Title: To Benjamin Franklin from David Hall, 18 April 1760
From: Hall, David
To: Franklin, Benjamin

            Sir,
            Philada. April 18. 1760.

          In my last to you, of the 31st ult. by the Roebuck, Capt. Jones, to Holyhead, I inclosed you the third Copy of a Bill of Exchange for £200 Sterling. I have now sent you the first Copy of another Bill of Exchange for £100 Sterling more, which, with what was before sent you, makes up Two Thousand Forty-nine Pounds, Twelve Shillings, and Five-pence Sterling, since you left this Place; for which, as usual, give me Credit, and Advice of receiving. Parson Smith denies his being with Mr. Osborne, and saying any thing to my Disadvantage; but I am well satisfied what you wrote was true notwithstanding. Wish the Fount of Brevier was come, as it is much wanted; have had no Letter from you later than the Beginning of last August, the Meaning of which I cannot conceive. I am, Sir, Yours, &c.

            D. Hall
            To Mr Franklin. By the Friendship, Capt. Falconer, to London.Exchange 52½


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from David Hall, 20 April 1760
From: Hall, David
To: Franklin, Benjamin

            Sir,
            Philada. April 20. 1760.

          In mine to you, of the 18th Instant, by the Friendship, Capt. Falconer, was inclosed the first Copy of a Bill of Exchange for £100 Sterling; which, with what I had sent you before, I told you amounted to Two Thousand Forty-nine Pounds, Twelve Shillings, and Five Pence Sterling, remitted you since you left Philadelphia, and for which I desired you would give me Credit, and to advise me of the Receipt of the Bill, as usual. In it I also acquainted you that Parson Smith denied his being with Mr. Osborne, or saying any thing to my Disadvantage; but that, notwithstanding, I was convinced what you wrote was true. I likewise told you the Fount of Brevier was much wanted; and that I had not heard from you since some Time in August last, the Reason of which I could not conceive. I have now sent you the second Copy of the above Bill, and am, Sir, Yours very sincerely

            D. Hall
            To Mr. Franklin.By the Three Friends, Killner, to London.


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Mary Stevenson, 1 May 1760
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Hewson, Mary (Polly) Stevenson

            Cravenstreet, May 1. 1760

          I embrace most gladly my dear Friend’s Proposal of a Subject for our future Correspondence; not only as it will occasion my hearing from her more frequently, but as it will lay me under a Necessity of improving my own Knowledge that I may be better able to assist in her Improvement. I only fear my necessary Business and Journeys with the natural Indolence of an old Man, will make me too unpunctual a Correspondent. For this I must hope some Indulgence.
          But why will you, by the Cultivation of your Mind, make yourself still more amiable, and a more desirable Companion for a Man of Understanding, when you are determin’d, as I hear, to live Single? If we enter, as you propose, into moral as well as natural Philosophy, I fancy, when I have fully establish’d my Authority as a Tutor, I shall take upon me to lecture you a little on that Chapter of Duty. But to be serious.
          Our easiest Method of Proceeding I think will be for you to read some Books, that I may recommend to you; and in the Course of your Reading, whatever occurs that you do not thoroughly apprehend, or that you clearly conceive and find Pleasure in, may occasion either some Questions for farther Information or some Observations that show how far you are satisfy’d and pleas’d with your Author. Those will furnish Matter for your Letters to me, and, in consequence, of mine also to you.
          Let me know then, what Books you have already perus’d on the Subject intended, that I may better judge what to advise for your next Reading. And believe me ever, my dear good Girl, Your affectionate Friend and Servant

            B Franklin
            Miss Stevenson

          Endorsed: May 1—60


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Lord Kames, 3 May 1760
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Kames, Henry Home, Lord

            My dear Lord,
            London, May 3. 1760.

          Your obliging Favour of January 24th. found me greatly indispos’d with an obstinate Cold and Cough accompany’d with Feverish Complaints and Headachs, that lasted long and harass’d me greatly, not being subdu’d at length but by the whole Round of Cupping, Bleeding, Blistering, &c. When I had any Intervals of Ease and Clearness, I endeavour’d to comply with your Request, in writing something on the present Situation of our Affairs in America, in order to give more correct Notions of the British Interest with regard to the Colonies, than those I found many sensible Men possess’d of. Inclos’d you have the Production, such as it is. I wish it may in any Degree be of Service to the Publick. I shall at least hope this from it for my own Part, that you will consider it as a Letter from me to you, and accept its Length as some Excuse for its being so long acoming.
          I am now reading, with great Pleasure and Improvement, your excellent Work, the Principles of Equity. It will be of the greatest Advantage to the Judges in our Colonies, not only in those which have Courts of Chancery, but also in those which having no such Courts are obliged to mix Equity with the Common Law. It will be of the more Service to the Colony Judges, as few of them have been bred to the Law. I have sent a Book to a particular Friend, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court in Pensilvania.
          I will shortly send you a Copy of the Chapter you are pleas’d to mention in so obliging a Manner; and shall be extreamly oblig’d in receiving a Copy of the Collection of Maxims for the Conduct of Life, which you are preparing for the Use of your Children. I purpose, likewise, a little Work for the Benefit of Youth, to be call’d The Art of Virtue. From the Title I think you will hardly conjecture what the Nature of such a Book may be. I must therefore explain it a little. Many People lead bad Lives that would gladly lead good ones, but know not how to make the Change. They have frequently resolv’d and endeavour’d it; but in vain, because their Endeavours have not been properly conducted. To exhort People to be good, to be just, to be temperate, &c. without shewing them how they shall become so, seems like the ineffectual Charity mention’d by the Apostle, which consisted in saying to the Hungry, the Cold, and the Naked, be ye fed, be ye warmed, be ye clothed, without shewing them how they should get Food, Fire or Clothing. Most People have naturally some Virtues, but none have naturally all the Virtues. To acquire those that are wanting, and secure what we acquire as well as those we have naturally, is the Subject of an Art. It is as properly an Art, as Painting, Navigation, or Architecture. If a Man would become a Painter, Navigator, or Architect, it is not enough that he is advised to be one, that he is convinc’d by the Arguments of his Adviser that it would be for his Advantage to be one, and that he resolves to be one, but he must also be taught the Principles of the Art, be shewn all the Methods of Working, and how to acquire the Habits of using properly all the Instruments; and thus regularly and gradually he arrives by Practice at some Perfection in the Art. If he does not proceed thus, he is apt to meet with Difficulties that discourage him, and make him drop the Pursuit. My Art of Virtue has also its Instruments, and teaches the Manner of Using them. Christians are directed to have Faith in Christ, as the effectual Means of obtaining the Change they desire. It may, when sufficiently strong, be effectual with many. A full Opinion that a Teacher is infinitely wise, good, and powerful, and that he will certainly reward and punish the Obedient and Disobedient, must give great Weight to his Precepts, and make them much more attended to by his Disciples. But all Men cannot have Faith in Christ; and many have it in so weak a Degree, that it does not produce the Effect. Our Art of Virtue may therefore be of great Service to those who have not Faith, and come in Aid of the weak Faith of others. Such as are naturally well-disposed, and have been carefully educated, so that good Habits have been early established, and bad ones prevented, have less Need of this Art; but all may be more or less benefited by it. It is, in short, to be adapted for universal Use. I imagine what I have now been writing will seem to savour of great Presumption; I must therefore speedily finish my little Piece, and communicate the Manuscript to you, that you may judge whether it is possible to make good such Pretensions. I shall at the same time hope for the Benefit of your Corrections.
          My respectful Compliments to Lady Kaims and your amiable Children, in which my Son joins. With the sincerest Esteem and Attachment, I am, My Lord, Your Lordship’s most obedient and most humble Servant

            B Franklin

            P.S. While I remain in London I shall continue in Craven Street, Strand: if you favour me with your Correspondence when I return to America, please to direct for me in Philadelphia, and your Letters will readily find me tho’ sent to any other Part of North America.

            Lord Kaims


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to [Peter Franklin], 7 May 1760
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Franklin, Peter

            Sir,
            London, May 7, 1760.

          ******It had, indeed, as you observe, been the opinion of some very great naturalists, that the sea is salt only from the dissolution of mineral or rock salt, which its waters happened to meet with. But this opinion takes it for granted that all water was originally fresh, of which we can have no proof. I own I am inclined to a different opinion, and rather think all the water on this globe was originally salt, and that the fresh water we find in springs and rivers, is the produce of distillation. The sun raises the vapours from the sea, which form clouds, and fall in rain upon the land, and springs and rivers are formed of that rain. As to the rock-salt found in mines, I conceive, that instead of communicating its saltness to the sea, it is itself drawn from the sea, and that of course the sea is now fresher than it was originally. This is only another effect of nature’s distillery, and might be performed various ways.

          It is evident from the quantities of sea-shells, and the bones and teeth of fishes found in high lands, that the sea has formerly covered them. Then, either the sea has been higher than it now is, and has fallen away from those high lands; or they have been lower than they are, and were lifted up out of the water to their present height, by some internal mighty force, such as we still feel some remains of, when whole continents are moved by earthquakes. In either case it may be supposed that large hollows, or valleys among hills, might be left filled with sea-water, which evaporating, and the fluid part drying away in a course of years, would leave the salt covering the bottom; and that salt coming afterwards to be covered with earth, from the neighbouring hills, could only be found by digging through that earth. Or, as we know from their effects, that there are deep fiery caverns under the earth, and even under the sea, if at any time the sea leaks into any of them, the fluid parts of the water must evaporate from that heat, and pass off through some vulcano, while the salt remains, and by degrees, and continual accretion, becomes a great mass. Thus the cavern may at length be filled, and the volcano connected with it cease burning, as many it is said have done; and future miners penetrating such cavern, find what we call a salt mine. This is a fancy I had on visiting the salt-mines at Northwich, with my son. I send you a piece of the rock-salt which he brought up with him out of the mine.******I am, Sir, &c.

            B. F.


Title: Defense of the Canada Pamphlet, [8–15 May 1760]
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To:

          The London Chronicle for April 24–26 contains a long and highly favorable review of The Interest of Great Britain Considered, calling it a “masterly performance” which “shows the writer to be perfectly acquainted with his subject and possessed of the happy talent of expressing himself with clearness, strength, and precision.” Most of the article consists of summary statements of the arguments advanced in Remarks on the Letter Address’d to Two Great Men against the retention of Canada, each followed by an extended paraphrase of the rebuttal in Franklin’s Canada Pamphlet.
          The Chronicle for May 6–8 printed a piece dated “Bath, May 3, 1760,” in which the writer vigorously disagreed with the author of The Interest of Great Britain Considered. He had four main criticisms: 1. His opponent had not properly distinguished between the northern continental colonies (from New England south through Pennsylvania), which supplied few commodities that Britain needed, and those to the south (Maryland through Georgia), which furnished such desirable products as tobacco, rice, and indigo. 2. He had failed to point out that the provision trade from the northern group to the West Indies was competitive with the similar trade from Great Britain to the islands. 3. In describing the “prodigious” increase of the trade of the northern colonies since 1754 he had not said how much of this was the result of their clandestine trade with the French islands during wartime. 4. He had ignored the fact that much of the recent great prosperity of the northern colonies resulted from the vast expenditures there of British money in support of the armed forces. In introducing this piece the publisher of the Chronicle, actively supporting Franklin’s side of the controversy, stated “[We have taken the liberty to add a few notes to prevent a reader from being mislead]” and then inserted at the bottom of the columns sixteen footnotes defending the Canada Pamphlet from what he considered unfair or unjustifiable attacks by the critic.
          In the Chronicle for May 15–17 is a second article by the same writer, elaborating some of his earlier criticisms and adding new objections to the arguments in the Canada Pamphlet. The publisher explained in a headnote that he inserted the piece “not only to show what shifts the advocates for keeping Guadaloupe, rather than Canada, are reduced to; but, with their Author, to keep awake the attention of the Publick” to this important question. He added that he was credibly informed that the author of the Remarks on the Letter Address’d to Two Great Men (whom he may have thought to be also the writer of these two attacks on the Canada Pamphlet) “will lose a lucrative place when Guadaloupe is restored. Hinc illae lacrimae.” This was a direct slap at William Burke, who had been appointed secretary and register of Guadeloupe in the previous autumn.
          Who wrote these two criticisms cannot now be certainly established. William Franklin told Joseph Galloway a few weeks later that the author was Josiah Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, and he may have been right, but the present editors have found no evidence for or against this attribution.
          In his second article for the Chronicle the writer indicated his belief that the footnotes added to the first were written by the author of the Canada Pamphlet. A publisher’s footnote to the second piece suggests, without positively saying so, that he was wrong. The present editors have found no evidence that Franklin wrote these notes, or indeed, that he ever completed and published any defense of his pamphlet. That he contemplated doing so, however, is evident both from a statement by his son in the letter to Galloway mentioned above, and from a single page in his handwriting which survives among his papers. This is the draft of the opening of what was evidently intended as a letter to the Chronicle replying to the attack in the issue of May 6–8. The reference to that piece as having appeared “in your last Wednesday’s Paper” fixes the date of composition as sometime between the appearance of that issue on Thursday, May 8, 1760, and the following Thursday, May 15. How much more Franklin wrote of the draft cannot be determined; the bottom of the page interrupts a quotation from his critic in mid course and no other fragments of this draft have been found among his papers. Search of the Chronicle for the next several months reveals nothing which might be even remotely identified as a reply by Franklin to these criticisms of his pamphlet. Probably he concluded on second thought, as he did when Abbé Nollet attacked his electrical theories, that he would let his contribution stand or fall on its own merits, letting other writers pursue the debate if they cared to do so.

            Sir
            [May 8–15, 1760]

          When I think I have receiv’d Information from a new Pamphlet, that I have therefore read with Pleasure, it always mortifies me to find its Positions soon controverted by some Answerer, that seems equally intelligent, and all the suppos’d Knowledge I had acquir’d reduc’d again to Uncertainty.
          This has been my case lately, in reading the Letter to two Great Men, the Remarks on that Letter, and the Interest of Great Britain considered with Regard to her Colonies in Answer to those Remarks. The last of these Pamphlets seem’d so full and clear, that I made up my Mind upon it and sat down satisfy’d that I understood something of the Subject. But here comes an apparently sensible Writer from Bath in your last Wednesday’s Paper, that perplexes me with an Assurance that the Doctrines of that Piece are “big with Mischief, tending to entail an eternal War upon US, as long as there remains an Indian Tribe unsubdued or not extirpated from one end of the vast Continent of America to the other,” that its Reasonings are fallacious: That the Author “applies to the Foibles and Passions of Mankind,” that “his Performance is full of Artifice and Chicane, calculated to serve the purpose of the Monopolizers of Jamaica; and is destitute of [remainder missing].


Title: From Benjamin Franklin to Alexander Small, 12 May 1760
From: Franklin, Benjamin
To: Small, Alexander

            Dear Sir,
            May 12, 1760.

          Agreeable to your request, I send you my reasons for thinking that our North-East storms in North-America begin first, in point of time, in the South-West parts: That is to say, the air in Georgia, the farthest of our colonies to the South-West, begins to move South-Westerly before the air of Carolina, which is the next colony North-Eastward; the air of Carolina has the same motion before the air of Virginia, which lies still more North-Eastward; and so on North-Easterly through Pensylvania, New-York, New-England, &c. quite to Newfoundland.
          These North-East storms are generally very violent, continue sometimes two or three days, and often do considerable damage in the harbours along the coast. They are attended with thick clouds and rain.
          What first gave me this idea, was the following circumstance. About twenty years ago, a few more or less, I cannot from my memory be certain, we were to have an eclipse of the moon at Philadelphia, on a Friday evening, about nine o’clock. I intended to observe it, but was prevented by a North-East storm, which came on about seven, with thick clouds as usual, that quite obscured the whole hemisphere. Yet when the post brought us the Boston news-paper, giving an account of the effects of the same storm in those parts, I found the beginning of the eclipse had been well observed there, though Boston lies N. E. of Philadelphia about 400 miles. This puzzled me, because the storm began with us so soon as to prevent any observation, and being a N. E. storm, I imagined it must have began rather sooner in places farther to the North Eastward, than it did at Philadelphia. I therefore mentioned it in a letter to my brother who lived at Boston; and he informed me the storm did not begin with them till near eleven o’clock, so that they had a good observation of the eclipse: And upon comparing all the other accounts I received from the several colonies, of the time of beginning of the same storm, and since that of other storms of the same kind, I found the beginning to be always later the farther North-Eastward. I have not my notes with me here in England, and cannot, from memory, say the proportion of time to distance, but I think it is about an hour to every hundred miles.
          From thence I formed an idea of the cause of these storms, which I would explain by a familiar instance or two. Suppose a long canal of water stopp’d at the end by a gate. The water is quite at rest till the gate is open, then it begins to move out through the gate; the water next the gate is first in motion, and moves towards the gate; the water next to that first water moves next, and so on successively, till the water at the head of the canal is in motion, which is last of all. In this case all the water moves indeed towards the gate, but the successive times of beginning motion are the contrary way, viz. from the gate backwards to the head of the canal. Again, suppose the air in a chamber at rest, no current through the room till you make a fire in the chimney. Immediately the air in the chimney being rarefied by the fire, rises; the air next the chimney flows in to supply its place, moving towards the chimney; and, in consequence, the rest of the air successively, quite back to the door. Thus to produce our North-East storms, I suppose some great heat and rarefaction of the air in or about the Gulph of Mexico; the air thence rising has its place supplied by the next more northern, cooler, and therefore denser and heavier, air; that, being in motion, is followed by the next more northern air, &c. &c. in a successive current, to which current our coast and inland ridge of mountains give the direction of North-East, as they lie N. E. and S.W.
          This I offer only as an hypothesis to account for this particular fact; and, perhaps, on farther examination, a better and truer may be found. I do not suppose all storms generated in the same manner. Our North-West thundergusts in America I know are not; but of them I have written my opinion fully in a paper which you have seen. I am, &c.

            B. F.


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from the Earl of Bessborough, 18 May 1760
From: Bessborough, William Ponsonby, 2nd Earl of
To: Franklin, Benjamin

            May the 18 [1760?]

          Lord Bessborough Complements to Mr. Franklin and desires the favour of his Company at Dinner next Sunday.


Title: William Franklin to Joseph Galloway, 16 June 1760
From: Franklin, William
To: Galloway, Joseph

            My dear Friend
            London June 16. 1760

          I wrote you a few Lines on Saturday last to go per the Pacquet, in which I mention’d a Pamphlet wrote by my Father in Answer to the Remarks on the Letter to Two Great Men. I could not send you one by that Opportunity, but as Capt. Monk has inform’d my Father that he is just upon the Point of sailing to America, and will take Charge of any Thing we may have to send, I have troubled him with one of the Pamphlets, and the Remarks, of which I desire your Acceptance. I formerly sent you one of the Letters to Two Great Men, wrote by Lord Bath, so that you will have the whole Merits of the Dispute before you. The Author of the Remarks is thought by some to be Horace Walpole, but ’tis generally believ’d to be one Burk who is appointed Secretary of Guadaloupe, and ’tis said was assisted by Mr. Wood Secretary to Mr. Pitt. Something by way of Answer to my Father’s Pamphlet has appear’d in the London Chronicle, wrote by one Dr. Tucker a Clergyman, who is an Intimate of Lord Hallifax’s and patroniz’d by him, and is one of the bitterest Enemies N. America has in Britain. ’Tis so contemptible a Performance, that my Father could not think it worthy his Notice, were it not that it affords him an Opportunity of saying somethings omitted in his former Publication, and may be a means of silencing the Doctor, or at least of lessening his Influence in American Affairs for the future. On that Account he intends at his first Leisure to take it into Consideration, and publish something by way of Reply. The only Fault I have to find with the Pamphlet is, a Compliment to a certain Person which is by no means merited, but was put in at the Request of a Friend, in hopes it might induce him to look with a more favorable Eye on the Colonies. If it has that Effect I shall be glad. But I hate every Thing that has even the Appearance of Flattery.
          The Opinion of the Board of Trade on the 11 Pensylvania Acts is not yet known.
          My Compliments to all enquiring Friends, and believe me to be with great Sincerity Dear Galloway Yours affectionately

            Wm: Franklin

            P.S. If the Speaker has not seen the Remarks please to lend them to him.


Title: To Benjamin Franklin from John Sargent, 19 June 1760
From: Sargent, John
To: Franklin, Benjamin

            Dear Sir
            Thursday 19 June [1760]

          I shall be heartily glad to see You at Mayplace on Sunday—or Saturday—and at all Times.
          Alas Quebeck! I little thought that We should have to mingle our Sighs for that, when We met.
          What a Barbarism in a General threatned with a Siege, to go out to fight Those who found[?] themselves strong enough to undertake forceing Him in his Fastness! There never was such Folly!
          Adieu—I will not dwell on these unpleasing Subjects. May We meet in Health! Yours most sincerely

            J Sargent