The person charging this material is re- 
 sponsible for its return to the library from 
 which it was withdrawn on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 
 are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
 result in dismissal from the University. 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBAN A-CHAMPA1GN 
 
 ISfc UUt. i 
 
 L161 — 0-1096 
 
THE RELATIONS OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WITH 
 THE ENGLISH LIBERALS 1774-1789 
 
 BY 
 
 MARTHA HARRIET DUBOIS 
 A. B. University of Illinois, 1919 
 
 THESIS 
 
 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the 
 
 Degree of 
 
 MASTER OF ARTS 
 
 IN HISTORY 
 
 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 1921 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/relationsofbenjaOOdubo 
 

 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 
 
 
 192 / 
 
 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY 
 
 SUPERVISION BY 
 
 
 ENTITLED r ) ^ L 2 ^ 7 
 
 UfM /m* /77/'//^f 
 
 BE ACCEPTED AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
 
 Head of Department 
 
 Recommendation concurred in* 
 
 Committee 
 
 on 
 
 Final Examination* 
 
 ’Required for doctor’s degree but not for master’s 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 INTRODUCTION 1 
 
 CHAPTER I ESTABLISHMENT OF FRANKLIN’S FRIENDSHIPS .... 12 
 
 CHAPTER II POLITICAL OPINIONS OF THE ENGLISH LI3ERALS AND 
 
 THEIR RELATIONS TO FRANKLIN, 1774-1773 .... 18 
 
 CHAPTER III THE WAR AND NEGOTIATIONS FOR PEACE 37 
 
 CHAPTER IV FRANKLIN'S RELATIONS WITH THE ENGLISH 
 
 LIBERALS, 1783-1789 55 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY i 
 

INTRODUCTION 
 
 No more striking instance of the diversity of opinion in 
 English political circlea in respect to the American Revolution can 
 be found than the fact that one of the leading spirits of that 
 Revolution maintained throughout the struggle a wide circle of 
 sympathetic friends who were at the same time loyal British subjects, 
 many of whom held prominent political offices. Benjamin Franklin 
 had, during two extended missions in England, acquired the acquain- 
 tance and friendship of many Liberals. The relationships between 
 himself and these friends and acquaintances, any possible influence 
 that he might have exercised through them on the course of events 
 before, during, and at the close of the Revolution, constitutes the 
 theme of this discussion. 
 
 A clear understanding of the political conditions on the 
 eve of the Revolution involves a knowledge of those conditions 
 during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 
 
 For the purposes of greater religious or economic freedom, 
 numbers of British subjects had established colonies on the eastern 
 coast of North America during the seventeenth century. Left much 
 to themselves during the first one hundred years, they developed 
 representative governments with a large measure of control over 
 local affairs and established a thriving trade, especially with the 
 West Indies. ^ The Navigation Act of 1660 sought to secure to Great 
 
 ^Channing, History of the United States, II, Chapter 1. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
 Britain greater benefits from her commerce, first by requiring 
 certain colonial exports to pass through England, and second by 
 confining the carrying trade to ships of the British Empire. 1 The 
 first act in restraint of trade to arouse serious protest on the part 
 of the Colonists was the Molasses Act of 1733. This aimed at the 
 profitable trade with the Spanish and French West Indies. Since 
 these acts were not strictly enforced before 1760, colonial commerce 
 continued to grow, while little friction between Britain and her 
 colonies resulted. 
 
 The accession of George III to the throne of England in 
 1760 marked a new era in British politics, both at home and abroad. 
 The Revolution of 1688 and the reign of William III had established 
 the principle that the Crown was dependent upon Parliament. From 
 that time until the accession of George III, a growing cabinet 
 system had been wresting the actual government from the hands of 
 the King. A small number of Whig families had come into control. 
 Walpole and the Pelhams dominated English politics until 1754.° 
 Politics again fell into confusion; there was a break-up of the Old 
 Whig party into factions; and when George III ascended the throne, 
 he attempted to secure to the Crown its lost power by a destruction 
 of party rule. 4 He stood aloof from parties and gathered about him- 
 self a number of men known as "King's friends", who became his 
 advisers. None of them stood well politically. There were two 
 
 *Ibid. . II, 27. 
 
 2 Lask'i , Political Thought from Locke to Bent ham . 27. 
 
 ^Leadham, History of England (Hunt's "Political History of 
 England") IX, 430. 
 
 4 Alvord, Mi ssissiuoi Va lley in British Politics , I, 22 f . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
 other groups who also championed the King and whose ideal of 
 government was patterned after Bolingbroke ' s "Patriot King." The 
 first of these groups was composed of a number of unattached Whigs, 
 who had been trained under the Dukes of Bedford and Cumberland; 
 who were unattached; and who hoped by championing the King to 
 secure offices. The second group constituted the Scotch members 
 of Parliament. The leader of this group was Lord Karnes. Disunited 
 and in a minority, as these groups were, it was necessary for the 
 
 King to secure the support of one or more of the Whig factions. 
 
 was 
 
 To accomplish this, his plan of a "broad bottom" ministry /developed. 
 
 Of the many Whig factions, the Pittites and their offshoot, 
 the Grenvillites , were the only ones that professed adherence to 
 Bolingbroke ' s ideal of government, the former more than the latter. 
 Yet in actual practice, Pitt as a Prime Minister was distasteful to 
 the King because of his dominating personality. One of the first 
 acts of George III was to rid himself of Pitt. He accomplished 
 this October 5, 1761^ and substituted Bute, a Tory whose ideas of 
 
 p 
 
 government and foreign policy were similar to his own. 
 
 The remnant of the Old Whigs inherited the principles of 
 the Revolution of 1683. Consequently, they held power only once 
 during the reign of George III. Not long after 1760 the power of 
 this faction fell into the hands of Rockingham, whose talent for 
 statesmanship was mediocre. In later years, however, this faction 
 
 ^Hunt, History of Engl and, X, 31. 
 
 ^Nivernofs. . . a critic of Bute said a few months later that the 
 ministry wanted peace for three reasons: (l) to triumph over their 
 enemies; (2) to give the King an opportunity to extinguish the fac- 
 tions and to establish his personal authority; (3) not to have to sue 
 for peace, owing to a lack of funds. To Praslin, September 24,1762. 
 Quoted in Williams, Basil, Life of William Pitt , II, 139. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 
 came to be dominated by its most brilliant statesman, Edmund Burke, 
 
 •J 
 
 and it stood for reform "in a mild way". 
 
 In addition to the Grenvillites and the Pittites, which 
 faction contained among its "adherents the ablest minis of England", 
 the principal Whig offshoots were the Bedfordites and the followers 
 of the Duke of Cumberland. The former, better k rown as the 
 Bloomsbury Gang, represented the remnants of the old aristocratic 
 party. The latter joined Bute and gave him assistance in making 
 the Treaty of Peace. Their chief purpose in this was the attainment 
 of office. After the conclusion of the Peace, which in spite of 
 Pitt's absence reflected his imperialism, the King attempted to 
 dominate politics and to bring the Colonies under closer supervision 
 in accordance with seventeenth century imperialistic ideas. 
 
 Grenville and the Bedfordite, who succeeded Bute, attempted to execute 
 the King's imperialistic plans and at the same time to pay the war 
 debt, by the passage of the Stamp Act. As is well known, this 
 resulted in his resignation and in trouble with the Colonies which 
 led to the Revolution. Meanwhile, remnants of the old Tory party, 
 which drew its strength from the landed aristocracy, had begun to 
 participate in politics. The first formation of the Leicester 
 House faction was a beginning. After the accession of George III, 
 they thronged to London and in time developed unity and political 
 
 experience. When Lord North became Prime Minister in 1770, they had 
 
 2 
 
 developed into his following. Lacking the dominating personality 
 of Walpole or Pitt, North was easily influenced to execute the 
 King's will, which proved so disastrous in the conduct of the 
 affairs of the Colonies. 
 
 lAlvora, Mississippi Valicy in British Politics , I, chapter 1. 
 
 3 Ibid . , 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
 During the first half of the eighteenth century, there 
 had been developing on both sides of the Atlantic a spirit of 
 democracy. It was much stronger in America where the population 
 constituted almost entirely that element of the older civilizations 
 that was most favorable to democracy; where economic and social con- 
 ditions were conducive to its growth; and where the communities were 
 a great distance from the restraining hand of the mother country. 
 
 In contrast to the spirit of democracy that constituted so large an 
 element of the Colonial Assemblies, that spirit, in England, had 
 grown up outside of the House of Commons. 
 
 Since Locke had laid down his principles respecting the 
 rights of man, signs o* change in English political thought had 
 appeared. Rousseau, whose Contrat Social was published in 1765, 
 exerted a wide influence upon the Liberals of England. Too much 
 credit should not be given him, however, for the seeds of 
 Revolution had long since been sown, and only awaited a favorable 
 opportunity to spread discontent broadcast. Such an opportunity 
 presented itself when George III showed his intention of restoring 
 the old order of government by the Crown alone.' 1 The spirit of dis- 
 content spread most rapiily among the Non-conformists. First, under 
 a union of Church and State, the desire to be free from religious 
 restraint aroused a distrust of the political as well. Secondly, 
 having been barred from political activities, they had turned their 
 attention to trade and commerce. Restraints imposed in accordance 
 with the mercantilist theories then practised by the government 
 
 ^Laski, Political Though t from Locke to Bentham , 18S. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
o 
 
 aroused their distrust of the State. 1 Foremost among the 
 Revolutionists were Priestly and Price, both liberal clergymen. The 
 
 former engaged his attention with an attack on the Established 
 
 2 
 
 Church; the latter, with an attack on the Empire. Both men 
 preached the doctrine of the equality of man, and the responsibility 
 of the State to the people. Perhaps the foremost figure of the f 
 Liberal movement was Edmund Burke* He was more conservative than 
 Priestly and Price in that he revered tradition and the British 
 Constitution, and advocated rather its purification than its over- 
 throw. His Present Discontents , published in 1770, was the first 
 Revolutionary production of first rank since the time of Hume. From 
 that time, the Revolutionary movement made itself manifest in the 
 House of Commons and through the press until it operated to modify 
 the course of political events. 
 
 During these times of political upheaval, Benjamin 
 Franklin had occasion to spend a number of years in England. As 
 agent for the Colony of Pennsylvania from 1757 until 1763, and for 
 both Pennsylvania and Massachusetts from 1764 until 1775,^ he came 
 into contact with the current of political thought and action in 
 England. "His many social qualities gained for him a wide circle 
 of friend^ 1 , especially among the Liberals and the Scientists. It 
 was in his first sojourn, as agent of Pennsylvania, that most of the 
 friendships which will be discussed in the following pages were jj 
 
 jj lbld. , 192. 
 
 Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 
 
 II, 252. 
 
 ^Laski, Political Thought from Locke to Bentham, 159. 
 
 4 Parton, Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin , I, 128, 460. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 '.1 
 
7 
 
 formed. That he had then formed personal ties with the mother 
 country is shown in the following letter to Lord Karnes in 1762, at 
 whose home Franklin had visited in 1757.1 "I am now waiting here 
 only for a wind to waft me to America, but I cannot leave this 
 happy island and my friends in it, without extreme regret, though 
 I am going to a country and a people that I love." 2 
 
 Two letters to Strahan indicate that at this time he 
 considered seriously removing to England, so deep was his regard 
 for it. ^ 
 
 His attachment to England was not based upon personal 
 friendships; he showed pride in terming himself a Briton, and an 
 interest in the extension of the British Empire. 4 For instance, 
 he observed to Karnes in 1760 that "no one can more sincerely 
 rejoice than I do on the reduction of Canada, and this is not 
 merely as I am a Colonist, but as I am a Briton; I have long been 
 of opinion that the foundations of the future grandeur and 
 
 stability of the British Empire lie in America " 4 Another 
 
 instance of this spirit is shown by a remark of Priestley. He 
 observed that Franklin "saw no inconvenience from its (British 
 Empire's) being extended over a great part of the globe." 5 
 
 ^Franklin to Karnes, January 3, 1760. Wr itings of Benjamin 
 Frank 1 in (Smyth ed.), IV, 6. 
 
 2 
 
 Franklin to Karnes, August 17, 1762. Wr it ings of Benjam in 
 Fra nk 1 in (Smyth ed.), IV, 174. 
 
 ^Franklin to Strahan, August 13, 1762; December 7, 1762. Ibid . , 
 177, 181. 
 
 ^Franklin to Karnes, January 3, 1760. I bid. ,4. 
 
 Memoirs of Dr^ J oseph Priestley , 449. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
 Notwithstanding his loyalty tc the mother country, 
 Franklin early recognized the need of a change in the relationship 
 that existed between Britain and her Colonies. That he had long 
 been a leader in the agitation to change the form of government in 
 Pennsylvania, may have had some effect in turning his attention to 
 this need. What his early ideas respecting a union between Britain 
 and her Colonies should have been, may be ascertained to some 
 extent from his letters to Governor Shirley in 1754, and from the 
 Albany Plan of Union, which he proposed in the same year. In his 
 letters to Governor Shirley, he opposed taxation by Parliament, 
 without representation in that body, but he did not advocate a 
 representation of the Colonies in Parliament. After protesting 
 against the dissatisfaction which may be aroused in the Colonies 
 as a result of exclusion from a voice in the Grand Council, and 
 from taxation by "act of Parliament where they have no representa- 
 tive," he said that there was 'ho reason to doubt the readiness and 
 willingness of the representatives they may choose, to grant from 
 time to time such supplies for the defense of the country, as shall 
 be judged necessary, so far as their abilities will allow. ... that 
 the people in the colonies .... are likely.... to be better judges of 
 their own expense than the Parliament of England at so great a dis- 
 tance. "‘ L From this, it would seem that Franklin, rather than have 
 a representation of the colonies in Parliament, preferred the 
 
 o 
 
 preservation of the local assemblies, with powers for taxation.^ 
 
 Franklin to Shirley, December 18, 1754. Writing s of Ben.i am in 
 Frankl in (Smyth ed.). Ill, 232. 
 
 2 
 
 For a further exposition of his views see Franklin to Strahan, 
 1769. 238. _ „ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9 
 
 This would seer r to he borne out in his Plan for Union of 17 54. Here 
 
 he advocated that the payment of expenses for the Colonies should 
 
 be met with the money which was to be raised from "imposts, duties 
 
 or taxes" that were to be levied by act of the President-Ceneral 
 
 and the Grand Council.- 1 That a representation of the Colonies in 
 
 Parliament might have been successfully accomplished, he admitted 
 
 in a letter to Karnes as late as 1766, but he added; "the time is 
 
 now come when they are indifferent about it.... and the time will 
 
 come ’when they will certainly refuse it , but if such a union 
 
 were now established. ... it would probably subsist as long as 
 
 2 
 
 Britain shall continue a nation." 
 
 Whether Franklin’s efforts to transfer the government of 
 
 Pennsylvania had any influence upon his larger outlook of a union 
 
 of all the Colonies under the Crown is uncertain. He himself 
 
 asserted in An Account of the Tran sa ctions re la ting to Governor 
 
 Hutchinson ' s Lett ers . that "from a thorough inquiry (on occasion 
 
 of the Stamp Act) into the nature of the connection between Britain 
 
 and the Colonies, I became convinced that the bond of their union 
 
 is not the Parliament but the King." Franklin considered him to be 
 
 the rightful supreme authority over all of the Colonies and a means 
 
 3 
 
 of preserving the peace. His previous writings show that before 
 1765 such a theory was a favorite of his. The first evidence of 
 any suspicion, on Franklin's part, that the King was implicated in 
 the difficulties with the Colonies may be found in a letter to his 
 
 ^For papers relating to a Plan of Union, ibid. , III, 231. 
 
 ^’Franklin to Karnes, January 6, 1766. Writings of Benjamin Franklin 
 (Sparks ed.) IV, 156. 
 
 Writings of Benjamin Franklin (Sparks ed. ) IV, 408. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 
 
 son, when he said that "only by some Painstaking and proper manage- 
 ment, the wrong Impressions he (George III) has received may be 
 
 removed which is perhaps the only chance America has for obtaining 
 
 *| 
 
 soon the redress she aims at. 
 
 With such views as Franklin held respecting the rights of 
 the Colonies and with his knowledge of the source of their diffi- 
 culties, it is not surprising that he exerted an influence toward 
 bringing about a better understanding between Britain and her 
 Colonies. In the hope of accomplishing this end, he secured the 
 publication of Dickinson’s Farmer ' s Letters in London, urging the 
 
 need of a better understanding of the prejudices and misapprehen- 
 
 2 
 
 sions of the Colonists, on the part of Englishmen. Frequently, 
 he wrote editorials for such leading papers as the London Chronicle* 
 one of which attempted to explain the attitude of the Colonists 
 toward Britain in relation to taxation, commerce, and the late 
 war. Perhaps his greatest influence was exerted through his 
 liberal friends and certain political leaders with whom he 
 succeeded in coming into contact. 
 
 To summarize Franklin’s viewpoint in regard to the 
 relations of the Colonies to the Mother Country in 1774, the 
 following conclusions may be drawn. First, he cherished a pride in 
 being caviled a Briton. Second, he believed that the parts of the 
 British Empire benefited through this union.- Priestley in his 
 
 ^The views advocated in Some Go od Whig Principles endorsed by 
 Franklin and supposed to have been written about 1768, illustrate 
 his views regarding government by the people. Writings of Benj amin 
 Franklin (Sparks ed.), II, 372. 
 
 2 
 
 For Preface to Farmer 1 s Letters see Writings of Benjamin Fr ankl in 
 (Sparks ed.), IV, 256. 
 
 ^London Chronicle. January 7, 1767. . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 As 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
 
 Memoirs, said that a favorite idea of Franklin w as a union of the 
 
 British Empire in all its parts. "He was wont to compare it to a 
 
 beautiful China vase, which when once broken could never be put 
 
 together again. Lecky relates a conversation of Franklin with 
 
 Burke on the eve of the Revolution, in which the latter expressed 
 
 the greatest concern at the impending separation of the two 
 
 countries. He said "America would never again see such happy days 
 
 as she had passed under the protection of England" .... and that 
 
 "ours was the only instance of a great Empire in which the most 
 
 distant parts and members had been as well governed as the 
 
 2 
 
 metropolis and its vicinage." 
 
 Third, Franklin exerted all his powers to bring about a 
 reconciliation. In the words of Priestley, "His constant advice to 
 his countrymen, he always said, was to bear everything from 
 England, however unjust, saying that it could not last long." 
 
 There is much truth in Franklin's own statement that to 
 the Americans he attempted to represent unsatisfactory measures as 
 "the schemes of an administration" rather than as royal or 
 national measures, and that he had pictured the King "as a good and 
 gracious prince"; while to the British, he represented the Americans 
 as loyal British subjects having no desire for independence. 4 
 
 Priestley, Memoir s . 450. 
 
 ^Lecky, Arne r loan Re vo lution , edited by J. A. Woodburn, 141. 
 Memoirs of Doctor Joseph Priestley , 450 
 
 ^ Writings of Benjamin Frankli n (Sparks ed.), IV, 410. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 ESTABLISHMENT OF FRANKLIN’S FRIENDSHIPS 
 
 Eefore discussing Franklin's relationships with the 
 English Liberals, it will be necessary to limit the term and to 
 select, if possible, from his wide circle of English friends, those 
 who stand as typical Liberals and whose contact with him was of 
 political importance or with whom his friendship was deepest and 
 most lasting. The term Liberal referred to those whose political 
 outlook was what would today be called Progressive. They stood for 
 the adaptation of the existing laws and customs to the changing 
 conditions. With different men it meant different interpretations. 
 Chatham was progressive in that he stood for a new colonial policy; 
 namely, a greater consideration for the needs and wishes of the 
 Colonists as such, rather than the benefit they might secure to 
 Britain. Burke, an admirer of the British Constitution, advocated 
 a purification of existing political machinery. 
 
 With the exception of William Strahan, who was an adherent 
 to the King's principles, Franklin's friends who are discussed 
 here were in opposition to the Crown and to the 'King's Friends'. 
 They belonged to such factions of the Old Whigs as the Pittites 
 and the Rockinghams, if they adhered to any political connection. 
 
 For the purpose of this discussion, Franklin's friends 
 may be divided into four groups: first, liberal clergymen, for whose 
 society he showed a peculiar aptitude ; J second, the philosophers 
 
 x Parton, Life and Time s of Benj am in Franklin , I, 545. 
 

13 
 
 and scient ists; 1 third, men with whom the subjects of common 
 interest were chiefly of a political nature; and fourth, men whose 
 relationships with Franklin apparently extended no further than a 
 mutual admiration and the affairs of state. 
 
 Strahan, the most intimate of Franklin's friends, with 
 
 the exception of Priestley, can scarcely belong to the above 
 
 classes. Their mutual interests were based upon their interests 
 
 in the printer's trade and upon books. This friendship was casually 
 
 formed in 1743, when Franklin answered an indirect inquiry of 
 
 Straha.n's in regard to a young journeyman printer. The life-long 
 
 friendship that developed came to include the families of both 
 2 
 
 men. In the summer of 1757, Franklin and Strahan met for the 
 first time at the home of Peter Collinson. A comparison of their 
 correspondence after this meeting with that before shows that their 
 frienship became, as a result, more intimate. For instance, 
 
 Franklin closed his first letter to Strhan with "Your humbl servt 
 unknown." Rarely, before 17 62, did he use any closing other than 
 "Your humbl servt." After that date, he used such terms as "Yours 
 affectionately," "Your much obliged and affectionate friend," and 
 "Yours sincerely." Then, too, Franklin had come to address him as 
 "Dear Straney." 3 
 
 That the subject of politics was not foreign to their 
 
 ^Franklin was elected to membership in the Royal Society for 
 Scientists, 1756, before his first residence in London. Franklin 
 to Collinson, November 5, 1756. Writings of Benjamin Franklin 
 (Smyth ed.), Ill, 346. 
 
 p 
 
 (a)For sketch of Strahan' s life, see Gentlemen 1 s Magazine , 1785, 
 II, 574, 636-9; (b)For this letter, with a number of others, hitherto 
 unpublished, see Atlantic Monthly , LXI, 21 f. 
 
 3 Wr it ing s of Benjamin Fr ankl in (Smyth ed. ) IV. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
14 
 
 intercourse is shown by a number of letters, in two of which 
 Franklin urged Strahan to inform him, politically, because he was 
 in the 'Secret of Affairs'; and in a third of December 19, 1783, 
 Franklin thanked Strahan for the ''Feast of Politics" he had given 
 him. 1 At a later date, Franklin called upon Strahan to place the 
 Pennsylvania Resolves in the Londo n Chronicle . The frank discussion 
 mentioned in the preceding chapter, in which these men engaged, on 
 taxation of the Colonies by Parliament, shows a sincere effort on the 
 part of each to secure the other's point of view. Upon Franklin's 
 return to England in 1763, their friendship was renewed, but it 
 received a temporary check at the outbreak of the war, for Strahan 
 was the King's printer and an ardent Tory. 
 
 Among the liberal clergymen numbered as Franklin's 
 friends, Priestley and Price are the most prominent. Both men 
 exerted some influence upon their countrymen in favor of liberal 
 policies toward America as well as exerting some influence upon 
 many liberal Americans. Of the friendship of Hutton, a Moravian 
 minister, with Franklin, few traces exist, other than those relating 
 to his part in the peace negotiations of 1783. 
 
 While preaching at Nantwich, where Priestley removed in 
 1758, he spent a month of each year in London. He there frequented 
 the London Coffee House where he first met Dr. Price and Dr. Franklin 
 During his employment as a Librarian for Shelburne, Priestley saw a 
 great deal of Franklin. Since difficulties with America broke out 
 
 ^"Franklin to Strahan (l) December 7, 1762; (2) June 28. 1763; and 
 (3) December 19, 1763. Wr itings of Franklin (Smyth ed.) IV, 204, 
 
 212 . 
 
 ^ London Chronicle. August 7, 1769. 
 

 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
15 
 
 at this time, their attention was diverted from science to 
 politics.- That Franklin may have been the guiding spirit in this 
 diversion of their attention is possible. Evidences that point to 
 this possibility are: first, although an advocate of distinctly 
 Revolutionary political ideas, Priestley’s works and testimony bear 
 evidence to the fact that he was slightly interested in politics. 
 
 p 
 
 Science and theology engaged his attention. Second, in 1768, at 
 
 the suggestion of Dr. Franklin and with some assistance, Priestley 
 
 published a pamphlet on the relations of the Colonies to Britain. 
 
 It was An_ Address to D issenters . i * * * 5 On the other hand, Priestley had 
 
 ~ ~ the 
 
 previously published The Present Stat e of Lib erty without /suggestion 
 
 or aid of Franklin. 
 
 When Franklin and Price met is uncertain; from Priestley's 
 account, it seems that it was not later than Franklin’s first 
 sojourn in London. At that time both men were members of the Club 
 of Honest Whigs which met at the London Coffee House. During this 
 same period, both men also met at St. Paul's Coffee House. 4 More- 
 over, Franklin frequently attended Price's sermons when the latter 
 preached at Newington Green. That their acquaintance was less 
 intimate than was Franklin's with Priestley is indicated by the 
 character and frequency of their correspondence. Although in the 
 case of the latter, their correspondence continued throughout the 
 Revolution, Price has said that from mutual regard he and Franklin 
 dropped their correspondence during the Revolution. 5 
 
 i 
 
 Memoi rs of Dr . Jose ph Priestley . 50, 88. 
 
 "Ibid. ,61, 148, 150. 
 
 ^ Ib id. . 457. 
 
 ^ Writings of Benjamin Frankli n (Smyth ed. ) X, 275 f. 
 
 ‘'Price to Joan Derk. Ibid ., 325. 
 

 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16 
 
 Benjamin Vaughan, a Liberal London merchant who had 
 many warm friends in America, was for thirty years a friend of 
 Franklin. 1 It is impossible to determine from available correspon- 
 dence, when their acquaintance was made, nor does it seem that the 
 degree of intimacy between the two was great. The first available 
 correspondence between the two was dated 1?7S, although from its 
 context it is evident that a number of letters had previously 
 passed between the two. It is also evident that the two were 
 acquainted as early as 1760. 
 
 From the scanty correspondence available, it is clear 
 that Edmund Eurke, the real leader of the Rockingham faction, was a 
 sincere friend of Franklin. There is nothing to show, however, that 
 their friendship extended beyond a mutual admiration and their 
 common sympathies respecting the Revolution. When they became 
 acquainted is not known. 
 
 Shelburne, a follower of Pitt and a patron of Dr. Price 
 and Dr. Priestley, first made Franklin's acquaintance when the 
 latter was acting as agent for Pennsylvania. The first reference 
 to this acquaintance records their having dined together and having 
 discussed such practical cclcnial affairs as the reduction of 
 American expense and the settlement of boundary disputes, but 
 there seem to be no traces of anything more than an acquaintance 
 of a formal character. Both men were on terms of intimacy with 
 Dr. Price, Dr. Priestley, and Cooper; both were friends of Vaughan. 
 
 1 (a) Maine Historical Societ y. Colle c tions . Ser. 1, VI, 86. 
 
 (b) Alger, Engli shmen in the French Revolution . SI. 
 
 ^ Writings of Benjam in Franklin (Sparks ed.), VII, 355, 565. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17 
 
 Chatham did not make Franklin's acquaintance until 1774; 
 then it was deliberately made for the purpose of ascertaining 
 political conditions in the Colonies. That divests this relation- 
 ship of the character of a personal friendship. 
 
 The range of Franklin's acquaintances and friends has 
 not by any means been exhausted. Among them were such men as the 
 wealthy Peter Collinson, in whose home Franklin visited when on 
 his first sojourn in England and where he met Straharn and many 
 other friends 1 ; the Bishop of St. Asaph, whose famous sermon so re- 
 flected the views of Franklin that the latter was accused of hav- 
 ing written it by many contemporaries and by even so able an his- 
 torian as Sparks‘S; and Cooper, who frequently acted as a go-between 
 for Franklin and Lord North. 3 Many were the friends who found 
 hospitable cheer at his home in Craven Street, and his genial face 
 was frequently seen at Ludgate Hill, where he dined with scien- 
 tists, clergymen, and philosophers. 
 
 Ip&rton, Life and Times of Beniamin Franklin, I, 382. 
 
 3 1 bid . , 538. 
 
 ^ Complete Wo rks of Ben;j am in Franklin (Bigelow ea. ), X, 14. 
 
18 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 POLITICAL OPINIONS OF THE ENGLISH LIBERALS AND THEIR 
 RELATIONS TO FRANKLIN, 1774-1776 
 
 Nothing represents more clearly the cosmopolitan char- 
 acter of Franklin's friendships than the fact that one of his most 
 intimate acquaintances was William Strahan, the King's printer and 
 an adherent of Royal policies during the Revolution.^ Few persons 
 had acquired with Franklin such a degree of intimacy as had 
 Strahan. It is evident from their correspondence that their inter- 
 course during the years preceding the Revolution had been frank and 
 frequent. The questionnaire that Strahan sent to Franklin in 1768 
 
 indicates in its effort to justify a retention of the duty on tea, 
 
 2 
 
 that their ways, politically, were drifting irreconcilably apart. 
 The last extant letter that passed between them on the eve of the 
 Revolution was written by Strahan on September 6, 1775.*' He men- 
 tioned having received Franklin's of July 7, which, written scon 
 after the latter's arrival in America, reflected his change in 
 attitude toward the Colonies' situation. To this, Strahan replied 
 
 ^Stephens and Lee, Dictionary of National Biography . XIX, IS. 
 strahan to Franklin, November 21, 1769. Reprinted at the author's 
 request in the London Chronicle , July 28, 1778. 
 
 ^Strahan to Franklin, September 6, 1775. Pennsylvania Magazine of 
 History . 1903, XXVII, 165 f. Note: W. C. Bruce in his Franklin 
 Self-revealed has overlooked this letter as well as others written 
 during the Revolution. See his book, I, 398. For other letters 
 written in 1777, see I. M. Hays, Cal e ndar of the Pape rs of Franklin 
 in the Library of the American Philosophical Society, I, 205,249, 
 311, 364, and Stevens, Facsimile of Mss. , no. 1893. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
19 
 
 that he was sorry that Franklin thought that "matters are now gone 
 so far as to be past all accommodation.” In this letter, Strahan 
 revealed clearly how little the Liberal views of Franklin had 
 influenced his attitude toward the Colonists. He deplored their 
 unwisdom, saying that "perhaps the wisest heads and honestest 
 hearts on your side of the water do not see all the consequences 
 of such an event," and he pictured to Franklin a dark future for 
 America, should she separate from England. Yet, in spite of his 
 bitterness, he seemed sincerely to have desired that "something 
 may be luckily hit upon to stop the Progress of this unnatural 
 and destructive quarrel." 
 
 Strahan* s political views scarcely place him as a Liberal. 
 That his friendship with Franklin survived a Revolution in which the 
 two were on opposing sides, shows that each possessed a remarkable 
 spirit of tolerance and mutual affection. But, politically, neither 
 seems in any way to have influenced the other either directly or 
 indirectly . 
 
 Of an entirely different character were Franklin's rela- 
 tions with Chatham, Burke, and Pownall. These men, in varying 
 degrees, shared with Franklin a sympathy for the Colonists' cause. 
 
 In like manner did their friendships with Franklin vary, although 
 all were similar in that their friendly relationships were apparent- 
 ly based only upon their political interests. 
 
 With Chatham, Franklin had had no personal acquaintance 
 before 1774. From 1757 to 1763, when Franklin was agent for 
 Pennsylvania, he had attempted without success to secure an audience 
 
 1 Ibid. , 1S6 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20 
 
 with him, and had had to content himself with indirect communica- 
 tions through Potter and Wood, the Secretaries of Chatham. x As 
 Minister, however, his attitude toward the Colonists haa been such 
 as to inspire both their confidence and patriotism. For instance, 
 he had been opposed to taxing them for the conduct of the war. On 
 the contrary, he had, in the case of the Southern Colonies, sug- 
 gested that the Mother Country lighten their financial burdens.'’ 
 
 So firm were his convictions against the taxation of America by Par- 
 liament that he protested against it before the House of Commons in 
 1766.^ Much the same kind of argument was used here as in a later 
 speech. 
 
 Toward the end of August, 1774, Chatham sought and held an 
 interview with Franklin for the ostensible purpose of discussing 
 the conditions in the Colonies. He expressed great regard and 
 "Esteem for the people of that country, who he hoped, would continue 
 firm and united in defending by all peacable and legal means their 
 constitutional Rights." 4 Assured that the Colonists were not aim- 
 ing at independence, he expressed his satisfaction with the inter- 
 view, and urged Franklin to confer with him frequently in the future. 
 
 1 Franklin to W. T. Franklin, March 22, 
 Benjamin Franklin (Bigelow ea.) 1,276. 
 
 ^Williams, Basil, 
 ^Franklin to W. T 
 
 Life of William Pitt 
 
 1775. 
 
 . 1 , 2; 
 1775. 
 
 Complete 
 
 59. 
 
 Complete 
 
 Works of 
 
 Works of 
 
 . „ Franklin, March 22, 
 
 Benjamin Franklin (Bigelow ed. ) I, 276. 
 
 Note: Von Ruville in his Life of Chatham , III, 28S, apparently 
 
 overlooked Pitt's interest in and sympathy for the Colonists before 
 1775. He attributed the "sudden interest" of Chatham in Colonial 
 affaris to the apparent resemblance between the Revolution of 1688 
 and the American Revolution, because of the Declaration of Rights, 
 October 14, 177 4. See J our rial s c f C onpr ess . I, 63. Apparently, 
 
 Von Ruville overlooked the conference to ’which Chatham called Frank- 
 lin the preceding August, and the keen interest he then showed in 
 Colonial affairs. 
 
 -Ibid. 
 
21 
 
 Yet there was one point upon which his ana Franklin's 
 views apparently differed. As mentioned in the preceding chapter, 
 Franklin's iaeal of union between Britain and her Colonies was one 
 under the Crown, with the Colonial Assemblies in charge of all 
 local affairs, including taxation for all purposes. Chatham, on 
 the other hand, had expressed his view of the situation thus: 
 
 "Although I love the Americans, as men prizing and setting 
 a just value upon that inestimable blessing, liberty, yet if I could 
 once persuade myself that they entertain the most distant intention 
 of throwing off the legislative supremacy and great constitutional 
 superintending power and control of the British legislature, I 
 should myself be the very first ... to enforce that power by every 
 exertion this country is capable of making."^- Franklin, in accord- 
 ance with Pitt's request, furnished him with news concerning the 
 state of affairs in the Colonies, in a second conference, December 6, 
 1774, and the latter reiterated his "warm admiration for the people 
 and wishes for their prosperity." Ke later proposed a motion to the 
 House of Lords on January 20, 1775, to remove the troops from Boston 
 at which time he entered the House publicly with Franklin.' 0 The 
 motion failed, but its proposal was one of many evidences of the de- 
 sire of the Opposition to bring about reconciliation. Later, after 
 a number of private conferences with Franklin, Chatham, on February 
 1, 1775, presented a Plan of Reconciliation to the House of Commons. 
 
 Although this was at the time and has often since been im- 
 puted to Franklin, the latter denied having made any alteration in 
 
 ^Quoted in Von Ruville, Life of Fill ja m Pitt , III, 273. 
 
 ^Ibid. , 29C f. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22 
 
 the plan. That it showed traces of his ideas seems untrue. 
 
 Franklin did admit having "discussed the plan and gave as a cause 
 
 for no alterations, the fact that neither man entertained any hope 
 
 of its being accepted." 1 A comparison of Chatham’s speech with 
 
 Franklin’s notes upon it reveals that the views of the two differed 
 2 
 
 fundamentally. For instance, Chatham emphasized the supremacy of 
 the British legislature as well as of the Crown over the Colonists. 
 Franklin's note in reference to that part of Pitt's plan suggested 
 a doubt of the wisdom of this, when he said in one of his notes: 
 "Perhaps if the legislative power of Parliament is owned in the 
 Colonies, they will make a law to forbid the meeting of any 
 Congress. . . " A second instance, Chatham suggested that the 
 aforementioned Congress take into consideration "the making of a 
 free grant to the King.... of a certain perpetual revenue, subject 
 to the disposition of the British Parliament, to be by them 
 appropriated as they in their wisdom shall judge fit, to the 
 alleviation of the national debt." 1 * Franklin, who was not anxious 
 to see the Colonies bound permanently to grant a given revenue, pre- 
 ferred the making of grants for periods of three years. His com- 
 ment upon the above mentioned proposition was, "if a permanent 
 revenue, why not the same privileges in trade, with Scotland?" In a 
 third instance, Pitt justified the Crown's right to quarter troops 
 
 ^ Writ i ngs of Benjamin Frank lin (Sparks ed.) V, 114 f. 
 
 j hbld . , 50 f.; Hansard . XVIII, 198 f. 
 
 Chatham had suggested the recognition of the legality of a 
 Continental Congress "on the 9th of May next ensuing in order then 
 and there to take into consideration the making due recognition of 
 the supreme legislative authority and super intenling power of 
 Parliament over the Colonies aforesaid." Ibid. ,200. 
 
 4 ibid. — 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23 
 
 in the Colonies, but for the sake of expediency he suggested a 
 declaration that such a military force could never he "lawfully 
 employed to violate and destroy the just rights of the people." 
 
 He based his justification on the fact that the Declaration of 
 Right of 1688 had reference only to the consent of the British 
 Parliament. That Franklin questioned this is shown by his comment, 
 "Does the whole o^ the rights claimed in the Petition of Rights 
 relate to England only?" 
 
 Not only does a comparative study of these show a funda- 
 mental divergence of views which would preclude the plan's having 
 been Franklin's, but a comparison with Pitt's earlier speeches 
 shows that he had held in 1775 the same views as in 1766 in respect 
 
 to the taxation of America and to the legislative supremacy of 
 2 
 
 Parliament. Moreover, the acquaintance with Franklin was not made 
 until Chatham realized that the information he might receive would 
 aid him in placing his views before Parliament. It may also be 
 that he thought that by a display of an association with Franklin 
 he could emphasize to the administration a disapproval of their 
 policies. There is no evidence that Franklin influenced Pitt in 
 the formulation of his Motion to withdraw the Troops from Boston or 
 of his Provisional Act for settling the Troubles in America. By 
 means of the impression that he made and, what is more important, 
 through his assurance that independence was not even remotely 
 desired by the Colonists, he influenced Pitt to put forth his ut- 
 most exertion to bring about a reconciliation with the Colonies. 
 
 ■^Contrast with Von Ruville, W illiam Pitt , III, 289 f., on 
 Chatham's views in 1774-5. 
 
 ^Williams, Basil, William Pitt . II, 190, 305 f. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
24 
 
 Unlike Pitt’s acquaintance with Franklin, Pownall 's had 
 been casually made, and their friendship had extended over a number 
 of years. On October 7, 1753, Pownall landed in New York as the 
 Secretary to Osborne, the new Governor of that Colony. Despondent 
 because of the death of his wife, Osborne took his life not long 
 after his arrival. De Lancey, a native of New York, became 
 Governor., and Pownall was stranded. But Pownall did not remain idle 
 during those months. He divided his time between Massachusetts, 
 where he conferred with Governor Shirley, and New York. Indian 
 troubles were serious at that time, and Pownall set about making a 
 study of them. At the formal meeting of the Colonies, which was 
 called for the purpose of uniting in defense' against the French, 
 and of coming to an understanding with the Six Nations, Pownall met 
 the leading men of the Colonies, among them Franklin, with whom he 
 formed a life-long friendship. 1 For the first time, he here became 
 convinced of the claims of the Colonists and remained their advocate 
 through life. One of Pitt’s first appointments, when he became 
 Prime Minister, was that of Pownall as ''Captain-General and 
 Commander-in-Chief of Massachusetts Bay in New England. An 
 account of Pownall ’s administration by Judge Minot, 1798, character- 
 ized it as ”short but extremely successful,” The Judge mentioned 
 that only once in Pownall ' s administration did the old controversy 
 in regard to the rights and prerogatives of the Governor and 
 Assembly arise. That was ”in the case of stationing troops on the 
 frontier,” and the Judge adds that the Governor "was not ill 
 adapted to manage by apparent concessions.” Not least among his 
 
 ^Pownall, Thomas Pownall , chapter III. 
 
 3 Ibid, .71. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
25 
 
 successes was the saving of public money that he afforded . 1 John 
 Adams has added to Minot’s testimony a fundamental reason for 
 Pownall's success; namely, ’’Pownall was a Whig, a friend of liberty, 
 a lover of his country, and he considered North America a part of 
 his country as much as England, Scotland, or Ireland," and 
 "Pownall was the most constitutional and national Governor, in my 
 opinion, who ever represented the Crown in this province. He 
 engaged in no intrigues, he favoured no conspiracies against the 
 liberties of America."' 1 
 
 Soon after the fall of Pitt, Pownall was recalled and 
 although he was appointed to the Governorship of South Carolina, 
 which position offered increased opportunities for study, he 
 resigned in 1761, and went to England. After more than a year 
 with the campaigns in Germany, Pownall returned in 1763. Although 
 he was offered any government in America, and realized that the 
 possibility of a brilliant future was thus laid before him, he 
 refused because he "had had occasion to experience the ignorance 
 and false conceptions by which the men of business in England were 
 prejudiced and perverted as to the state and affairs of our estab- 
 lishments in America." 3 Having entered Parliament in January, 
 
 Pownall delivered his maiden speech on behalf of the Colonies on 
 4 
 
 May 16, 1767. Through the following years, on the eve of the 
 Re volution, he "exerted all his powers to prevent the separation from 
 
 ; ibid . , 158. 
 
 •'Adams to William Tudor. February 4, 1817. John Adams. Works. 
 
 X, 241 f. 
 
 ^Quoted in Pownall, Thomas Po'wnall , 172. 
 
 Parliamentary History of England . XVI, 331. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26 
 
 the Colonies."^ That Franklin knew of and appreciated these efforts 
 
 was shown in a letter tc Cooper, in which he remarked, "Your late 
 
 2 
 
 Governor, Mr. Pownali, appears a hearty friend to America." On 
 the outbreak of the war, he approved of the use of "force to force" 
 yet he maintained that a reorganization of the Colonial policy 
 would have averted such a calamity." Of the many supposed authors 
 of the Letters of Junius that appeared in 1767-8, Pownali has some- 
 times been considered to be the most likely. Among a number of 
 reasons for this is the fact that both had come into close contact 
 with political affairs, and that both criticized severely the con- 
 ditions during Grafton's administration. 4 
 
 From the above, it is clear that Pownali' s position 
 toward the Colonies until the actual outbreak of war was one that 
 Franklin could well admire. 
 
 For the years 1774-6, there exists no Frank lin-Pownall 
 correspondence and Franklin, in his Memoirs, refers to the former 
 only once. While speaking of politics and of Lord North at a 
 dinner, Pownali had revealed his intentions of compromising with the 
 Ministry, and had told Franklin that North had been much misunder- 
 stood and that he, Pownali, had spoken well to him of Franklin." 
 
 The divergence of their opinions regarding the colonies has been 
 ably shown by Charles A. Pownali. In a copy of Pownali 's 
 "Administration" Franklin had made a few comments. For instance: 
 Pownali maintained that the Colonists "carried with them the Laws 
 
 ^ Magazine of American History , XVI, 418. 
 
 ^Franklin to Cooper. April 27,1769. Writings of Beniamin Franklin, 
 (Sparks ed.) VII, 442. 
 
 ^ Parliamentary History of England , XVIII, 322. 
 rPownall, Thomas Pownali , 310 f. 
 
 a Wri tings of Beniamin Franklin (Sparks e d . ) V , 32 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27 
 
 of the Land"; Franklin contended that they carried only a "right to 
 such a part of the Laws of the Land as they should judge advan- 
 tageous." In a second instance, Pownali held that "all statutes 
 enacted since the establishment of the colonies .... do extend to and 
 operate within the said colonies .... in which statutes the same are 
 specially named." Franklin doubted whether any act of Parliament 
 should of. right operate in the Colonies, although he admitted that 
 "in fact some of them have and do operate." 1 Moreover, Pownali 
 maintained throughout the supremacy of Parliament, with which view 
 Franklin disagreed, although Pownali did advance the theory that in 
 the future the relations of Britain to America should be based on 
 compact. ^ There is, therefore, no evidence that either of these 
 men modified the opinions of the other. That, of the men with whom 
 Pownali came into contact in the New World and by whom he was in- 
 fluenced to take the Colonists' viewpoint, Franklin was among the 
 foremost, seems possible. There is no evidence to show that his 
 influence was more than this. 
 
 The last of Franklin's political friends to be considered 
 is Edmund Burke. He was the real leader of the Rockingham 
 connection, and held a seat in the House of Commons on the eve of 
 and throughout the Revolution. That he and Franklin held each other 
 in mutual respect is evident. There is, however, no available 
 source information respecting the formation of their acquaintance, 
 and references to their friendship are very few. The first, for the 
 
 ^For comparisons see Pownali, Thomas Pownali. 205, 224. 
 2 Par llamentary History of England , XVIII, 988. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
28 
 
 period 1774-76, is that Franklin bade Burke farewell the day before 
 he sailed for America.' 1 ' Since this meeting took place about a month 
 before Burke introduced his Resolutions for Conciliation (March 22, 
 1775), it has been asserted that the former influenced the latter in 
 the formation of this speech. The fact is that, although both men 
 were Liberals ana desired reconciliation, their ideas differed 
 fundamentally. In the all-important question of taxation, Burke 
 wished to remove the burden from the Colonies, merely because it 
 would be expedient and conducive to better feeling. He avoided 
 discussing the merits of the case. 0 Franklin, on the other hand, 
 vigorously opposed taxation by Parliament (in 1774). His state- 
 ment in 1766 respecting the Declaratory Act, that "the resolutions 
 of right will give them very little concern if they are never at- 
 tempted to be carried into practice," was merely approaching the 
 controversy (with a conciliatory attitude) from the opposite ex - 
 treme from which Burke approached it.° Moreover, as an agent of 
 New York since 1771, Burke had held an interest and a source of in- 
 formation that stimulated him to exert his power to prevent a rupture 
 between the two countries. After the defeat of his Resolutions for 
 Reconciliat ion with America, he sponsored a petition. May 15, 1775, 
 in behalf of his New York constituents. 4 On the same date Franklin 
 
 JMacknight, Life of Edmund B urk e , II, 108. 
 
 ^Lecky, American Revolution , 1S7. 
 
 Parliamentary History of England . XVIII, 506. 
 
 3 Lscky, American Revolution , 26. 
 
 ^Parliamentary History of England , XVIII, 478, 643. 
 
wrote the only letter that apparently passed between them during 
 this period. It was an appreciation, on behalf of the Colonists, 
 of Burke's speech of the twenty-second of March. 1 Formal in char- 
 acter, there is nothing in this letter to show that there existed 
 any degree of intimacy between the men. 
 
 Unlike his relationships with Chatham, Pownall, and Burke 
 Franklin's friendships with Priestley and Price were based upon 
 mutual interests in science and in philosophy, as well as, if not 
 more than, in politics. 
 
 Price, a Non-conformist clergyman and a friend of Shel- 
 burne, was, as mentioned in the preceding chapter, a member of the 
 Club of Honest Whigs that met at the London Coffee House on Ludgate 
 Hill. That scarcely any correspondence exists for this period is 
 not surprising in view of the fact that Franklin met these friends 
 frequently at the Club. Such bits of information as the following 
 show the character of their intercourse. A Mr. Lindsay wrote to a 
 Mr. Turner on January 17, 1775, that he had ained "yesterday with 
 
 Doctors Price, Franklin, Priestley, and Mr. Quincy; no bad company. 
 
 2 
 
 He added that they "began and ended with the Americans." That 
 their friendship on the eve of the Revolution was intimate is 
 evident from a reference of Price's, in which he mentioned that 
 "Dr. Franklin is returned to Philadelphia and will ... attend the 
 Congress." He continued, "I have lost by his departure a friend 
 that I greatly loved and valued," 0 Price's liberal views in 
 
 1 Franklin to Burke, May 15, 1775. Massachusetts Historical 
 Society ., Proceedings , IV, 24. 
 
 ^Quoted from original mss. in Priestley, Theological and Mis- 
 cellaneous Works . I, 277. 
 
 3Price to Josiah Quincy, May, 1775. See Massachusetts Historical 
 Society , Proceedings , ser. 2, XVII, 287. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
30 
 
 philosophy were correlated closely with his revolutionary political 
 opinions. That his attitude toward the Colonists was far mere lib- 
 eral than that of Pitt or Burke is evident from a dissertation On 
 the State of Affairs in America , written February 25, 1775, ana his 
 Observations on Civil Liberty /published early in 1776. 1 In the 
 first he contended emphatically that the American cause was that of 
 liberty and that the Colonists must look to themselves for deliver- 
 ance. In the second he explained, much more explicitly than Frank- 
 lin had, the nature of Civil Liberty and the fact that any country 
 is in a state of slavery when it is subject to the legislature of 
 an alien State in which it has no voice. ^ Stephens and Lee in the 
 National Dictionary of Biography spoke of the latter pamphlet as an 
 influence in encouraging the Declaration of Independence. Evidence 
 to establish this assertion is lacking. The fact that Price's lib- 
 eral political views supplemented his religious liberalism precludes 
 granting Franklin credit for having influenced his bias in favor of 
 the Colonists. On the other hand, it seems more likely that their 
 friendship was strengthened by their oneness in this cause, which 
 was of especially great moment to Franklin. 
 
 Priestley, of whose relations with Franklin more is known 
 than of any other English Liberal, save Strahan and possibly Hart- 
 ley, has left a full account of Franklin's last days in England. 
 Slightly interested in politics, Priestly had been persuaded in 
 1768 to expand his views on Civil Liberty into An A ddr ess to Dis- 
 sent ers . ° a discussion of the differences with America. Priestley 
 
 ilbid. 
 
 “fPrice, Observations on Civil Liberty . 27f . 
 
 ^P.emo i r s of Dr . Joseph Priestley , 60. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
31 
 
 appeared to have made no further effort to influence the course of 
 political events. Priestley's accounts of Franklin's last days in 
 England illustrates more clearly than anything else, the sincerity 
 of Franklin's attempts to preserve peace. Priestley, for instance, 
 recorded that "A great deal of the day above mentioned that we 
 spent together, he (Franklin) was looking over a number of news- 
 papers, directing me what to extract from them for the English 
 ones; and in reading them he was frequently not able to proceed 
 for the tears literally running down his cheeks. x After his 
 arrival in America, Franklin continued his correspondence with 
 Priestley, five letters of which are now available.' Political 
 affaire of America were the all-absorbing topics. Franklin related 
 to Priestley, as one intimate friend would to another, the manner- 
 in which he conducted his affairs, so closely related to public 
 events. Among other bits of news he told of the sending of the 
 last petition to the Crown, upon which he commented that Great 
 Britain had "not sense enough to embrace” and he concluded that 
 "she had lost them forever." 0 This is a first evidence of 
 Franklin's opinion that independence was not only possible but 
 probable . 
 
 Always frank in his criticism of the British diplomatic 
 and military conduct of American affairs, Franklin apparently met 
 in Priestley a hearty response to his views. In an extant letter 
 of February 13, 1776, Priestley, in his remarks upon an enclosed 
 
 j; The olo-?ical and Miscellane ous Works of Joseuh Priestley , 450. 
 
 (a) W ritings of Beni amin Franklin (Smyth ed. ) , VI, 400,408,429; 
 
 X, 290; (bl (Sparks e i. ")" VIII , 171; (c) Pennsylvania Magazin e of 
 History, XXIX, 169. 
 
 ^Franklin to Priestley, July 7, 1775. Writings of B en.i amin Fra nk 1 in 
 (Smyth ed. ) VI, 408. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
32 
 
 pamphlet of Price's sail that he hoped it would make some 
 impression "upon this infatuated nation." Speaking of the Club of 
 Honest Whigs, to which Franklin formerly belonged, he said that 
 "our zeal in the good cause is not abated." 1 
 
 Franklin's relations with Chatham were unlike those with 
 Priestley in this respect; in the latter case there is no attempt 
 on either side to secure or give knowledge for the purpose of using 
 it to determine the course of political events. That Priestley’s 
 contact with Shelburne, which lasted until 1778, 2 served to 
 influence that man favorably toward Franklin is likely, but cannot 
 be definitely determined. Priestley mentioned in the letter of 
 February 13 that both Shelburne and Barre were "pleased with your 
 remembrance of them, and desire their best respects and good 
 wishes in return." 
 
 Friend and associate of Pownali, David Hartley, another 
 
 Liberal British statesman was also a friend of Frani< lin, whom he 
 
 met soon after 1759, while a student at Lincoln's Inn. As a 
 
 representative of Hull in Parliament from 1774 to 1780, he was ever 
 
 3 
 
 an advocate of American rights. His plan of conciliation repre- 
 sented the views of the advanced Whigs in its proposal for voluntary 
 requisitions "for the purpose of defending, protecting, and securing 
 the said Colonies" and in its pretest against the restraint of 
 colonial commerce and manufacture. 4 In the only available 
 
 ^ Penn sylvani a Magazine of History . XXVII, 169, 171. 
 
 Stephens and Lee, Dictionary of National Biography , XVI, 357. 
 
 ° Gentleman ' s Magazine , 1814, Part 1, 95. Proposition for concilia- 
 tion with America. Parliamentary History of England . XVIII, 552. 
 
 For other debates in which Hartley championed the Colonies, see: 57 4, 
 5S9, 1042, 1103. 
 
 ^ Parliamentary History of England , XVIII, 558 f . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
33 
 
 Franklin-Hartley letter for this period, the former observed that 
 "a separation will of course be inevitable” and that he deplored 
 the despoiling of so fair a plan (British Empire) at the hands of 
 a few blundering ministers.^ The tone is friendly, but other 
 evidence of their intimacy at this time is lacking. 
 
 Rather difficult it is to place the unique relationships 
 of Franklin and Thomas Paine. Although the latter was early filled 
 with a desire to try his fortunes in America, family ties prevented. 
 At twenty-five, he was appointed excise man at Thetford. When his 
 fellow workers wanted an increase in salary, Paine, acting as their 
 spokesman, wrote a pamphlet in their behalf, and in 1773-4 spent 
 
 several months in London. His efforts failed, and on April 8, 1774, 
 
 2 
 
 he was dismissed from the excise . While in London he made 
 
 Franklin's acquaintance. The latter recognized his ability and 
 
 helped him to establish himself in the New World. In a letter to 
 
 Richard Bache, Franklin requested aid for Paine in securing a 
 
 should 
 
 position as clerk or tutor until some better opportunity/present 
 itself. A reply of Paine's on March 4, 1775, shows him already estab- 
 lished as an assistant in editing a magazine, in -which position he 
 was evidently successful. 0 
 
 The Inte lligence , transmitted to the Earl of Carlisle in 
 
 1779, related that Franklin had recommended Paine to his son, the 
 
 Governor, as a secretary, but that the former preferred to settle 
 
 4 
 
 in Philadelphia. 
 
 ■^Franklin 
 
 to Hart ley, October 3, 1775, Franklin Papers in Library 
 of Congress. 
 
 "Conway, Paine , I, 12,14. 
 
 ‘•’Franklin to' Bache, September 30, 1774. Paine to Franklin March 4, 
 1775. Writings of Ben.j am in Fr anklin (Sparks ed.) VIII, 137 f. 
 
 Paper of Intelligence , no. 2, 
 
 February_l. 1779 . See B. 
 ' Facsimiles, no 
 
 F. Stevens, 
 115. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
34 
 
 That Franklin recognized both the latent ability and the 
 
 trend of thought of Paine, seems probable. Although, in the years 
 
 preceding his removal to America, Paine’s mind was occupied with 
 
 the business of making a livelihood and with science, he frequently 
 
 discussed, as he himself has said, political opinions that were later 
 
 incorporated in the Age of Reason . ^ Then too, his action in behalf 
 
 of the excise men placed him as a fearless leader among radicals. 
 
 Little did Paine think when he first arrived in America 
 
 that within one year he would be producing a pamphlet which was to 
 
 2 
 
 crystallize the spirit for independence. Upon his arrival in 
 America, Paine viewed the "dispute as a kind of lawsuit" and had 
 "no thoughts of independence or of arms." 0 In spite of the state- 
 ment of Parton in his Life of Franklin which credits Franklin with a 
 direct influence in the production of Common Sense, there is no 
 evidence to that effect. On the contrary, both John Adams and 
 Dr. Rush, a Pennsylvania radical who was one of the signers of the 
 
 Declaration of Independence, credit the latter with having suggested 
 
 4 
 
 the production of Common Sense. Rush claims further that Paine 
 read the sheets to him and Franklin. Paine, on the other hand, 
 when speaking of Common Sense in 1776, observed that "he expected 
 to surprise the Doctor (Franklin) and send him the first pamphlet. 
 
 In 1802, he said that as with Common Sense, he consulted nobody nor 
 let anybody see what he wrote until it appeared publicly." Whether 
 
 ^Conway, Paine . I, 37. 
 
 2 For opinions on C ommon Sense . see Writings of Washington (Ford ed.) 
 IV, 4; and American Archives . ser. IV, 831, 920. 
 
 ^Conway, Pain e , II, Appendix A; 435 has quotation from crisis... 
 Cobbetts Mss. 
 
 ^Adams, Works , II, 507; Conway, Paine . I, 67. 
 
 5 Ibid . ,88 f. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
35 
 
 or not Rush suggested and aided in the publication of Common Sense, 
 there is no evidence to show that Franklin was directly concerned 
 in its production. Franklin adds to the impression that he had 
 nothing directly to do with it in a letter which introduced Paine 
 to Charles Lee. He observed, "I know his sentiments are not very 
 far different from yours. He is the reputed and, I think, the real 
 author of Common Se nse . . . . w x Adams, whose picture of Paine is 
 somewhat biased, said that upon the latter's arrival in Philadelphia 
 he ran about the public places in search of popular phrases. The 
 most popular appeared to be independence, from which Paine patched 
 together an essay, at the suggestion of Dr. Rush, who also named 
 it Common Sense. Robert Morris, another Pennsylvania radical, is 
 said to have aided Paine in the publication of the Crisis."' 
 
 Certain it is that under democratic influences, Paine 
 rapidly developed a spirit for independence and for a republican 
 form of government. Franklin secured for Paine a successful estab- 
 lishment in Philadelphia; other Pennsylvania Liberals encouraged 
 hi 3 writing for their cause. 
 
 In conclusion, Franklin's relations with English 
 Liberals during the years 1774-1776 -were based in many cases upon 
 friendships of several years' standing. The impression which 
 Franklin gave such men as Burke, Priestley and Shelburne of the 
 Colonists' willingness to conciliate, must have had some effect in 
 their criticism of the government's blundering measures. But this 
 
 "^Franklin to Charles Lee, February 19, 1776, Writings of Benjamin 
 Franklin (Sparks ed.) VIII, 174. 
 
 Quoted from Morris' Diary, cited in Dipl omatic C orrespondence . 
 
 XII, 95, Writ ings of George Washington , X. 80. 
 

 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
36 
 
 can not be overrated in view of the fact that their sympathy with 
 the Colonists’ cause continued after their intercourse with 
 Franklin was checked. In only one case i3 it possible to trace a 
 definite impression made by Franklin, through one of these 
 Liberals, upon the course of events. Franklin's assurance to Pitt 
 of the loyalty of the Colonists decided that statesman to exert all 
 of hi3 efforts for a peaceful settlement. 
 

 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
37 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 WAR AND NEGOTIATIONS FOR PEACE 
 
 Upon Franklin's arrival in Philadelphia, he found 
 Pennsylvania in a state of revolution against the proprietary 
 government and a spirit of unrest in the Colonies. Whatever regrets 
 he may have held for the impending crisis while in England, Franklin, 
 upon his arrival in America, soon became a. leader among the radicals. 
 On May 6, 1775, he was chosen by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to 
 attend the Continental Congress;^ on July 3, Franklin was unani- 
 mously chosen as President of the Committee of Safety. This group 
 
 became the virtual legislative body of Pennsylvania, dominated by 
 
 2 
 
 the Radicals of that State. - Determination to win the struggle and 
 a belief in its ultimate success were the keynotes of his corre- 
 spondence with Liberal English friends immediately following his 
 
 t; 
 
 return to America. 1 " A letter to Charles Lee the following 
 February showed that Franklin recognized that although the English 
 "still talk big," they showed a tendency to "come to their 
 senses." But Franklin also revealed the fact that he now desired 
 to carry the matter further. For instance, he suggested that it 
 was too late for the British to come to a compromise. * 3 4 The change 
 in his attitude from one of striving for conciliation and of regret 
 
 Writings of Ben j am in Fra nkli n (Smyth ed. ), X, 286. 
 
 Colonial Records, X, 282. 
 
 3 — 
 
 Franklin to Priestley, October 3, 1775. Writings of Benjamin 
 Franklin (Sparks ed. ), VIII, 160 f. 
 
 T 
 
 Franklin to Charles Lee, February 11, 1776. Ibid . , 169 . 
 
. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
38 
 
 at the impending war, to a spirit of resistance was due rather to 
 the continued blunders of the Ministry than to the fact that he was 
 distant from the influence of his English friends. In a letter of 
 October, 1775, he again expressed his "ardent desire for peace," but 
 it is evident that he had begun to realize its futility. For in- 
 stance, he added that "every ship from Britain brings some intelli- 
 gence of new measures that tend more and more to exasperate." 1 
 
 For various reasons, Franklin's correspondence with his 
 British friends was checked, especially in the first three years of 
 the war. To Hartley, he explained that he "had written very little 
 because the post was not to be trusted."" 5 Priestley lamented "this 
 unhappy war" the more because it rendered his correspondence so 
 precar ious . "3 
 
 To Strahan, who followed the administration during the war, 
 Franklin seemed not to have corresponded before 1781, although the 
 former 'wrote him not less than three letters, discussions of 
 
 4 
 
 private affairs. Apparently, from a letter written by Franklin in 
 1775 but never sent, his bitterness toward the political adherence 
 
 5 
 
 of the old friend was too great to permit a friendly correspondence. 
 The fact that this letter was never sent adds to the evidence that 
 
 ^Franklin to a friend in England, February 11,1776. Writings of 
 Benjamin Franklin , (Sparks ed.), VIII, 161. 
 
 ^Franklin to Hartley, October 14, 1777. Wr itings of Benjamin 
 Fr anklin (Smyth ed.), VII, 68. 
 
 3 
 
 Priestley to Franklin, February 13, 1776. Wr it in gs of Benja min 
 Franklin (Sparks ed. ) VIII, 171; (Smyth ed.), VIII, 335. 
 
 ^Strahan to Franklin, January 23, 1777; November 21, 1777; July 14, 
 177S. (See Hays, Calendar of Franklin Papers in American Philo- 
 sophical Society, II) 
 
 ^Franklin to Strahan, July 5, 1775. Writings of Benjamin Fra.nkl in 
 ( Smyth ed. ) VI , 407 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
39 
 
 Franklin could not continue a c arr espondence on the old basis and 
 preferred its discontinuance to a quarrel. 1 
 
 With Priestley* there waa merely a desultory correspond- 
 ence throughout the Revolution. Only three letters exist for this 
 period. About half of the space in these is devoted to political 
 affairs. Franklin’s attitude toward the cause of the war and 
 toward England ' 9 conduct of it was well shown in his observation 
 that England apparently had "no cause but malice against liberty 
 and the jealousy of commerce." It is impossible to believe that 
 one who wished "that men would cease to be Wolves to one another 
 and that Human beings would at length learn what they now improperly 
 call Humanity," should have worked to bring about an aggressive 
 war. That his hatred of the originators of this war did not extend 
 to the English as such is evident from his reiteration of his love 
 of "the honest souls that meet at the London Coffee House" and that 
 he "labored for peace " with the more earnestness in order to "again 
 be happy in their sweet society." More than Franklin's aversion 
 to war, to this one between brothers in particular; than the 
 
 evidence he showed of disinterested sincerity in the relationship 
 
 at 
 
 with one Liberal /least , this correspondence does not show. 
 
 In contrast with his confidential tone in the correspond- 
 ence with Priestley, that with Price shows evidences of formality. 
 Price had mentioned in a letter to Van Derk that their correspond- 
 ence had ceased from "mutual regard". 3 Yet four letters exist for 
 
 ^Franklin to Strahan, December 4, 17 81. W ritings of Ben.i am in 
 Fra nklin (Smyth ed. ) , VIII, 335. 
 
 ^Franklin to Priestley, January 27, 1777. Ibid.., VII; June 7,1732, 
 VIII, 451. 
 
 3 Ibid . , X. 325. 
 
* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
40 
 
 this period of the war. Of the two written by Price, one was a mere 
 matter of form, but the ether was interesting in view of the fact 
 that in discussing the political situation in the third person. 
 
 Price was apparently hoping to inform Franklin and, in return, to 
 receive news of political interest. -1 ' The cause of this formality 
 on Price' s part is not hard to seek. Upon every occasion, he op- 
 posed the war in vigorous pamphlets . * Speaking of this to John 
 Winthrop, he said, "I am become a person so marked and obnoxious 
 that prudence requires me to be very cautious. So true is this 
 that I avoid ail corresponaence with Dr. Franklin, though so near 
 me as Paris." 5 
 
 By 1780 the Opposition had gained a better hearing in 
 England. A dissatisfaction with the American War was not quieted 
 by the difficulties which arose in Europe and in Ireland. Froxr 
 then, there was more Franklin correspondence with English friends 
 than before. Two letters from Franklin to Price revealed his af- 
 fection for his friends of Ludgate Kill and his characteristically 
 frank criticism of the English government. He observed, for in- 
 stance, that it was impossible for the English to secure an honest 
 Parliament because "there was not Virtue enought left to procure 
 one." 4 After the fall of the North Ministry in March, 1782, and the 
 advent of the Rockingham s, Franklin must have been more hopeful of ths 
 conduct of the war, for he congratulated Price upon the change and 
 
 Iprice to Franklin, October 14, 17SS, Writings of Ben.1 am in Franklin 
 (Sparks ed. ) VII, 3S5. Price to Franklin, June 15, 1777, Massachu - 
 setts Historical Society . Collections . XVII, 310. 
 
 ^Stephens and Lee, Dictionary of National Biography . 
 
 Sprice to Winthrop, June 15, 1777, Massachusetts Historical Society . 
 Collections , XVII, 311. 
 
 ^Franklin to Price, October S, 1780. Writings of Benjamin Franklin , 
 (Smyth ed. ) VIII, 153. 
 

 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : 
 
41 
 
 remarked that he hoped to hear from him "as often as may be con- 
 venient." He again sent his respects to his friends of the London 
 Coffee House. 1 As in the case of Priestley, Franklin's relations 
 with Price were those of sincere* disinterested friendship. No 
 doubt both men exerted influence in favor of their friend upon their 
 patron, Shelburne. As far as Franklin was concerned, it is evident 
 that this relationship of these two good friends made no difference 
 in his attitude toward them. 
 
 With Hartley, on the other hand, Franklin’s correspondence 
 
 during the Revolution — after 1777 — - was voluminous. This was d\i^ 
 
 first, to their negotiations in respect to the exchange of prisoners 
 
 and, second, to their relations to the peace negotiations. On 
 
 October 14, 1777, Franklin in a letter to Hartley, spoke warmly of 
 
 the cruelties of war. He then suggested that an act of generosity 
 
 toward the American prisoners might soften this resentment. 
 
 Franklin requested Hartley to take measures for the relief of the 
 
 most needy American war prisoners, at the expense of the former. 
 
 He also requested Hartley to propose in Parliament a better treat- 
 
 2 
 
 ment of the prisoners, and an exchange.*" In acknowledgment of 
 Hartley's efforts to alleviate the condition of the prisoners, 
 Franklin sent him a letter of thanks and £100.^ Hartley also made 
 many efforts to secure an exchange of prisoners. Although it is 
 evident from a letter of June 16 that Franklin anticipated an early 
 
 Franklin to Price, June 13, 1782. Ibid . , VIII, 457. 
 
 “-Franklin to Hartley, October 14, 1777. Writings of Benjamin 
 F ra.nkl i n (Sparks ed. ) VIII, 223. 
 
 ^Franklin to Hartley, February 12, 1778. Writings of Benjami n 
 Fr a.nkl in (Smyth ed. ) VII, 101. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
42 
 
 exchange, and although Hartley informed him on August 14 that the 
 administration had given their consent to an early exchange at 
 Calais, the ships did not appear. 1 It was not until 1782. after the 
 
 advent of the Rockingham ministry, that an order was actually 
 
 2 
 
 issued for a release of the prisoners. 
 
 Hartley's relations with Franklin from 1776 until 1783 
 were inseparably linked with the negotiations between England, 
 France, and the United States. 
 
 The outbreak of hostilities between Britain and her 
 Colonies presented to France the long sought opportunity to avenge 
 herself upon her old enemy, England. Vergennes, the French 
 Minister for Foreign Affairs, brought pressure to bear to grasp 
 this opportunity to humiliate their old rival. He secured for the 
 Colonies a loan of one million livres and induced Spain to make 
 another. In the meantime; the Colonists had, in November, 1775, 
 resolved that a "Committee of Five be appointed for the sole purpose 
 of corresponding with our friends in Great Britain,- Ireland, and 
 other parts of the World." 3 Although Franklin thought that "a vir- 
 gin state should. ... not go abroad suitoring for alliances," 4 he 
 was placed upon the above mentioned committee, and in September of 
 the following year, he and Jefferson with Deane, who had gone as 
 agent for the Continental Congress in March, was appointed to go to 
 
 (a) Franklin to Hartley, May 25, 1778. Ibid. , X, 155. 
 
 (b) Hartlev to Franklin, June 16,1778. Works of Benjami n Franklin 
 (Sparks ed.) VIII, 295, 
 
 ^Hartley to Franklin, May 13, 1782. Ibid. , IX, 247, 294. 
 
 ^ Jour n als of Congress , III, 392. 
 
 A motion of Samuel Chase to send envoys to France had failed. See 
 Chase to Adams, July 9, 1776. John Adams, Work s , IX, 420. 
 
 ^Foster , Century of American Diplomacy, 9. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
43 
 
 France for financial and diplomatic aid. Upon Franklin's arrival 
 
 p 
 
 in France in December, 1776,"" be attempted to secure an audience 
 
 with Vergennes, but was forced to content himself with the sending 
 
 of a formal letter.^ His reception in France was a royal one; it 
 
 is not surprising that the English were apprensive of a coalition 
 
 between the Colonies and France, and that they took measures to 
 
 prevent it. Lord Stormont, assisted by large numbers of spies, kept 
 
 Lord North informed, first, of the transactions of Silas Deane and, 
 
 later, of those of all of the commissioners. 4 
 
 That Hartley was well aware of these transactions is 
 
 evident from his correspondence with Franklin. Although a Liberal 
 
 of the Rockingham connection and a sympathizer with the Colonists, 
 
 he did not sympathize with their negotiations with France. In 
 
 spite of English efforts to prevent it, the American Negotiators 
 
 5 
 
 secured an alliance with France, February 6, 1778. It is evident 
 that Lord North realized the precarious situation, for he laid 
 before the House of Commons propositions for settlement with Amer- 
 ica. They we re terms that the Colonists were disposed to accept 
 before the Declaration of Independence. Hartley lost no time in 
 transmitting this news to Franklin. He added the anxious comment 
 that he hoped "in God it has not come too late," and the compliment 
 that the recent change in measures was due to Franklin's "wise and 
 temperate counsels" and to the knowledge of his friendly, "magnani- 
 
 ^Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution , 
 
 I. 334; II, 78. 
 
 ^Franklin to Deane, December 4, 1776. Ur it in os of Benj am in Franklin 
 (Smyth ed. ) , VI, 470. 
 
 ^Franklin to Vergennes, December 23, 1776. Ibid . , VI, 477. 
 
 4 Van Tyne, American Revclut ion ( American Nation Series , IX), 213. 
 5 Ibia. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
44 
 
 mous affection to this country." It is possible that Hartley had. 
 succeeded in impressing upon North’s mind the fact that "the only 
 hopes of peace rested upon Franklin's prudent and temperate manage- 
 ment", for that minister had encouraged Hartley's correspondence 
 with Franklin.' This belated scheme of reconciliation and the 
 recognition of Franklin's ability and viewpoint did not provoke from 
 him the hoped for response. Frsnklin considered the proposition of 
 an armistice upon vague terms impossible, for under such conditions 
 the British ministry might do "everything that will have a tendency 
 to divide us and nothing that can afford us security. " Apparently 
 he was not averse to negotiating a peace, if any importance may be 
 attached to the postscript which he added. Franklin's ability as a 
 diplomatist is revealed in this casual suggestion that, should such 
 men as Hartley come to Paris, they might ;, not only obtain a peace 
 with America, but prevent a war with France." This suggestion was 
 acted upon by the Ministry. In April, it was reported to Vergennes 
 that Hartley, who was openly attached to Rockingham and secretly to 
 Lord North, had sought conferences with the American representatives. 
 
 Although he had no ’written powers, it was thought that the character 
 
 3 
 
 of his visit was official. Hartley's insinuations that a separate 
 peace be negotiated met a cold response. 
 
 In January, 1778, before the alliance with France was con- 
 summated, James Hutton appeared in Paris. He came for the ostensible 
 
 1 
 
 Hartley to Franklin, February 18, 1778. Stevens, Facsimiles , 78S. 
 
 2 
 
 Franklin to Hartley, February 26, 1778. Writings of Benjamin 
 Frankli n (Sparks ed. ) VIII, 241. 
 
 ^Monsieur Frances to Vergennes, April 26, 1778. Stevens, Facsimil es , 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
45 
 
 purpose of consulting Franklin about the Moravians in America, but 
 
 in the eyes of the French, he came to seek terms for negotiation and 
 
 for preventing a French Alliance. ^ Hutton was well thought of in 
 
 the King' 8 Court. He informed Monsieur Grand that the King would 
 
 now grant the Colonists 'everything they might ask, except the word 
 2 
 
 independence . * 
 
 Notwithstanding his affection for his old friend, Franklin 
 was not blind tc the official hand that prompted Hutton's visit. 
 
 In a letter of February 1, that wiley diplomatist gave Hutton some 
 very good terms for reconciliation. His bold suggestion that 
 England hand over Canada and Nova Scotia to the Americans was made 
 under cover of the supposition that England's wisest policy should 
 be to breed good will with the Americans after her cruelties of the 
 
 war. This assertion reveals, moreover, the fact that Franklin 
 realized that the Americans possessed no valid claims to those 
 
 3 
 
 territories. A second indication of Franklin's realization of the 
 real object of Hutton's visit is found in a letter of the former to 
 Hartley. He remarked that although there was apparently no connec- 
 tion between Hutton and the King, in his (Franklin's) mind there 
 
 was. 4 Hutton's efforts to secure more satisfactory proposals for 
 peace negotiations having proved ineffectual, their correspondence 
 upon that subject closed. In his letters to Hutton, Franklin placed 
 so much emphasis upon personal regard for his old friend, that there 
 was no hint of his suspicions of the real character of Hutton's 
 
 4 Ch8.umont to Vergennes, January 5,1778. Stevens, Facs imile s , 771. 
 Monsieur Grand to Vergennes, January 1,1778. Ibid . , 1819 . 
 
 Chaumont to Vergennes, January 1,17 78. Ibid- , 1816 
 
 •^Franklin to Hutton, February 1,1778. Writings of Benjamin Franklin 
 
 (Sparks ed. ), VIII, 230-4. — ~~ 
 
 ^Franklin to Hartley, February 12. 1778. Ibid . ,236. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
43 
 
 mission. Moreover, he did not allow friendship to betray him into 
 committing his country to any definite proposals with an unofficial 
 emissary. 
 
 In close touch with the Shelburne ministry, Benjamin 
 
 Vaughan was somewhat less willing to concede the demands of the 
 
 Colonists than had been Price. In reply to a letter of May 11,1782, 
 
 which suggested the feasibility of Shelburne’s Plan of Un i on under 
 
 the King, but with independent Parliaments, Franklin said that such a 
 
 thing wa.s impossible.'*' On the eve of the signing of the 
 
 preliminaries of peace, Vaughan again wrote to Franklin, begging him 
 
 to hasten the negotiations and to act generously toward England -- 
 
 but he admitted to Franklin that justice was on the side of the 
 2 
 
 Americans. That he did not consider the actions of the Americans 
 generous, is evident from a later letter in which he praised the 
 liberal treatment granted them by Shelburne and intimated that 
 England had been bound down to a hard peace "thereby putting so 
 many people into ill humour." With his characteristic shrewdness, 
 Franklin refused to believe that Vaughan could have meant the terms 
 of the treaty when he spoke of a "hard" peace. He made it clear 
 that it was the Americans rather than Shelburne with whom the power 
 of granting concessions lay, and he added that the Americans were 
 "exceeding favourable in not insisting upon reparations so justly 
 
 4 
 
 due." References in and the character of a letter written to 
 
 •^Franklin to Vaughan, July 11, 1782. Writing s of Benja min Fr anklin 
 (Sparks ed.), IX, 362. 
 
 ^Vaughan to Franklin, November 27, 1782. Ibid . , 433. 
 
 3 Va.ughan to Franklin, February 25, 1783. Ibid. , IX, 489. 
 
 ^Franklin to Vaughan, March, 1784. Ibid.- , X, 70. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
47 
 
 two rnen 
 
 Vaughan in 1785 reveal the fact that the / were mutually interested 
 
 in science as well as in politics. 1 
 
 After 1778, overtures for peace became more frequent. 
 
 Although unauthorized to treat for peace before 1783, Hartley 
 
 corresponded with Franklin respecting negotiations, and at times 
 
 acted as a '‘mediator on his own account". The things for which 
 
 Franklin stood, relative to peace negotiations in the fall of 1778 
 
 wereJfirst, that independence was necessary; second, that no treaty 
 
 was possible without the assent of France; and third, that to 
 
 cultivate the friendship of the United States, which had been lost, 
 
 Great Britain would be wise to '‘cede all that remains of North 
 
 America and thus conciliate and strengthen a young Power which she 
 
 2 
 
 wishes to have as a useful and serviceable friend!' Always opposed 
 to an alliance between the Colonies and France, Hartley did not give 
 up hope of a separate peace after the formal alliance in 1778. 
 Hartley observed that an "alliance between France and America, is a 
 great stumbling block" and he hinted that it might be relinquished 
 
 3 
 
 to bring about peace. Franklin warmly replied that they would not 
 consider relinquishing an alliance with one of the '‘most amiable, 
 as well as mo3t powerful princes of Europe for the terms of an un- 
 known peace. 1,4 Hartley continued, however, to hint at the advan- 
 
 5 
 
 tages of a separate peace. In February , 1780, Franklin reiterated 
 his position respecting a separate peace when he said that the 
 
 iFranklin to Vaughan, April 22, 1785. I bid. , VI, 454. 
 
 Franklin to Hartley, October 26, 1778. Writings of Benjamin 
 Franklin (Smyth ed. ), VII, 194. 
 
 ^Hartley to Franklin, September 3, 1778. Ibid. . 186. 
 
 ^Franklin to Hartley, February 3, 1779. Writings of Benjami n 
 Franklin (Sparks ed.), VIII, 316. 
 
 Franklin to Hartley, February 22, 1779. Writings of Benjamin 
 Franklin (Smyth ed.), VII, 234. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
48 
 
 •'destruct ion of our whole country and the extirpation of our whole 
 people ( is) preferable to the Infamy of abandoning our allies.* 1 
 That Hartley sought an opening for negotiations in the 
 House is evidenced by a conciliatory bill which he sent to Franklin 
 in that year. The bill had failed bu't Hartley forwarded it, ex- 
 pressing the hope that some means might be found for bringing the 
 war to a close. 0 
 
 When writing to Hartley of fires in play-houses, December, 
 1781, Franklin made the chance remark that he hoped some happy in- 
 
 3 
 
 vent ion might be found to stop the spreading of the flames of war. 
 With the impression that Franklin was willing to treat for a 
 separate peace, Hartley hastened to inform North. Affairs had not 
 been running smoothly for the ministry, and North lent a willing 
 ear. He wished to know who was authorized by the Americans to treat 
 for peace and whether these propositions came from responsible per- 
 sons. 4 Since Franklin had previously had on more than one occasion 
 expressed his views of a separate peace, this caused him no small 
 irritation. He reminded his friend that he (Hartley) had often 
 mentioned this on former occasions and that ! lt gave him more dis- 
 gust than his friendship for Hartley permitted him to express." 
 Franklin added that ‘t;here was not a man in America, a few English 
 Tories excepted, who would not spurn the thought of deserting a 
 
 ^Franklin to Hartley, February 2, 1780. W ritings of Beniami n 
 Franklin (Sparks ed. ) VIII, 414. 
 
 Hartley to Franklin, July 17, 1780. Ibid., VIII, 480. 
 
 o 
 
 Franklin to Hartley, February 2, 1780. Writings of Benjamin 
 Franklin (Smyth ed. ) VIII. 
 
 ^Franklin to Hartley, December 15, 1781. Writings of Benjami n 
 Franklin (Sparks ed.) IX, 112. 
 
 “^Hartley to Franklin, January 2, 17 82. Ibid . , IX, 122. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
49 
 
 noble and generous friend for the sake of a truce with an unjust and 
 
 l 
 
 cruel enemy." Hartley hastened to explain that Alexander had given 
 
 2 
 
 him the impression that thd French were "disposed to consent to it.' 1 * * * 
 
 \ 
 
 Thus ended Hartley's attempts to influence Franklin to consent to a 
 separate peace. That Hartley's wishes were partially realized when 
 the actual negotiations took place between America and Great Britain 
 without France's knowledge, was due rather to Jay than to Franklin. 
 
 About a month ^fter Hartley's hopes for a separate peace 
 had been shattered, the unpopularity of the conduct of the war 
 resulted in the resignation of North, March 20, 1782. Rockingham, 
 who had advocated the severing of the Franco- American Alliance by 
 the acknowledgement of the Independence of the Colonies as early as 
 1778, became Prime Minister. Shelburne, a liberal and a patron of 
 Priestley, was appointed Secretary of Colonial and Home Affairs, and 
 Fox, a friend of the Colonists, became Secretary of Foreign Affairs. 
 
 Although given no position in the negotiations for peace, 
 Hartley continued to correspond with Franklin upon that subject. He 
 had handed in to the Ministry on February 7 a Breviate with sugges- 
 tions for peace negotiations, but no a.ction had been taken upon it. 
 
 After the change of Ministry, a number of letters from Franklin 
 
 4 
 
 prompted him to lay the same proposals before Shelburne. The latter 
 had made it clear to Hartley that the Americans were ready to treat 
 for peace; 5 that five persons were commissioned and disposed to 
 
 1 Franklin to Hartley, February 15, 1782. Ibid . , 141 . 
 
 ^Hartley to Franklin, January 24, 1782. Ibid.. ,149. 
 
 •rWinsor, Narrative and Critical History, VII, d8. 
 
 ^Hartley to Franklin, May 13, ‘1782. Writings of Ben jamin Franktl n 
 (Sparks ed. ) IX, 294. 
 
 Franklin to Hartley, April 5, 1782. Ibid. ,194. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
50 
 
 carry on peace negotiations, and that he hoped that a"change of 
 
 ministry would be attended by salutary effects. " x But Franklin 
 
 emphasized the fact that he considered his relations with Hartley 
 
 purely of a private nature, since the latter had no commission to 
 
 2 
 
 treat and since Franklin was only one of five. 
 
 A reminder to Hartley that the first act of reconciliation 
 under the new inistry might well be the release of American 
 
 3 
 
 prisoners of war, apparently resulted in an order for the same. 
 
 Hartley replied on May 25 that he had received from Shelburne a 
 
 notice of an order for the release of American prisoners "in answer 
 
 4 
 
 tc that part of your letter of the 5th of April...." 
 
 Although not commissioned to treat for peace. Hartley, on 
 the same date, extended his personal services to Franklin to assist 
 in *any communications or explanations conducive to peace.*"’ Not 
 until 1783 did he enter actively into the negotiations for peace. 
 
 A minor duty of attending to the interests of American refugees was 
 granted him by the new Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Townshend, in 
 
 0 
 
 July, but he declined any concern in it, because of the uncertainty 
 of the "state of negotiation.' 1 
 
 Realizing that further union between Great Britain and 
 America was impossible. Hartley proposed a commercial co-partnership 
 
 Franklin to Hartley, March 31, 1782. Wr itings of Benjami n 
 F ranklin (Sparks ed. ) IX, 192. 
 
 ^Franklin to Hartley, April 5, 1782. Ibid . , 194. 
 
 ?Ibid. , Hartley to Franklin, May 25, 1782. Ibid . , 301 . 
 
 ^ TEicT . 
 plbld- ,302. 
 
 Hartley to Franklin, July 26, 1782. Ibid . ,371 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to Franklin in a letter of October 4, 1782, but this suggestion 
 seems not to have been acted upon. There is no available corre- 
 spondence until the following spring. 
 
 51 
 
 Preliminaries of Peace were at last agreed upon and 
 signed November 30, 1782.^ That the American commissioners were 
 satisfied with the outcome is apparent from a letter of Franklin 
 
 p 
 
 to Samuel Cooper in December. But such a storm of protest met 
 
 the proposal of the Preliminaries in Parliament that Shelburne 
 
 3 
 
 resigned on February 24. With the succession of the coalition. Fox 
 commissioned Hartley to succeed Oswald in the conclusion of the 
 negotiations for pesce. 
 
 Displeased with the definitive treaty as it stood, the 
 new Ministry hoped to secure terms more favorable to the British. 
 Various proposals were ma.de but were not carried out. Among them, 
 Hartley proposed a measure on behalf of the Loyalists and former 
 owners of land.^ At length the definitive treaty as it had been 
 agreed upon under Shelburne, was signed September 3, 1783, in Paris 
 and was later ratified, fir st, by the United States, January 14, 1784, 
 
 5 
 
 and, second, by England, April 9, 1784. In accordance with 
 for 
 
 Ha.rtley's dreams/ a commercial co-partnership, there were negotiations 
 
 * 
 
 for the regulation of trade which, however, came to naught. After 
 the conclusion of the treaty. Hartley informed Franklin that he 
 
 p W ritings ol^ Benjamin Frankli n (Sparks ed. ) IX, 435. 
 ^Franklin to Cooper, December 26, 1782. Ibid.. 462. 
 Se ® also P art on , Franklin, II, 504. 
 
 ^Fitzmaur ice , Shelburne , III, 182. 
 
 Winsor, Narrative and Critical History , 
 ^Parton, Franklin , II, 505. 
 
 VII, 89, 104. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
52 
 
 anticipated receiving the instructions for a temporary commercial 
 convention on similar grounds to his own proposal of May IS, 1785. 1 
 Franklin's reply that "there is sense enough in America to take care 
 of her own china vase,"* his assurance of the progress in the United 
 States, and his statement that he would "consider attentively the 
 proposition", reveal no eagerness on his part to enter into a com- 
 mercial alliance with Great Britain. 
 
 Thus closed the negotiations for peace. The United States 
 had not yielded on the point of compensating the Loyalists; they had 
 
 r Z 
 
 secured a recognition of their independence, liberal boundaries, and 
 their fishery rights, but they had not secured Canada. How much of 
 these terms were due to Franklin? Did his relations with English 
 Liberals affect the terms as finally ratified? 
 
 The answer to the first question depends upon the second. 
 From the study of his correspondence, it seems that he came into 
 contact with his more intimate London friends, namely Price and 
 Priestley, so little during this period that their mutual influence 
 cannot be considered. With Burke and Chatham he had no direct rela- 
 tion during this period. Only one letter is available, that from 
 Franklin to Burke on the subject of General Burgoyne, which has no 
 relation to the negotiations for peace. Ben j ami n .Vaughan, who was 
 sent by Shelburne to Paris, dealt more directly with Jay. It was 
 the latter who prevailed upon him to go to London to counteract 
 Rayneval's influence and through whose efforts Oswald at length 
 
 •‘■Hartley to Franklin, September 24, 1783. Writings of Benjamin 
 Franklin (Sparks ed. ) IX, 18. 
 
 ^Franklin had before the war compared the British Empire to a 
 china vase. 
 
 ^Shelburne issued Oswald's commission to treat with the United 
 States of America, September 24, 1782. Winsor, VIII, 101 f. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
53 
 
 received instructions to treat with the "United States of America."^ 
 Franklin's relations with the English friends during this 
 period, as it affected British- American relations, resolves itself 
 into his relations with Hartley. Although the latter corresponded 
 with Franklin on the subject of peace throughout the period 177 6- 
 1783, the period of his greatest interest was 1778-1782, during 
 which time, as has been mentioned, he was acting with the approval 
 of North and was apparently a secret emissary. 
 
 The objects that he wished to accomplish were: first, a 
 
 relief and exchange of American prisoners of war; second, the pre- 
 vention of a Franco-American Alliance. When that was consummated, 
 he exerted all his powers to secure a separate peace. Third, he 
 hoped to secure a commercial union of the United States and Great 
 Britain on the same commercial basis as existed between them before 
 the war. 2 He secured relief to the American prisoners, but failed 
 to bring about the exchange until May, 1782. In the remaining 
 points he failed to influence Franklin to yield. 
 
 When he succeeded Oswald, Hartley failed to secure the 
 commercial advantages hoped for, and the original definitive treaty 
 over which he had had no direct influence went into effect. 
 
 This failure was apparently due to his anxiety for peace, 
 running through his whole correspondence, which was met by Frank- 
 lin's anxiety for independence, and an advantageous treaty, rather 
 than for peace. Franklin's influence was felt principally from 
 1776 to 1781. During those years the foundations were laid for a 
 recognition of the new United States, and second, through an alliance 
 
 j -Ibid . , VII, 165. 
 
 Hartley to Franklin, September 24, 1783. Writings to Beniamin 
 Frankli n (Sparks ed. ) IX, 18. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 FRANKLIN'S RELATIONS WITH THE ENGLISH LIBERALS 1783-178S 
 
 The preliminaries of peace having Been signed, Franklin 
 was employed in making treaties with other countries, and in a vain 
 attempt to conclude a commercial treaty with Great Britain. 1 Hoping 
 that a "co-partnership of commerce" might cement a union between the 
 two countries. Hartley, in 1782, had drawn up a proposal for a tem- 
 porary c onvent ion. * No agreement could be made during the peace 
 negotiations, and Hartley informed Franklin in 1784 that a document 
 concerning American trade would soon be placed before Parliament. 
 Although, as Franklin informed Hartley, the Americans were ready and 
 willing to negotiate such a treaty, nothing came of it. 4 
 
 Franklin requested his recall three times. At length, on 
 March 7, 1785, it was granted, and Franklin lost no time in starting 
 home. 5 As the ship in which he was to sail left Portsmouth, Frank- 
 lin crossed the channel. While awaiting its arrival at South- 
 hampton, he bade a number of his English friends farewell. Among 
 
 g 
 
 them were the Bishop of St. Asaph and Vaughan. Hartley was within 
 a mile of Southampton when the ship sailed. ^ During the closing 
 
 Iparton, Life and Times of Franklin , II, 507. 
 
 ^Hartley to Franklin, October 2, 1782. Writ in, s of Benj am in 
 Franklin (Sparks ed. ) IX, 416. 
 
 ^Hartley to Franklin, July 27, 1784. Franklin Papers . 
 
 , ^Franklin to Hartley, January 3, 1785. Writ ings of Benj am in 
 Franklin (Smyth ed. ) IX, 284. 
 
 bPart on, F ranklin . II, 534; Writ ings of Beni amin Franklin (Smyth 
 ed. ) IX, 365, 530. 
 
 ^1 bid . . 527. 
 
 ''Hartley to Franklin, August 24, 1785. Writings of Benjamin 
 Franklin (Spark3 ed. ) X, 221. 
 
56 
 
 years of his 1 if e, Frank 1 in continued his correspondence with only a 
 few of his former English friends and acquaintances. With such men 
 as Price, Hartley, Vaughan, and Strahan, his correspondence reveals 
 some striking similarities, especially when it dealt with political 
 subjects. 
 
 With Priestley, Franklin's correspondence during the 
 closing years of the war was desultory, and none is extant after 
 1784. Science and philosophy were the principal topics of dis- 
 cussion in the few existing. 1 
 
 Science and political affairs were the chief topics of 
 mutual interest to Franklin and Price. Their political dis- 
 cussions reveal a similarity of viewpoint respecting British and 
 American affairs, but Franklin was far more severe in his criticism 
 of England and lavish in his praise of the United States. That 
 Price recognized the advantages for progress which the United 
 States possessed over England was expressed in a moderate way in a 
 letter of April S, 1784.^ He feared that their bad system of 
 representation would necessitate a convulsion before effective 
 Reform could come about. In contrast he commented upon the greater 
 opportunities for a better state of affairs in the United States. 
 Franklin's reply expressed similar views in much stronger terms. In 
 speaking of the English, he remarked that when he thought of their 
 '‘present crazy constitution and its Diseases," he doubted whether 
 even the reform of representation would cure the evils constantly 
 
 3 
 
 arising from perpetual Factions. With this, he contrasted the 
 
 pSee index. Writi ngs of Ben .1 am i n Frankl in (Sparks ed.). 
 
 ^Pr ice to Franklin, April 6, 1784. Ibid .'.X, 78. 
 
 ^Franklin to Price, August 16, 1784. W ritings of Benjamin 
 Franklin (Smyth ed. ) IX, 254. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
57 
 
 favorable conditions in America. But that his apparent bias did 
 not blind him to the dangers which beset a new country is evident 
 from the comment that he added. Namely, he suggested that the 
 advice of wise friends for preventing the United States' making the 
 errors committed by the older governments would be appreciated. 
 
 A similar tone of optimism respecting the United States 
 exists in a letter written the following February. He called 
 attention to the prosperous conditions of his country, and to the 
 fact that the people were generally "very happy under their new 
 governments." 1 Of domestic disorders Franklin said little. In one 
 letter he observed that "we are improving daily in public prudence 
 and in a true knowledge of our essential interests'.' Price echoed 
 Franklin's regret at the attempts to create a misunderstanding 
 between the two countries. Yet his remark that this might after all 
 further the future development of the United States, because of the 
 necessity for independence in the regulation of their commerce, 
 revealed a personal interest in the economic and political progress 
 
 3 
 
 of the new country, regardless of its effect upon the old. 
 
 From the available correspondence with his English 
 friends, it is apparent that Franklin discussed the disorders 
 reigning within the states only once and that he then observed that 
 
 4 
 
 "all will end well." His only comment upon the calling of the 
 Constitutional Convention was that "such amendments as were 
 
 iFranklin to Price, February 1, 1785. Ibid . , IX, 286. 
 
 "Franklin to Price, July 29, 1786. Ibid., IX, 529. 
 
 '"’Price to Franklin, November 5, 1785. "W ritings of Ben.iamin 
 F rank 1 in (Sparks ed. ) IX, 239. 
 
 4 Ibid. 
 

 
 
 
 i • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
58 
 
 1 
 
 thoroughly necessary" were to be proposed. 
 
 The same tone of optimism respecting the United States 
 pervades the only letter written to Hartley after Franklin's 
 return to Philadelphia. 2 Immediately after the signing of the 
 definitive treaty, Franklin praised his countrymen as "more 
 thoroughly enlightened with respect to our political interests than 
 perhaps any other under heaven," Apparently, this was written with 
 design, for he closed the letter with an urgent request for the 
 immediate evacuation of New York . 3 In the same fall, he replied 
 to Hartley' 3 hints for the formation of a commercial union, the 
 advantages of which were to be Britain's, with the remark that there 
 "was sense enough in America to take care of their own china vase," 
 and he added that the British newspaper stories of American dissen- 
 sions were untrue. 4 Apparently, his purpose was to impress Hartley 
 with the strength and independence of the young republic. 
 
 With Vaughan, Franklin likewise corresponded more 
 frequently than during the Revolution. Although their mutual 
 interests were chiefly of a literary nature, a discussion of 
 political affairs found a place. As in his letters to Price, 
 Franklin here revealed a tendency to belittle the political condi- 
 tions of England in contrast to those of America. In a letter of 
 March 14, 1785, he observed that "it is said by those who know 
 Europe generally, that there are more thefts committed and punished 
 
 ^Franklin to Price, May 15, 1787. Writings of Benjamin Franklin 
 (Smyth ed. ) IX, 535. 
 
 ^Franklin to Hartley, October 27, 1785. Ibid . .473 . 
 
 3 Franklin to Hartley, September 6, 1783. Writing s of Benjamin 
 Frankl in ( Sp ark s ed . ) X , 1 . 
 
 ^Franklin to Hartley, October 22, 1783. Ibid . ,27 . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
59 
 
 annually in England than in all other nations put together." 
 
 He attributed this to her "oppressive conduct to subjects and unjust 
 wars on our neighbors."" In corrparison to this, he commented upon 
 the humanity shown by the United States in their attempt to abolish 
 privateering, in spite of the fact that they were peculiarly 
 situated to profit thereby. His only comment to Vaughan upon the 
 Constitutional Convention was that "the violence of our party 
 debates about the new constitution seems much abated. ... and we are 
 
 p 
 
 getting back into good order . ** 
 
 A criticism of the British Parliament and of their 
 
 newspaper accounts respecting conditions in America exists in his 
 
 letters to Strahan. In February, 1784 , before his return to America, 
 
 Franklin informed Strahan that the English papers were full of 
 
 accounts of anarchy and confusion in America of which "we know 
 
 nothing." As in a letter to Price, he attributed the evil in the 
 
 British Constitution to the enormous salaries of the great offices. 
 
 In August of the same year, Franklin reviewed at length the failure 
 
 of the British Administration to understand the strength of the 
 
 Colonists and their consequent inability to conquer them. Yet 
 
 Franklin's loyalty to his country did not blind him to the fact 
 
 that their success was due to circumstances rather than their 
 
 superiority. Franklin called this the "interposition of Providence" 
 
 4 
 
 in behalf of a just cause. 
 
 1 Franklin to Vaughan, March 14, 1785. Writings of Benjamin 
 Fr ankl i n (Smyth ed. ) IX, 29. 
 
 ^Franklin to Vaughan, October 24, 1788. Ibid , ,675. 
 
 ^Franklin to Strahan, February 16, 1784. Ibid . ,171 . 
 
 ^Franklin to Strahan, August 14, 1784. Ibid . , 253. 
 

 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
60 
 
 From this correspondence the following conclusions 
 respecting Franklin's relations with his English friends and hi3 
 attitude toward political affairs in England and in America, may 
 be drawn. First, although expressing personal regard for his 
 friends he did not hesitate to criticize their government severely 
 and to praise hi3 own highly. Price alone assented to his views. 
 Sec ond , during the war he had ceased to admire the British 
 constitution, which he now styled the f, old crazy constitution.* 
 Third, whatever he may have thought of the disorders in the United 
 States, Franklin refrained from commenting upon them to his English 
 friends. Fourth, Franklin utilized every opportunity to praise the 
 conditions in and government of his country, thereby giving to any 
 possible doubters confidence in it. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Manii8cr ipt s 
 
 Frankl i n Papers in the Library of Congress , Division of 
 Manuscripts. Photostats and transcripts of original manu- 
 scripts were used. 
 
 Printed Materials 
 
 1 . Bibliographies . 
 
 Annual Report of the American Historical Association , 1905 
 (Washington, 19077. 
 
 Guide to the Study and Reading of American Histo ry , edited 
 by Edward Channing, Albert Bushnell Hart, and Frederick 
 Jackson Turner (Boston, 1912). 
 
 A List of Books Relating to Benjamin Frankli n, edited by 
 Paul Leicester 'Ford (Erookly, 1889 ) . 
 
 Stevens, Henry, Benjamin Frankl in 1 s Life and Writings . 
 
 A bibliographical essay on the Stevens' collection of books 
 and manuscripts relating to Dr. Franklin (London, 1881). 
 
 Writing s in American History , a bibliography of books and 
 articles - ' in~Un i t ed”"3" t at e s and Canadian history, edited by 
 Grace Gardner Griffin (New York, 1909-1915). 
 
 2 . P rin ted Sources . 
 
 American Archive s , fourth series: containing a Documentary 
 History of the English Colonies in North America, from the 
 King's Message to Parliament of March 7, 1774, to the 
 Declaration of Independence by the United States, published 
 by M. St.Clair Clarke and Peter Force (Washington, 1837). 
 
 Calen dar of the Pap er s of Benj amin Frankl i n in the Library 
 of the American Philosophical Society, edited by I. Minis 
 Hays, 6 volumes (Philadelphia, 1908). 
 
 Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, 16 volumes (Harrisburg, 
 1851-1853). 
 
 Complete Wo rks of Be nj amin Frankli n , edited by John 
 Bigelow, 10 volumes "["New York, 1887-1888). 
 

 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ii 
 
 Correspondenc e of Edmund Burke , edited by Charles Earl W. 
 Fitzwilliam and "Sir Richard Bourcke, 4 volumes (London , 1844 ) . 
 
 The Correspondenc e of William Pitt, edited under the 
 auspices of the National Society of the Colonial Dames of 
 America, by Gertrude Selwyn Kimball, 2 volumes ( London, 1 838 ) . 
 
 Diary and Let t ers of Gouverne ur Morris , edited by Anne 
 Cary Morris, 2 volumes (London, 1&89). 
 
 Facsimiles of Manuscripts in European Archives Relating to 
 America , 1773-T783, edited by B. F. Stevens, 24 volumes 
 (London, 18S8). 
 
 Franklin-Strehan Correspondence , published in the 
 Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, volume 27 
 (Philadelphia, 1903). 
 
 J ournal s of the Cont inental Congress , 1774-1789 , edited 
 from the original records in the Library of Congress by the 
 Chief of the Division of Manuscripts, Worthington Chauncey 
 Ford, volumes 1-23 (Washington, 1904-1914). 
 
 Life of Franklin , written by himself, edited by John 
 Bigelow. 3 volumes (Philadelphia, 1899). 
 
 List of Benjamin Franklin Papers in the Library of Congress , 
 edited by Worthington Chauncey 7 Ford, Chief of Division of 
 Manuscripts (Washington, 1905). 
 
 London Chr onic le (London, 1767, 1769, 1778). 
 
 Massachusetts Histo rical Socie ty Procee dings , Second 
 Series, volumes 1-20; third series / volumes *1-32 (Boston 
 1884-1919). 
 
 Memoi rs of James Hutto n, comprising the annals of his 
 life and connection with the United Brethren, edited by 
 Daniel Benham (London, 1856). 
 
 Memoirs of Dr . Joseph Priestle y, written by himself; 
 edite'd by his own son, Joseph Priestley; and Observations 
 on his writings by Thomas Cooper (London, 1806). 
 
 Pari iamentar y His tory of Englan d from the Earl iest Per io d 
 to the year 1803 . Fro'm which last mentioned epoch it is 
 entitled 11 Hansard * s Parliamentary Debates " , 36 volumes 
 (London, 1806-1820 J. 
 
 Pennsylv ani a Const itut iona l Conven ti o n, 17 76, including 
 Proceedings relative to calling the Conventions of 1776 to 
 1790 (Harrisburg, 1825). 
 
 Pownall, Thomas, Adm in is tra tion of the Brit ish Colonies 
 (London, 1774). 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iii 
 
 "Price Letters" published in the Massachuset ts Histor ic al 
 Society , Proceedin gs . Second series, volume 17 T*Boston, 1903 ) 
 
 Price, Richard, Observatio ns on Civil Liberty , the 
 Justice and Policy of the war with America (London, 1776). 
 
 Priestley, Joseph, Lectur es on Histor y and Gener al 
 Policy , edited by John T. Rutt (Philadelphia, 1826 ) . 
 
 The Rev olutionar y Diplomati c Correspond e nce , edited by 
 Francis - WHar ton under the auspices of the Department of 
 State, volumes 1-6 (Washington, 1889). 
 
 Theological and Miscellaneous Works of Jose ph Priestley , 
 edited by John T. Rutt, 25 volumes TTonion, 1817-1831 ) • 
 
 Unpublished letters of Franklin to Str ahan , edited by 
 S. (S. W. Benjamin in the Atlantic Monthly, volume 61 
 (Boston 1867-1921). 
 
 Works of Edmund Burke , Beaconsfield edition, 12 volumes 
 (Boston, 1901 ) . 
 
 Works of John Adams , with a life of the author, edited 
 by Charles Francis Adams, 10 volumes (Boston, 1855). 
 
 Writi ngs of Benj am in Franklin , edited with notes and a 
 life of the author by Jared Sparks, 10 volumes (Boston, 
 1836-1840) . 
 
 Writings of Benjam in Franklin , collected and edited with 
 a life end introduction by Albert Henry Smyth, 10 volumes 
 (New York, 1905-1907). 
 
 Writing s of George Washingt on, edited by Worthington 
 Chauncey Ford, 14 volumes” (New York, 1389-1893). 
 
 3 . Secondary Works . 
 
 Channing, Edward, History of the Unite d States , 4 volumes 
 (London, 1907). 
 
 Conway, Moneure Daniel, Life of Thomas Paine , 2 volumes, 
 third edition (New York, 1908) . 
 
 Foster, John Watson, Century of Ameri can Diplomacy 
 (New York, 1920) . 
 
 Gentlem an 1 s Magazi ne , 223 volumes (London, 17 31-1868). 
 
 Hill, David Jayne, "A missing chapter in Francc-Amer ican 
 History," American Historical Review, volume 21 (New York, 
 1895-1921). 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
IV 
 
 Howard, George Elliot, Preliminaries of the Revolution, 
 1763-1775 (New York, 1S05) . 
 
 Hunt, William (ed.), The History of England from the Ac - 
 cession of George III to the Close of Pitt 1 s Admini'st rat ion, 
 1766-13017 (Political History of England, volume 10 ) ( London, 
 1905)7 " 
 
 Laski, Harold Joseph, Political Though t in England from 
 Locke to Bentha m (New YorlT) I960 ) . 
 
 Leadam, Isaac Saunders, History of England from the Ac - 
 cession of Anne to the Deat h of George II, 1702-1760 (Hunt 1 s 
 Political History of England, volume 9)"TLondon, 1SCS). 
 
 Lecky, William Edward Hartpole, American Revolution , 
 edited by James Albert Woodburn (New York, 1898) , 
 
 Lincoln, Charles Henry, "The Revolutionary Movement in 
 Pennsylvania, 1760-1776", University of Pennsylvania : 
 Historical Studies , volume 3 (Philadelphia, 1901) . 
 
 MacKnight, Thomas, History of the Life an^ Times of 
 Edmund Burke , 3 volumes ( London, 1858-1860) . 
 
 Magazine of American History , with notes ana queries, 29 
 volumes (New York, 1877-1893) . 
 
 Main e Historical Society , Collections , first series, 10 
 volumes; second series, 6 volumes (Portland, 1865-1900). 
 
 Morse, John Torrey, Ben.i am in Frankli n (New York, 1889). 
 
 A Narrative and Cr it ical Histor y of N orth America , eaited 
 by Justin Winsor, 8 volumes (Boston, 1864-1889) . 
 
 Parton, James, Life and T imes of Ben.i am in Franklin , 2 
 volumes (Boston, 1864) . 
 
 Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography , volumes 
 1-43 (Philadelphia, 1877-1931)7 “ 
 
 Pownall, Charles Assheton Whately, - Thomas Powne,ll , M.P. , 
 
 F . R . S . , Governor of Massachusetts Bay , with a supplement com- 
 paring the colonies of Kings George III and Edward VII 
 (London, 1908). 
 
 Prior, James, Lif e of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke 
 (London, 1878) . 
 
 Rae, John, Lif e of Adam Smith (London, 1895). 
 
V 
 
 Shelburne, William Petty Fitzmaurice, First Marquis of 
 Landsdown, Life of William , Earl of Shelburne , with extracts 
 from his papers and correspondence (New York, 1912). 
 
 Stephens, Leslie, History of English Thought in the 
 Eighteenth Century , 2 volumes TLondon, 1896 ). 
 
 Stephens, Leslie and Sidney Lee, Diet ionar y of Nat ional 
 Biography , 22 volumes (New York, 1908 ) . ~ 
 
 Thorpe, T., Joseph Priestley (London, 1906). 
 
 Trevelyan, Otto, The American R evolution , 3 volumes 
 (New York, 1905). 
 
 Van Tyne, Claude Halstead, American Revolution, 177S-1783, 
 (New York, 1905). 
 
 Von Ruville, Albert, William Pitt , Ea.rl of Chatham , 3 
 volumes (London, 1907). 
 
 Williams, Basil, Life of William Pitt , 2 volumes (London, 
 1913).