Part 11 (1/2)

[Footnote i-252: _Ibid._]

[Footnote i-253: _Ibid._, II, 352.]

[Footnote i-254: _Ibid._, II, 347.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote i-256: _Plain Truth_ inspirited the colonists to defend themselves, even if it failed in its larger purpose; see _Writings_, II, 354, 362.]

[Footnote 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 Friends.h.i.+p 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 a.s.semblies” (_A History of American Political Theories_, 34). Also see E. B. Greene, _The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North America_.]

[Footnote i-258: _Writings_, III, 71.]

[Footnote i-259: Cited in G. L. Beer, _British Colonial Policy_, 1754-1765, 17.]

[Footnote i-260: _Writings_, III, 197.]

[Footnote 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).]

[Footnote i-262: Cited in Beer, _op. cit._, 49.]

[Footnote i-263: _Writings_, III, 242.]

[Footnote 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 Const.i.tution; and every a.s.sembly as having allowed too much to Prerogative. So it was totally rejected” (_Writings_, III, 227).]

[Footnote i-265: _Ibid._, III, 233.]

[Footnote i-266: To Peter Collinson, Nov. 22, 1756 (_Writings_, III, 351).]

[Footnote 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).]

[Footnote i-268: _Writings_, III, 372.]

[Footnote i-269: A. Bradford, _Memoir of the Life and Writings of Rev.

J. Mayhew_ (Boston, 1838), 119.]

[Footnote 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).]

[Footnote i-271: Becker, _op. cit._, 24.]

[Footnote i-272: _Ibid._, 27.]

[Footnote 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).]

[Footnote i-274: Cited in Wright, _op. cit._, 11.]

[Footnote 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).]