little honor. He performed many valuable services in introducing
Old-World plants, trees, and fruits to the New, and in encouraging
others to carry on practical botanical experiments. Particularly from
1747 to 1757 he experimented in agriculture and was in constant
communication with that pioneer scientific husbandman, Jared Eliot.
See E. D. Ross's "Benjamin Franklin as an Eighteenth-Century
Agriculture Leader," _Journal of Political Economy_, XXXVII, 52-72
(Feb., 1929).
[i-230] Although no scholarly substitute for the works of Quesnay,
Mirabeau, Mercier de la Rivière, Dupont de Nemours, Le Trosne, Abbé
Bandeau, Abbé Roubaud, and some pieces of the occasional physiocrat
Turgot, the following will enable the student to derive adequately for
general purposes the thought of the Économistes: H. Higgs, _The
Physiocrats_ (1897); Gide and Rist, op. cit.; L. H. Haney, _History of
Economic Thought_ (1911), 133-57; G. Weulersse, _Le mouvement
physiocratique en France (de 1756 à 1770)_; A. Smith, _Wealth of
Nations_, Bk. IV, chap. IX; J. Bonar, _Philosophy and Political
Science_ (1893); in addition see critical and interpretative writings
of Oncken, Stem, Kines, Hasbach, Schelle, Bauer, Feilbogen, De
Lavergne.
[i-231] An integral idea of the French school was its advocacy of the
_impôt unique_--a single tax on land. It is difficult to find evidence
to controvert Mr. Carey's assertion that Franklin seems never to have
advocated this tax (_op. cit._, 154). However, in marginalia on a
pamphlet by Allan Ramsay, Franklin held: "Taxes must be paid out of
the Produce of the Land. There is no other possible Fund" (cited by
Carey, 155). Another reference is found in a letter of 1787 to
Alexander Small: "Our Legislators are all Land-holders; and they are
not yet persuaded, that all taxes are finally paid by the Land"
(_Writings_, IX, 615). It is probable that he felt that a land tax
would be dubiously effective in view of the difficulties of collection
in sparse settlements.
[i-232] _Writings_, II, 313 (July 16, 1747). See also _Note Respecting
Trade and Manufactures_, London, July 7, 1767 (Sparks, II, 366):
"Suppose a country, X, with three manufactures, as _cloth_, _silk_,
_iron_, supplying three other countries. A, B, C, but is desirous of
increasing the vent, and raising the price of cloth in favor of her
own clothiers.
In order to do this, she forbids the importation of foreign cloth from
A.
A, in return, forbids silks from X.
Then the silk-workers complain of a decay of trade.
And X, to content them, forbids silks from B.
B, in return, forbids iron ware from X.
Then the iron-workers complain of decay.
And X forbids the importation of iron from C.
C, in return, forbids cloth from X.
What is got by all these prohibitions?
_Answer._--All four find their common stock of the enjoyments and
conveniences of life diminished."
[i-233] _Writings_, IV, 469-70.
[i-234] _Ibid._, V, 155.
[i-235] Passy, May 27, 1779 (_Writings_, VII, 332).
[i-236] _Ibid._, IV, 242-5 (April 30, 1764). As Mr. Carey notes.
Franklin in several places. _On the Labouring Poor_ and in a letter
(IX, 240-8), suggests that private vices--demands for luxuries--make
public benefits, hence resembling, if not ultimately derived from,
Mandeville's _Fable of the Bees_. Franklin's sanction of free trade
is, however, antithetical to Mandeville's 'dog eat dog' basis. (See
Kaye's Intro. to _The Fable of the Bees_, xcviii ff.) Franklin in no
uncertain terms looks upon trade restrictions definitely as the result
of "the abominable selfishness" of men (VII, 332). As long as
selfishness is the rule, mercantilism, not economic laissez faire,
will be king. It is theoretically probable also that belief in man's
innate altruism could furnish emotional if not logical sanction for
laissez faire--but this abstraction is in Franklin's case futile,
since like Swift he was not blind to man's malevolence!
[i-237] _Writings_, IV, 245; see also _ibid._, VIII, 107-8, 261, 19.
[i-238] _Ibid._, IX, 41; also 63, 578, 588.
[i-239] Cited in Carey, _op. cit._, 160-1.
[i-240] See Gide and Rist, _op. cit._, 7 note.
[i-241] _Ibid._, 7 note.
[i-242] _Ibid._
[i-243] Mercier de la Rivière, cited in _ibid._, 8 note.
[i-244] _Ibid._, 9-10.
[i-245] "Economics and the Idea of Natural Law," _Quarterly Journal of
Economics_, XLIV, 16 (1929). See also O. H. Taylor's valuable
dissertation, "The Idea of a 'Natural Order' in Early Modern Economic
Thought," summarized in Harvard University _Summaries of Theses_,
1928, 102-6, and available in manuscript at the Harvard University
Library.
[i-246] Taylor, "Economics and the Idea of Natural Law," _loc. cit._,
16.
[i-247] Even this fragmentary view of the more obvious economic
principles held by Franklin offers convincing evidence that had he
been less incidentally an economist he would have been at least a
lesser Adam Smith. Mr. Wetzel, in _Benjamin Franklin as an Economist_,
offers a convenient summary of Franklin as an economist, some items
suggesting aspects of his views which, had space permitted, we should
have included in this study: "1. Money as coin may have a value higher
than its bullion value. 2. Natural interest is determined by the rent
of so much land as the money loaned will buy. 3. High wages are not
inconsistent with a large foreign trade. 4. Population will increase
as the means of gaining a living increase. 5. A high standard of
living serves to prolong single life, and thus acts as a check upon
the increase of population. 6. People are adjusted among the different
countries according to the comparative well-being of mankind. 7. The
value of an article is determined by the amount of labor necessary to
produce the food consumed in making the article. 8. While manufactures
are advantageous, only agriculture is truly productive. 9.
Manufactures will naturally spring up in a country as the country
becomes ripe for them. 10. Free trade with the world will give the
greatest return at the least expense. 11. Wherever practicable, State
revenue should be raised by direct taxes."
[i-248] _Writings_, II, 110.
[i-249] _Ibid._, II, 295. In 1736 Franklin wrote: "Faction, if not
timely suppressed, may overturn the balance, the palladium of liberty,
and crush us under its ruins" (cited in R. G. Gettell, _History of
American Political Thought_, 149).
[i-250] W. R. Shepherd, _History of Proprietary Government in
Pennsylvania_ (New York, 1896), 5.
[i-251] _Writings_, II, 351.
[i-252] _Ibid._
[i-253] _Ibid._, II, 352.
[i-254] _Ibid._, II, 347.
[i-255] Shepherd, _op. cit._, 222. In 1764 Penn thought that Franklin
was one "who may lose the government of a post office by grasping at
that of a province" (_ibid._, 564). In turn one of the proprietors
wrote to him: "Franklin is certainly destined to be our plague"
(_ibid._, 566). Penn professed not to fear "your mighty Goliath." For
proof that Franklin's fear expressed in _Plain Truth_ was not idle see
_Extracts from Chief Justice William Allen's Letter Book_, 17, 22-3,
25, 31-2.
[i-256] _Plain Truth_ inspirited the colonists to defend themselves,
even if it failed in its larger purpose; see _Writings_, II, 354, 362.
[i-257] To James Parker, March 20, 1750/51 (_Writings_, III, 40-5). L.
C. Wroth, in _An American Bookshelf_, 1755 (Philadelphia, 1934), 12
ff., reviews A. Kennedy's _The Importance of Gaining the Friendship of
the Indians to the British Interest_ (1751), to which was appended a
letter, prefiguring the Albany Plan of Union. This letter, Mr. Wroth
observes, was by Franklin. C. E. Merriam states that "The storm centre
of the democratic movement during the colonial period was the conflict
between the governors and the colonial legislatures or assemblies" (_A
History of American Political Theories_, 34). Also see E. B. Greene,
_The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North America_.
[i-258] _Writings_, III, 71.
[i-259] Cited in G. L. Beer, _British Colonial Policy_, 1754-1765, 17.
[i-260] _Writings_, III, 197.
[i-261] For a suggestive source study see Mrs. L. K. Mathews's
"Benjamin Franklin's Plans for a Colonial Union, 1750-1775," _American
Political Science Review_, VIII, 393-412 (Aug., 1914).
[i-262] Cited in Beer, _op. cit._, 49.
[i-263] _Writings_, III, 242.
[i-264] _Ibid._, III, 226. As Beer has pointed out (_op. cit._, 23
note), since the plan was not ratified, it never went before the
Crown; hence Franklin's retrospective glance is misleading: "The Crown
disapproved it, as having placed too much Weight in the Democratic
Part of the Constitution; and every Assembly as having allowed too
much to Prerogative. So it was totally rejected" (_Writings_, III,
227).
[i-265] _Ibid._, III, 233.
[i-266] To Peter Collinson, Nov. 22, 1756 (_Writings_, III, 351).
[i-267] As A. H. Smyth says, this was probably _inspired_ by Franklin
although not written by him; at any rate "it undoubtedly reflects" his
opinions (III, vi). Isaac Sharpless observes that Franklin "had
sympathy with their [Quakers'] demands for political freedom, but none
for their non-military spirit" (_Political Leaders of Provincial
Pennsylvania_, New York, 1919, 178).
[i-268] _Writings_, III, 372.
[i-269] A. Bradford, _Memoir of the Life and Writings of Rev. J.
Mayhew_ (Boston, 1838), 119.
[i-270] See for capable studies: B. F. Wright, _American
Interpretations of Natural Law_; C. F. Mullett, _Fundamental Law and
the American Revolution_; D. G. Ritchie, _Natural Rights_ (London,
1895), and his "Contributions to the History of the Social Contract
Theory," _Political Science Quarterly_, VI, 656-76 (1891); C. Becker,
_The Declaration of Independence_, chap. II; C. E. Merriam, _op.
cit._, chap. II; H. J. Laski, _Political Thought in England from Locke
to Bentham_ (New York, 1920).
[i-271] Becker, _op. cit._, 24.
[i-272] _Ibid._, 27.
[i-273] Burke said that nearly as many copies of this work were sold
in the colonies as in Great Britain. It will be remembered that
Hamilton leaned heavily on Blackstone in _The Farmer Refuted_ (1773).
[i-274] Cited in Wright, _op. cit._, 11.
[i-275] _The Farmer Refuted._ For discussion of changes in Hamilton's
political theory see F. C. Prescott's Introduction to _Hamilton and
Jefferson_ (American Writers Series, New York, 1934).
[i-276] Franklin acknowledges his close reading of Locke's _Essay
Concerning Human Understanding_ (_Writings_, I, 243). In 1749 he urges
that Locke be read in the Philadelphia Academy (II, 387) and refers
again to the great logician in _Idea of the English School_ (III, 28).
He is supposed to have defended in spirited debate Locke's treatise on
Toleration (I, 179). The catalogues of the Philadelphia Library
Company disclose that by 1757 all of Locke's works had been obtained.
One may ask how an alert eighteenth-century mind could have escaped
the impact of Locke's thought.
It is more difficult to establish satisfactorily a nexus between
Rousseau's and Franklin's minds. Mr. George Simpson Eddy has kindly
allowed us to consult his "Catalogue of Pamphlets, Once a Part of the
Library of Benjamin Franklin, and now owned by the Historical Society
of Pennsylvania" in which are included Rousseau's _Preface de la
Nouvelle Hélöise ..._ (1761) and _Discours sur l'économie politique
..._ (1760). Even if Rousseau's mistress, Countess d'Houdetot, feted
Franklin in 1781, and Franklin was acquainted with Rousseau's
physician, Achille-Guillaume le Bègue de Presle, and directly in 1785
mentions Rousseau on child-education (_Writings_, IX, 334), one can
not be sure to what extent Rousseau's writings may have aided Franklin
in formulating notions similar to the social contract theory (IX,
138).
[i-277] Cited in A. M. Baldwin, _The New England Clergy and the
American Revolution_, 6.
[i-278] _Ibid._, xii. See also C. H. Van Tyne's able study, "The
Influence of the Clergy, and of Religious and Sectarian Forces, on the
American Revolution," _American Historical Review_, XIX, 44-64 (Oct.,
1913). He takes issue with the economic determinists and concludes
that of all the causes of the Revolution, religious causes are "among
the most important" (p. 64). The Revolution was in large measure
caused by a conflict of political ideas, and these were disseminated
mostly by the clergy.
[i-279] _An Oration, Delivered March 5, 1773_ (Boston, 1773), 6.
[i-280] _Ibid._, 10-11.
[i-281] _Ibid._, 8. Also see S. Stillman, _Election-Sermon_, May 26,
1779 (Boston, 1779); J. Clarke, _Election-Sermon_, May 30, 1781
(Boston, 1781).
[i-282] Although Franklin denied having written it (_Writings_, IV,
82), Mr. Ford (_Franklin Bibliography_, III) asserts that "this work
must still be treated as from Franklin's pen." He sent 500 copies to
Pennsylvania consigned to his partner, David Hall, for distribution.
[i-283] To Joseph Galloway, April 11, 1757 (unpublished MS letter in
W. S. Mason Collection). For a description of the unpublished
Franklin-Galloway correspondence see W. S. Mason's article in
_Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society_ for Oct., 1924.
[i-284] To Joseph Galloway, Feb. 17, 1758 (unpublished MS letter in W.
S. Mason Collection).
[i-285] June 10, 1758 (unpublished MS letter in W. S. Mason
Collection).
[i-286] April 7, 1759 (unpublished MS letter in W. S. Mason
Collection).
[i-287] _The Works of Benjamin Franklin_ (Philadelphia, 1809), II,
147.
[i-288] _Ibid._, II, 7.
[i-289] _Ibid._, II, 1.
[i-290] _Ibid._, II, vii.
[i-291] _Ibid._, II, xvi.
[i-292] Apropos of many colonial ferments, not unlike the one we have
considered above, Carl Becker writes: "Throughout the eighteenth
century, little colonial aristocracies played their part, in
imagination clothing their governor in the decaying vesture of
Old-World tyrants and themselves assuming the homespun garb, half
Roman and half Puritan, of a virtuous republicanism.... It was the
illusion of sharing in great events rather than any low mercenary
motive that made Americans guard with jealous care their legislative
independence" (_The Eve of the Revolution_, New Haven, 1918, 60). Also
see C. H. Lincoln, _The Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania,
1760-1776_.
[i-293] _Writings_, III, 408-9.
[i-294] _Ibid._, III, 457.
[i-295] V. W. Crane, "Certain Writings of Benjamin Franklin on the
British Empire and the American Colonies," _Papers of the
Bibliographical Society_, XXVIII, Pt. 1, 6 (1934). Also see W. L.
Grant, "Canada vs. Guadaloupe," _American Historical Review_, XVII,
735-43, (Oct., 1911-July, 1912).
[i-296] Beer, _op. cit._, 313.
[i-297] _Writings_, IV, 224.
[i-298] _Ibid._, IV, 229.
[i-299] The massacre led by the "Paxton boys."
[i-300] _Writings_, IV, 314.
[i-301] _Writings_, IV, 418.
[i-302] _Ibid._, IV, 419. See Beer, _op. cit._, 294 f.
[i-303] _A History of American Political Theories_, 46.
[i-304] _Writings_, IV, 445-6.
[i-305] To Joseph Galloway, May 20, 1767 (photostat of unpublished MS
letter in W. S. Mason Collection; original in W. L. Clements Library).
[i-306] To Joseph Galloway, Aug. 20, 1768 (photostat of unpublished MS
letter in W. S. Mason Collection; original in W. L. Clements Library).
[i-307] To Joseph Galloway, April 14, 1767 (photostat of unpublished
MS letter in W. S. Mason Collection; original in W. L. Clements
Library). Cf. also letter to the same, Jan. 11, 1770, _ibid._
[i-308] See, for example, _An Edict by the King of Prussia_
(1773)--for its effect see _Writings_, VI, 146--and _Rules by Which a
Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One_ (1773). Crane, _op. cit._,
concludes that Franklin appears as "the chief agent of the American
propaganda in England, especially between 1765 and 1770" (p. 26). For
treatment of American propagandists see P. G. Davidson, "Whig
Propagandists of the American Revolution," _American Historical
Review_, XXXIX, 442-53 (April, 1934), and his _Revolutionary
Propagandists in New England, New York and Pennsylvania, 1763-1776_
(unpublished dissertation, University of Chicago, 1929); summarized in
_Abstracts of Theses_, Humanistic Series VII, 239-42; F. J. Hinkhouse,
_The Preliminaries of the American Revolution as Seen in the English
Press_ (New York, 1926).
[i-309] _Writings_, V, 297.
[i-310] See R. G. Adams, _Political Ideas of the American Revolution_,
35, 62-3.
[i-311] Oct. 2, 1770 (_Writings_, V, 280). See also _Causes of the
American Discontents before 1768_ (V, 78 f., 160-2). An aspect of his
loyalty to the crown may be seen in his hatred of French desire to
separate the colonies from England (V, 47, 231, 254, 323). The
printing of the _Examination_ and other of Franklin's pieces in Europe
buttressed the predisposition of France to hate Great Britain (V,
231). The best comprehensive treatment of backgrounds is C. H. Van
Tyne's _The Causes of the War of Independence_.
[i-312] _Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography_, XXV, 311
(1901). See also _ibid._, 307-22, and XXVI, 81-90, 255-64 (1902). See
_Writings_, VI, 144.
[i-313] _Writings_, VI, 173.
[i-314] _Ibid._, VI, 319. His unpublished letters of 1775 in the
Original Correspondence of Benjamin Franklin with the Bishop of St.
Asaph (in the W. S. Mason Collection) emphasize his progressive apathy
toward a reconciliation. Especially see letters of May 15 and July 7.
[i-315] _Ibid._, VI, 460.
[i-316] Cited in Davidson, _op. cit._, 442.
[i-317] Hugh Williamson claimed that he actually gave Franklin the
letters. Apparently another person went to the office where the
letters were archived and posing as an authorized person secured the
desired correspondence (D. Hosack, _Biographical Memoir of Hugh
Williamson_, New York, 1820, 37 ff.).
[i-318] For an interesting account of this episode see Parton, _op.
cit._, 1, chap. IX.
[i-319] _Writings_, V, 134. Franklin and Burke were friendly; see
their correspondence. The best exposition of Burke's doctrines is that
by John MacCunn, _The Political Philosophy of Edmund Burke_ (London,
1913).
[i-320] _Ibid._, V, 439; see also 527.
[i-321] London, April 20, 1771; unpublished MS letter in W. S. Mason
Collection. Compare with Abbé Raynal's opinion that "society is
essentially good; government, as is well known, may be, and is but too
often evil" (_The Revolution of America_, Dublin, 1781, 45).
[i-322] M. Eiselen (_Franklin's Political Theories_, Garden City, N.
Y., 1928) observes that Franklin as presiding officer had actually
little to do with casting the instrument. From his later paper on the
Constitution it is possible, however, to see that he accepted most of
its major ideas (pp. 57-8). See S. B. Harding, "Party Struggles over
the First Pennsylvania Constitution," _Annual Report of the American
Historical Association for 1894_, 371-402.
[i-323] That Franklin "had more to do with the phraseology of the
Declaration of Independence than has been recognized up to now" (J. C.
Fitzpatrick, _Spirit of the Revolution_, Boston, 1924, 11) has been
shown by Becker, _op. cit._
[i-324] See text in S. E. Morison, _Sources and Documents Illustrating
the American Revolution, 1764-1788, and the Formation of the Federal
Constitution_ (Oxford, 1923, 162-76).
[i-325] C. H. Lincoln, _The Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania,
1760-1776_, 277.
[i-326] Cited in N. G. Goodman, _Benjamin Rush_ (Philadelphia, 1934),
62. Another wrote that the unicameral form is good "if men were wise
and virtuous as angels" (Lincoln, _op. cit._, 282; see also 283). The
American Philosophical Society, of which Franklin was president,
declared against it.
[i-327] T. F. Moran, _The Rise and Development of the Bicameral System
in America_ (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and
Political Science, 13th ser., V [Baltimore, 1895]), 42. The
legislative Council (upper chamber) had been destroyed by the 1701
constitution. See B. A. Konkle, _George Bryan and the Constitution of
Pennsylvania_ (Philadelphia, 1922), 114. P. L. Ford ("The Adoption of
the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776," _Political Science Quarterly_,
X, Sept., 1895, 426-59) observes: "The one-chamber legislature and the
annual election were hardly the work of the Convention, for they were
merely transferred from the Penn Charter; having yielded such
admirable results in the past, it is not strange that they were
grafted into the new instrument" (p. 454).
[i-328] Defending (in 1789) the Pennsylvania constitution, Franklin
wrote, "Have we not experienced in this Colony, when a Province under
the Government of the Proprietors, the Mischiefs of a second Branch
existing in the Proprietary Family, countenanced and aided by an
Aristocratic Council?" (_Writings_, X, 56.)
[i-329] In 1775 he submitted to the Second Continental Congress his
_Articles of Confederation_ (_Writings_, VI, 420-6) which called for a
"firm League of Friendship" motivated by a unicameral assembly and a
plural executive, a Council of twelve. It was democratic also in its
"basing representation upon population instead of financial support"
(Eiselen, _op. cit._, 54).
[i-330] _Writings_, VII, 48.
[i-331] _Ibid._, VII, 23. No dull sidelight on the quality of
Franklin's radicalism during this period is the fact that he brought
Thomas Paine to the colonies and was partly responsible for the
writing of _Common Sense_. It is alleged that Franklin considered
Paine "his adopted political son" (cited in M. D. Conway's _Life of
Thomas Paine_, 3d ed., New York, 1893, II, 468). For explication of
Paine's political theories see C. E. Merriam, "Political Theories of
Thomas Paine," _Political Science Quarterly_, XIV, 389-403.
[i-332] Hale and Hale, _op. cit._, I, 70; see also 75.
[i-333] _Ibid._, I, 32.
[i-334] Cited in J. B. Perkins, _France in the American Revolution_,
140.
[i-335] _Ibid._, 127.
[i-336] See D. J. Hill, "A Missing Chapter of Franco-American
History," _American Historical Review_, XXI, 709-19, (July, 1916).
[i-337] _Ibid._, 710.
[i-338] _Writings_, IX, 132. The Due de la Rochefoucauld translated
them into French (IX, 71). Franklin thought they would induce
emigration to the colonies. See the scores of requests (on the part of
notable Frenchmen) and thanks for copies of the constitutions of the
United States listed in _Calendar of the Papers of Benjamin Franklin
in the Library of the American Philosophical Society_.
[i-339] J. S. Schapiro, _Condorcet and the Rise of Liberalism_, 79-81
and _passim_.
[i-340] _Ibid._, 222.
[i-341] Cited in W. T. Franklin's edition, I, 303-4. E. P.
Oberholtzer, essentially hostile to Franklin, is obliged to admit that
Franklin "seems not to have had more than an advisory part" in making
the Constitution of 1776. He adds that if Franklin did not form it,
"he was at any rate a loyal defender of its principles," and that he
seems to have allowed the French to think that the Constitution was
his own (_The Referendum in America_, New York, 1900, 26-42). For
Franklin's later defenses of unicameralism, see _Writings_, IX, 645,
674; X; 56-8.
[i-342] Cited in B. Faÿ, _The Revolutionary Spirit In France and
America_, 289. Faÿ shows that in France the "revolutionary leaders"
who took lessons from Franklin regarded him as "the prophet and saint
of a new religion," as the "high priest of Philosophy." See also E. J.
Lowell, _The Eve of the French Revolution_ (Boston, 1892), chaps. XVI
and XVIII.
[i-343] B. Faÿ, _The Revolutionary Spirit in France and America_, 302.
[i-344] _Writings_, VIII, 34.
[i-345] _Ibid._, VIII, 452; June 7, 1782 (to Joseph Priestley).
[i-346] _Ibid._, IX, 241.
[i-347] _Ibid._, IX, 330.
[i-348] _Ibid._, IX, 521; see also IX, 489.