be had in sufficient Quantity, it becomes necessary to use something else, the fittest that can be got, in lieu of it. Gold and Silver are not the Produce of North America, which has no Mines; and that which is brought thither cannot be kept there in sufficient Quantity for a Currency. Britain an independent great State, when its Inhabitants grow too fond of the expensive Luxuries of foreign Countries, that draw away its Money, can and frequently does make Laws to discourage or prohibit such Importations, and by that Means can retain its Cash. The Colonies are dependent Governments, and their People having naturally great Respect for the Sovereign Country, and being thence immoderately fond of its Modes, Manufactures and superfluities, cannot be restrain’d from purchasing them by any Province Law; because such Law, if made, would immediately be repeal’d here, as prejudicial to the Trade and Interest of Britain. It seems hard therefore to draw all their real Money from them, and then refuse them the poor Privilege of using Paper instead of it. Bank Bills and Banker’s Notes are daily used here as a Medium of Trade, and in large Dealings perhaps the greatest Part is transacted by their Means; and yet they have no intrinsic Value, but rest on the Credit of those that issue them, as Paper Bills in the Colonies do on the Credit of the respective Governments there. Their being payable in Cash upon Sight by the Drawers is indeed a Circumstance that cannot attend the Colony Bills for the Reason just above mentioned, their Cash being drawn from them by the British Trade; but the legal Tender being substituted in its Place, is rather a greater Advantage to the Possessor, since he need not be at the Trouble of going to a particular Bank or Banker to demand his Money, finding, wherever he has occasion to lay out Money in the Province, a Person that is oblig’d to take the Bills. So that even out of the Province, the Knowledge that every Man within that Province is oblig’d to take its Money, gives the Bills a Credit among its Neighbours nearly equal to what they have at home. And were it not for the Laws here that restrain or prohibit as much as possible all losing Trades, the Cash of this Country would soon be exported; every Merchant who had occasion to remit it would run to the Bank with all its Bills that came into his Hands, and take out his Part of its Treasure for that purpose, so that in a short time it would be no more able to pay Bills in Money upon Sight than it is now in the Power of a Colony Treasury so to do. And if Government afterwards should have Occasion for the Credit of the Bank, it must of Necessity make its Bills a legal Tender, funding them however on Taxes by which they may in time be paid off, as has been the general Practice in the Colonies. At this very Time, even the Silver Money in England is oblig’d to the legal Tender for part of its Value, that part which is the Difference between its real Weight and its Denomination. Great Part of the Shillings and Sixpences now current, are, by Wearing, become 5, 10, 20, and some of the Sixpences even 50 per Cent too light. For this Difference between the real and the nominal, you have no intrinsic Value, you have not so much as Paper, you have nothing. It is the legal Tender with the Knowledge that it can easily be re-pass’d for the same Value, that makes three penny-worth of Silver pass for Six pence. Gold and Silver have undoubtedly some Properties that give them a Fitness above Paper as a Medium of Exchange; particularly their universal Estimation; especially in Cases where a Country has Occasion to carry its Money abroad, either as a Stock to trade with, or to purchase Allies and foreign Succours; otherwise that very universal Estimation is an Inconvenience which Paper Money is free from, since it tends to deprive a Country of even the Quantity of Currency that should be retain’d as a necessary Instrument of its internal Commerce; and obliges it to be continually on its Guard in making and executing at a great Expence the Laws that are to prevent the Trade which exports it. Paper Money well funded has another great Advantage over Gold and Silver, its Lightness of Carriage, and the little Room that is occupied by a great Sum, whereby it is capable of being more easily, and more safely because more privately, convey’d from Place to Place. Gold and Silver are not intrinsically of equal Value with Iron, a Metal in itself capable of many more beneficial Uses to Mankind. Their Value rests chiefly in the Estimation they happen to be in among the Generality of Nations, and the Credit given to the Opinion that that Estimation will continue. Otherwise a Pound of Gold would not be a real Equivalent for even a Bushel of Wheat. Any other well-founded Credit is as much an Equivalent as Gold and Silver, and in some Cases more so, or it would not be preferd by commercial People in different Countries. Not to mention again our own Bank Bills, Holland, which understands the Value of Cash as well as any People in the World, would never part with Gold and Silver for Credit (as they do when they put it into their Bank from whence little of it is ever afterwards drawn out) if they did not think and find the Credit a full Equivalent.
The 5th Reason is, That Debtors in the Assemblies make Paper Money with fraudulent Views. This is often said by the Adversaries of Paper Money, and if it has been the Case in any particular Colony, that Colony should, on proof of the Fact, be duly punish’d. This however would be no Reason for punishing other Colonies who have not so abused their legislative Powers. To deprive all the Colonies of the Convenience of Paper Money, because it has been charg’d on some of them, that they have made it an Instrument of Fraud, is as if all the India Bank and other Stocks and Trading Companies were to be abolish’d, because there have been once in an Age Missisipi and South Sea Schemes and Bubbles.
The 6th. and last Reason is, That in the Middle Colonies, where the Paper Money has been best supported, the Bills have never kept to their nominal Value in Circulation, but have constantly depreciated to a certain Degree whenever the Quantity has been increased. If the Rising of the Value of any particular Commodity wanted for Exportation, is to be considered as a Depreciation of the Values of whatever remains in the Country, then the Rising of Silver above Paper, to that Height of additional Value which its Capability of Exportation only gave it, may be called a Depreciation of the Paper. Even here as Bullion has been wanted or not wanted for Exportation, its Price has varied from 5s. 2d. to 5s. 8d. per Ounce. This is near 10 per Cent; but was it ever said or thought on such an Occasion, that all the Bank Bills, and all the coin’d Silver and all the Gold in the Kingdom were depreciated 10 per Cent? Coin’d Silver is now wanted here for Change, and One per Cent is given for it by some Bankers; are Gold and Bank Notes therefore depreciated 1 per Cent? The Fact in the Middle Colonies is really this. On the Emission of the first Paper Money, a Difference soon arose between that and Silver, the latter having a Property the former had not, a Property always in Demand in the Colonies, to wit, its being fit for a Remittance. This Property having soon found its Value, by the Merchants bidding on one another for it, and a Dollar thereby coming to be rated at 8 shillings in Paper Money of New York, and at 7s. 6d. in Paper of Pensilvania, it has continued uniformly at those Rates in both Provinces now near 40 Years, without any Variation upon New Emissions; tho’ in Pensilvania the Paper Currency has at Times increas’d from £15,000 the first Sum, to £600,000 and in New York from £40,000 to £600,000 or near it. Nor has any Alteration been occasioned by the Paper Money in the Price of the Necessaries of Life when compar’d with Silver: they have been for the greatest Part of the Time no higher than before it was emitted, varying only by Plenty and Scarcity according to the Seasons, or by a less or greater foreign Demand. It has indeed been usual with the Adversaries of a Paper Currency, to call every Rise of Exchange with London, a Depreciation of the Paper: But this Notion appears to be by no means just: For if the Paper purchases every thing but Bills of Exchange at the former Rates, and those Bills are not above 1/10th. of what it is employ’d to purchase, then it may be more properly and truly said that the Exchange has risen, than that the Paper has depreciated. And as a Proof of this, it is a certain Fact, that whenever in those Colonies Bills of Exchange have been dearer, the Purchaser has constantly been obliged to give more in Silver as well as in Paper, for them, the Silver having gone hand in hand with the Paper at the Rate above-mentioned: And therefore it might as well have been said that the Silver was depreciated.
There have been several different Schemes for furnishing the Colonies with Paper Money, that should not be a legal Tender, viz.
1. To form a Bank, in Imitation of the Bank of England, with a sufficient Stock of Cash to pay the Bills on Sight.
This has been often propos’d, but appears impracticable under the present Circumstances of the Colony Trade, which as is said above, draws all their Cash to Britain, and would soon strip the Bank.
2. To raise a Fund by some Yearly Tax, securely lodg’d in the Bank of England as it arises, which should during the Term of Years for which the Paper Bills are to be current accumulate to a Sum sufficient to discharge them all at their original Value.
This has been try’d in Maryland, and the Bills so funded were issued without being made a general legal Tender. The Event was, that as Notes payable in Time are naturally subject to a Discount proportion’d to the Time, so these Bills fell at the Beginning of the Term so low, as that Twenty Pounds of them became worth no more than Twelve Pounds in the Bills of Pensilvania the next neighbouring Province, though both had been struck near the same time at the same nominal Value but the latter was supported by the general legal Tender. The Maryland Bills however began to rise as the Term shortned, and towards the End recover’d their full Value. But as a depreciating Currency injures Creditors, this injur’d Debtors; and by its continually changing Value appears unfit for the Purpose of Money, which should be as fix’d as possible in its own Value, because it is to be the Measure of the Value of other Things.
3. To make the Bills carry an Interest sufficient to support their Value.
This too has been try’d in some of the New-England Colonies; but great Inconveniences were found to attend it. The Bills to fit them for a Currency are made of various Denominations and some very low, for the sake of Change; there are of them from £10 down to 3d. When they first come abroad, they pass easily and answer the purpose well enough for a few months; but as soon as the Interest becomes worth computing, the Calculation of it on every little Bill in a Sum, between the Dealer and his Customers in Shops, Warehouses and Markets, takes up much Time to the great Hindrance of Business. This Evil however soon gave place to a worse; for the Bills were in a short time gather’d up and hoarded, it being a very tempting Advantage to have Money bearing Interest, and the Principal all the while in a Man’s Power, ready for Bargains that may offer, which Money out on Mortgage is not. By this Means Numbers of People became Usurers with small Sums, who could not have found Persons to take such Sums of them upon Interest, giving good Security; and would therefore not have thought of it, but would have employ’d the Money in some Business, if it had been Money of the common kind. Thus Trade, instead of being increas’d by such Bills, is diminished; and by their being shut up in Chests the very End of making them, viz. to furnish a Medium of Commerce, is in a great Measure if not totally defeated.
On the whole, no Method has hitherto been found to establish a Medium of Trade in lieu of Money, equal in all its Advantages to Bills of Credit funded on sufficient Taxes for discharging it, or on Land Security of double the Value for Repaying it at the End of the Term, and in the mean time made a general legal Tender. The Experience of now near Half a Century in the Middle Colonies has convinc’d them of it among themselves, by the great Increase of their Settlements, Numbers, Buildings, Improvements, Agriculture, Shipping and Commerce. And the same Experience has satisfy’d the British Merchants who trade thither, that it has been greatly useful to them, and not in a single Instance prejudicial.
It is therefore hoped, that Securing the full Discharge of British Debts which are payable here, and in all Justice and Reason ought to be fully discharg’d here in Sterling Money, the Restraint on the legal Tender within the Colonies will be taken off, at least for those Colonies that desire it, and where the Merchants trading to them make no Objection to it.


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Thomas Franklin, 14 March 1767
From: Franklin, Thomas
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Sir
Lutterworth Mar: 16. 1767
I received your kind present and am very Glad to hear you and My Daughter and Mrs. Stevenson are well and give you humble thanks for your very Great favours. I have sent this Week by Mrs. Biggs the Welford Carrier that Inns att the Windmill in St: Johns Street and Will be in London on Wensday next ten pounds of Butter a Couple of Chickins a Sage Cheese Which I beg the favour you’ll Accept. My Blessing to my Daughter and humble Service to you and Mrs. Stevenson and am Sir Your Obedient humble Servant
Thos. Franklin
 Addressed: To / Doctor Franklin / att Mrs. Stevensons / in Craven Street / in the Strand / London


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from I. M. Luther, 16 March 1767
From: Luther, I. M.
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Monsieur
francfort le 16. Mars 1767.
La Complaisance que vous avez euë à me procurer une aussi jolie Perspective me fait prendre la Liberté à vous prier derechef de m’envoyer le plutôt possible encore un pareil, de même qu’un microscope simple avec des changements usités, de cuivre jeaune dans un Etuïe. Si ce microscope peut-être arrangé de façon à en faire un composé cela me fairoit d’autant plus de joïe puisque je ne veux pas seulement m’en servir pour mon unique plaisir, mais en faire des Observations. Vous m’obligeriez donc infiniment Monsieur de bien recommander que les Lentilles ou petits verres Soïent de toute perfection, afin de pouvoir examiner des objets transparans et epais. Mrs. James Des Cotes & Ce. à qui vous aurez la Bonté de faire remettre et bien recommander tout ceoi vous en payeront le Montant. Faites moi aussi S.V.P. la grace Monsieur de me marquer le juste Prix d’une Perspective arrangée de façon comme celle que j’ai deja reçue de vous, qui non seulement peut servir à l’usage ordinaire, mais qui encore fait le même Effet d’un Tubus de 50. pieds. Recommandez moi aussi à Mr. Nairne afin que je puisse en addresser à l’avenir directement à Lui, je ne lui demanderai d’ailleurs jamais rien qui ne soit payé sur le champ sur quoi il peut compter. Au reste Monsieur pardonnez moi la peine que je vous fais, et ne m’imputez pas une impolitesse, je ne vous addresserois surement pas de pareilles Commissions si je n’avois pas deja reçu des preuves do vôtre Bonté, outre que je scai que vous etes grand Connoisseur dans ce genre d’Etude.
Je serrai par contre toujours prêt à vos ordres dans ces quartiers ci et ne demande que l’Occasion a vous prouver le sincère attachement et la parfaite Consideration avec laquelle j’ai l’honneur d’être, Monsieur, Vôtre très humble et très obeissant serviteur
I. M. LutherConseiller de S.A.S. ElectoralePalatine
Mes assurances de Respect à Mr. John Pringle


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Heinrich Ehrenfried Luther, 16 March 1767
From: Luther, Heinrich Ehrenfried
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Monsieur
francfort le 16. Mars. 1767.
L’honneur de l’agréable vôtre du 9. 7bre de l’année derniere m’est bien parvenuë le 29. 8bre d’aprez aussi bien que les Limes &ce. et la Perspective pour mon fils. Mrs. Voogd Des Cotes &Ce. vous en auront remboursé et je vous fais bien des remerciments Monsieur de la peine que vous avez euë avec ces Emplettes. Je me récommande par contre, et vous prie de disposer à toute occasion de moi ou vous me trouverez capable de vous rendre mes Services, je me fairai toujours un sensible plaisir de pouvoir contribuer à tout ce que vous sera agréable, et sacrifierai chaque fois tout ce qui dépend de moi, pour un ami comme vous.
Voudriez vous Monsieur avoir la Bonté de me marquer au juste vôtre rétour en Amerique, car je veux écrire à Mr. Hutchinson et peut-être aussi à la Province nouvelle Angleterre, pour tacher d’obtenir un dedomagement de l’affaire connuë et puisque je ne Scaurai mieux m’addresser qu’à vous Monsieur et à Mr. Hutchinson je prend la Liberté (dans l’entiere Confiance que vous ne me le refuserez pas) à vous prier de vous charger de cette Commission, j’y joindrai une Carte blanche sur vous (cum clausula substituendi) et recommande mes Intêrets à vôtre ancienne Amitié, d’agir comme il vous plaira et comme vous le jugerez à propos pour mon avantage. Je fais bien des Compliments à Mr. john Pringle, et vous prie Monsieur de me continuer l’honneur de vôtre cher Souvenir. Dans l’Espérance de recevoir bientôt de vos Nouvelles, je serrai toute ma vie avec un parfait Estime, Monsieur, Votre très humble et très obeissant serviteur
Luther


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Pomeroys & Hodgkin, 18 March 1767
From: Pomeroys & Hodgkin
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Sir
London 18 March 1767
We inclose You the Revd. Mr. Coopers two Sermons, Our freind Mr. Nicholas Boylston sent us, which we esteem deserving the high character he gives of Mr. Cooper, which You will please to forward to Glasgow as soon as possible to procure his degree of Doctor in Divinity, what ever charges You may be at shall be repaid You with the greatest gratitude by Sir Your most humble Servants
Pomeroys & Hodgkin
 Addressed: To / Dr Franklin / Craven street / Strand


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to William Franklin, 19 March 1767
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Franklin, William

Dear Son
London, March 19. 1767
Dining to day with Mr. Potts, I hear that Letters go by this Night’s Post to Falmouth for the Chance of reaching the Packet. Therefore I write this Line just to say, that I receiv’d yesterday a Line from the Treasury acquainting me that Mr. Kollock is appointed upon my Recommendation to be Collector of Lewes. I shall be more particular in my next. Your affectionate Father
B Franklin


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Mr. Walker, 20 March 1767
From: Walker, George (1734–1807)
To: Franklin, Benjamin

St. James’s Street March the 20th 1767
Mr. Walker presents his Compliments to Dr. Franklyn and will be glad of the favour of his Company to dinner on Monday the 6th of April.


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Mary Stevenson, 26 March 1767
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Hewson, Mary (Polly) Stevenson

March 26. 67
We want to hear how our dear Polly does after the Loss of her Two great Teeth together; whether the Jaw is easy and not swell’d &c.
Sir Cha. Blount call’d in Cravenstreet last Night, and we learnt with Pleasure that your Friend Dolly and all that Family were well. Dr. Hawkesworth is to spend this Evening there, and I am mortified that I cannot be with them.
Your good Mama bade me send you the enclos’d Verses, and so I scribbled this Line just to let you know we are well. Present my Compliments to Mrs. Tickel, &c. and believe me ever Your affectionate Friend
B Franklin
P.S. Dr. and Mrs. Hawkesworth are to drink Tea with us on Tuesday: It is said to be clever to kill two Birds with one Stone: You may make three or four more alive by one little Visit at the same time.

 Endorsed: Mar 6 - 67


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Sir John Pringle, [March 1767]
From: Pringle, Sir John
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Dear Sir,
Berkeley Square Friday 11 o’cl [March 1767]

I take the liberty to beg that You would come as soon as You can to the Duke of Ancaster’s in Berkeley Square, as His Grace and the Duchess are in the greatest distress about their daughter, who has been long in a most Miserable condition with spasms and convulsions. After all that we have done the distemper remains obstinate, and therefore the Parents have thought of electrifying Her. I have recommended the Operation to be performed by Spence and the rather as the present spasm has shut the Young Lady’s jaw and deprived Her both of speech and swallowing. I ventured to name You as the person the most proper for directing the operation, trusting to your friendship to me and humanity towards the distressed. Their Graces both join in begging this favour, and I gave them hopes that you would not refuse it. I am Dear Sir, Your most Affectionate humble Servant
John Pringle
As the Young Lady is at Chelsea, the Duke’s Coach is sent to bring You first to the Duke’s house in Berkeley Square and afterwards to Chelsea.
 Addressed: Dr Franklin / Craven Street / at Mrs Stevensons / left hand 2 / 3 ds down


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Henry Potts, 2 April 1767
From: Potts, Henry
To: Franklin, Benjamin

Dear Sir
Genl. Post Office April 2d: 1767
With this I send you your Commission signed by his Majestys Post Master General the Fees you will pay at your leisure. I am with great Truth and regard Dear Sir Your faithful Friend and most humble Servant
H Potts Sec
Benjamin Francklin Esqr.