Publishers' Preface to Beacon Light of History, Volume 11, American Founders. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Kay Hand. Beacon Light of History, Volume 11, American Founders by John Lord. Publishers' Preface. Dr. Lord's Volume on American Statesmen was written some years after the issue of his Volume on Warriors and Statesmen, which was Volume 4 of his original series of Five Volumes. The wide popular acceptance of the Five Volumes encouraged him to extend the series by including, and rewriting for the purpose, others of his great range of lectures. The volume called Warriors and Statesmen, now otherwise distributed, included a number of lectures which, in this new edition, have been arranged in more natural grouping. Among them were the lectures on Hamilton and Webster. It has been deemed wise to bring these into closer relation with their contemporaries, and thus Hamilton is now placed in this volume among the other American Founders, and Webster in the Volume on American Leaders. Of the Founders there is one of whom Dr. Lord did not treat, yet whose services, especially in the popular confirmation of the Constitution by the various states, and notably in its fundamental interpretation by the United States Supreme Court, rank as vitally important. John Marshall, as Chief Justice of that Court, raised it to a lofty height in the judicial world and by his various decisions established the Constitution in its unique position as applicable to all manner of political and commercial questions. The world's marvel of combined firmness and elasticity. To quote Winthrop, as cited by Dr. Lord, it is, like one of those rocking stones reared by the druids, which the finger of a child may vibrate to its center, yet which the might of an army cannot move from its place. So important was Marshall's work, and so potent is the influence of the United States Supreme Court, that no apology is needed for introducing into this volume on Our Founders a chapter dealing with that great theme by Professor John Bassett Moore, recently Assistant Secretary of State, later Council for the Peace Commission at Paris, and now occupying the chair of International Law and Diplomacy in the School of Political Science, Columbia University, New York City. New York, September 1902. End of the Publishers Preface. Section 1 of Beacon Lights of History, Volume 11, American Founders by John Lord. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Kay Hand. Preliminary Chapter, Part 1. The American Idea, 1600 to 1775. In a survey of American institutions there seem to be three fundamental principles on which they are based. First that all men are naturally equal in rights. Second that a people cannot be taxed without their own consent. And third that they may delegate their power of self-government to representatives chosen by themselves. The remote origin of these principles it is difficult to trace. Some suppose that they are innate, appealing to consciousness, concerning which there can be no dispute or argument. Others suppose that they exist only so far as men can assert and use them, whether granted by rulers or seized by society. Some find that they arose among our Teutonic ancestors in their German forests, while still others go back to Jewish, Grecian, or Roman history for their origin. Wherever they originated their practical enforcement has been a slow and unequal growth among various peoples, and it is always the evident result of an evolution or development of civilization. In the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson asserts that all men are created equal, and that among their indisputable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nobody disputes this, and yet, looking critically into the matter, it seems strange that, despite Jefferson's own strong anti-slavery sentiments, his associates should have excluded the colored race from the common benefits of humanity, unless the Negroes in their plantations were not men at all, only things or chattels. The American people went through a great war and spent thousands of millions of dollars to maintain the indissoluble union of their states, but the events of that war and the civil reconstruction forced at the demonstration that African slaves have the same inalienable rights for recognition before the law as the free descendants of the English and the Dutch. The statement of the Declaration has been formally made good, and yet, whence came it? If we go back to the New Testament, the Great Charter of Christendom, in search of rights, we are much puzzled to find them definitely declared anywhere, but we find instead duties enjoined with great clearness and made universally binding. It is only by a series of deductions, especially from St. Paul's epistles, that we infer the right of Christian liberty, with no other check than conscience, the being made free by the Gospel of Christ emancipated from superstition and tyrannies of opinion. Yet Paul says not a word about the manumission of slaves, as a right to which they are justly entitled, any more than he urges rebellion against a constituted civil government because it is a despotism. The burden of his political injunction is the submission to authority, exhortations to patient under the load of evils and tribulations which so many have to bear without hope or relief. In the earlier Jewish jurisprudence, we find laws in relation to property which recognize natural justice as clearly as does the jurisprudence of Rome, but revolt and rebellion against bad rulers or kings, although apt to take place, were nowhere enjoined, unless royal command should militate against the sovereignty of God. The only ultimate authority. By the Hebrew writers, bad rulers are viewed as a misfortune to the people ruled, which they must learn to bear, hoping for better times, trusting in providence for relief, rather than trying to remove by violence. It is he who raises up deliverers in his good time to reign in justice and equity. If anything can be learned from the Hebrew scriptures in reference to rights, it is the injunction to obey God rather than man in matters where conscious is concerned, and this again merges into duty, but is susceptible of vast applications to conduct as controlled by individual opinion. Under Roman rule native rights fair no better. Paul could appeal from Jewish tyrants to Caesar in accordance with his rights as a Roman citizen, but his Roman citizenship had nothing to do with any inborn rights as a man. Paul could appeal to Caesar as a Roman citizen. For what? For protection? For the enjoyment of certain legal privileges which the empire had conferred upon Roman citizenship? Not for any rights which he could claim as a human being. If the Roman laws recognized any rights, it was those which the state had given, not those which are innate and inalienable, and which the state could not justly take away. I apprehend that even in the Greek and Roman republics no civil rights could be claimed except those conferred upon men as citizens, rather than as human beings. Romans certainly had no rights, and they composed half the population of the old Roman world. Rights were derived from decrees or laws, not from human consciousness. Where then did Jefferson get his ideas as to the equal rights to which men were born? Doubtless from the French philosophers of the eighteenth century, especially from Rousseau, who despite his shortcomings as a man, was one of the most original thinkers that his century produced, and one of the most influential in shaping the opinions of civilized Europe. In his contrat social, Rousseau appealed to consciousness rather than to authorities or the laws of nations. He took his stand on the principles of eternal justice in all he wrote as to civil liberties, and hence he kindled an immense enthusiasm for liberty as an inalienable right. But Rousseau came from Switzerland, where the passion for personal independence was greater than in any other part of Europe, a passion perhaps inherited from the old Teutonic nations in their forests, on which Tacitus dilates, next to their veneration for women the most interesting trait among the Germanic barbarians. No eastern nation except the ancient Persians had these traits. The law of liberty is an Occidental rather than an Oriental peculiarity, and arose among the Aryans in their European settlements. Moreover, Rousseau lived in a city where John Calvin had taught the principles of religious liberty which afterwards took root in Holland, England, Scotland and France, and created the Puritans and Huguenots. The central idea of Calvinism is the right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience enlightened by the Bible. Rousseau is no Calvinist, but the principles of religious and civil liberty are so closely connected that he may have caught their spirit at Geneva in spite of his hideous immorality and his cynical unbelief. Yet even Calvin's magnificent career in defense of the right of conscience to rebel against authority which laid the solid foundation of theology and church discipline on which Protestantism was built up arrived at such a pitch of arbitrary autocracy as to show that if liberty be human and native, authority is no less so. Whether then liberty is a privilege granted to a few or a right to which all people are justly entitled, it is bootless to discuss, but its development among civilized nations is a worthy object of historical inquiry. A late writer, Douglas Campbell, with some plausibility and considerable leaning, traces to the Dutch Republic most that is valuable in American institutions, such as town meetings, representative government, restriction of taxation by the people, free schools, toleration of religious worship, and equal laws. No doubt the influence of Holland in the 16th and 17th centuries in stimulating free inquiry, religious toleration and self-government as well as learning, commerce, manufacturers, and the arts was considerable, not only on the Puritan settlers of New England, but perhaps on England itself. No doubt the English Puritans who fled to Holland during the persecutions of Archbishop Loud learned much from a people whose religious oracle was Calvin and whose great hero was William the Silent. Mr. Motley, in the most brilliant and perhaps most learned history ever written by an American, has made a revelation of a nation here to force supposed to be dull, money-loving, and uninteresting. Two high praise cannot be given to those brave and industrious people who redeemed their morasses from the sea, who grew rich and powerful without the natural advantages of soil and climate, who fought for 80 years against the whole power of Spain, who nobly secured their independence against overwhelming forces, who increased steadily in population and wealth when obliged to open their dykes upon their cultivated fields, who established universities and institutions of learning when almost driven to despair, and who became the richest people in Europe, whitening the oceans with their ships, establishing banks and colonies, creating a new style of painting, and teaching immortal lessons in government when they occupied a country but little larger than Wales. Civilization is as proud of such a country as Holland as of Greece itself. With all this, I still believe that it is to England we must go for the origin of what we are most proud of in our institutions, much as the Dutch have taught us for which we ought to be grateful, and much as we may owe to French skeptics and Swiss religionists. This belief is confirmed by a book I have just read by Hannes Taylor on, The Origin and Growth of the English Constitution. It is not an artistic history by any means, but one in which the author has brought out the recent investigations of Edward Freeman, John Richard Green, Bishop Stubbs, Professor Gnest of Berlin, and others, who with consummate learning have gone to the root of things, some of whom indeed are dry writers, regardless of style, disdainful of anything but facts, which they have treated with true scholastic minuteness. It appears from these historians, as quoted by Taylor and from other authorities to which the earlier writers on English history had no access, that the germs of our free institutions existed among the Anglo-Saxons, and were developed to a considerable extent among their Norman conquerors in the 13th and 14th centuries, when barons extorted charters from kings and their necessities, and when the common people of Saxon origin secured valuable rights and liberties, which they afterward lost under the Tudor and Stuart princes. I need not go into a detail of these. It is certain that in the reign of Edward I, 1274 to 1307, himself a most accomplished and liberal, several ruler, the English House of Commons had become very powerful and had secured in Parliament the right of originating money bills and the control of every form of taxation. On the principle that the people could not be taxed without their own consent. To this principle kings gave their assent reluctantly indeed, and made use of all their statecraft to avoid compliance with it, in spite of their charters and their royal oaths. But it was a political idea which held possession in the minds of the people from the reign of Edward I to that of Henry IV. During this period all citizens had the right of suffrage in their boroughs and towns, in the election of certain magistrates. They were indeed mostly controlled by the Lord of the Manor and by the parish priest, but liberty was not utterly extinguished in England, even by Norman kings and nobles. It existed to a greater degree than in any continental state out of Italy. It cannot be doubted that there was a constitutional government in England as early as in the time of Edward I, and that the power of kings was even then checked by parliamentary laws. In Freeman's Norman conquest, it appears that the old English town, or borough, is purely of Teutonic origin. Within this local self-government is distinctly recognized, although it subsequently was controlled by the parish priest and the Lord of the Manor under the influence of the papacy and feudalism. In other words, the ancient jurisdiction of the Thunmoth, or town meeting, survived in the parish vestry and the menorial court. The guild system, according to Kendall, had its origin in England at a very early date, and a great influence was exercised on popular liberty by the meetings of the various guilds, composed as they were of small freemen. The guild law became the law of the town with the right to elect its magistrates. The old Reeve or Baeliff was supplanted by mayor and alderman, and the practice of sending the Reeve and four men as the representatives of the township to the Shiremoot widened into the practice of sending four discreet men as representatives of the county to confer with the king in his great council, touching the affairs of the kingdom. In 1376 says Taylor, the commons intent upon correcting the evil practices of the sheriff, petitioned that the knights of the Shire might be chosen by common election of the better folk of the Shires, and not nominated by the sheriff, and Edward III assented to the request. I will not dwell further on the origin and maintenance of free institutions in England, while continental states were oppressed by all the miseries of royalty and feudalism. But beyond all the charters and laws which modern criticism had raked out from buried or forgotten records, there is something in the character of the English yeoman, which even better explains what is most noticeable in the settlement of the American colonies, especially in New England. The restless passion for personal independence, the patience, the energy, the enterprise, even the narrowness and bigotry which marked the English middle classes in all the crises of their history stand out in bold relief in the character of the New England settlers. All their traits are not interesting, but they are English, and represent the peculiarities of the Anglo-Saxons rather than of the Normans. In England they produced a Latimer rather than a Cranmer, a Cromwell rather than a Stanley. The Saxon yeomanry at the time of Chaucer were not aristocratic, but democratic. They had an intense hatred of Norman arrogance and aggression. Their home life was dull, but virtuous. They cared but little for the sports of the chase, compared with the love which the Norman aristocracy always had for such pleasures. It was among them that two hundred years later the reformed doctrines of Calvin took the deepest hold, since these were indissolubly blended with civil liberty. There was something in the blood of the English Puritans which fitted them to be the settlers of a new country, independent of cravings for religious liberty. In their new homes, in the cheerless climate of New England, we see traits which did not characterize the Dutch settlers of New York. We find no patroons, no ambition to be great landed proprietors, no desire to live like country squires as in Virginia. They were more restless and enterprising than their Dutch neighbors and with greater public spirit in dangers. They loved the discussion of abstract questions which it was difficult to settle. They produced a greater number of orators and speculative divines in proportion to their wealth and number than the Dutch who were flagmatic and fond of ease and comfort, and did not like to be disturbed by the discussion of novelties. They had more of the spirit of progress than the colonists of New York. There was a quiet growth among them of those ideas which favored political independence, while also there was more intolerance, both social and religious. They hanged witches and persecuted the Quakers. They kept Sunday with more rigor than the Dutch and were less fond of social festivities. They were not so genial and frank in their social gatherings, although fonder of excitement. Among all the new settlers, however, both English and Dutch, we see one element in common, a devotion to the cause of liberty and hatred of repression and wrong, learned from the weavers of Ghent as well as from the burgers of Exeter and Bristol. In another respect, the Dutch and English resembled each other. They were equally fond of the sea and of commercial adventures, and hence were noted fishermen as well as thrifty merchants. And they equally respected learning and gave to all their children the rudiments of education. At the time the Great Puritan movement began, the English were chiefly agriculturists and the Dutch were merchants and manufacturers. The wool was exported from England to purchase the cloth into which it was woven. There were 60,000 weavers in Ghent alone, and the towns and cities of Flanders and Holland were richer and more beautiful than those of England. It will be remembered that New York, New Amsterdam, was settled by the Dutch in 1613 and Jamestown, Virginia, by the Elizabethan colonies in 1607, so that both of these colonies antedated the coming of the pilgrims to Massachusetts in 1620. It is true that most of the histories of the United States have been written by men of New England origin, and that therefore, by natural predilection, they have made more of the New England influence than of the other elements among the colonies. Yet this is not altogether the result of prejudice, for despite the splendid role of soldiers and statesmen from the middle and southern sections of the country, who bore so large a share in the critical events of the transition era of the Revolution, it remains that the brunt of resistance to tyranny fell first and heaviest on New England, and that the principal influences that prepared the general sentiment of revolt, union, war, and independence proceeded from those colonies. The Puritan exodus from England, chiefly from the eastern counties, first to Holland and then to New England, was at its height during the persecutions of Archbishop Loud in the reign of Charles I. The pilgrims, as the small company of separatists were called, who followed their Puritanism to the extent of breaking entirely away from the church, and who left Holland for America, came to barren shores, after having learned many things from the Dutch. Their pilgrimage was taken, not with the view of improving their fortunes, like the more aristocratic settlers of Virginia, but to develop their peculiar ideas. It must be borne in mind that the civilization they brought with them was a growth from Teutonic ancestry, an evolution from sacks and times, although it is difficult to trace the successive developments during the Norman rule. The pilgrims brought with them to America an intense love of liberty and consequently an equally intense hatred of arbitrary taxation. Their enjoyment of religious rights was surpassed only by their aversion to episcopacy. They were a plain and simple people who abhorred the vices of the patrician class at home, but they loved learning and sought to extend knowledge as the bulwark of free institutions. The Puritans who followed them within ten years and settled Massachusetts Bay and Salem were direct from England. They were not separatists, like the pilgrims, but Presbyterians. They hated episcopacy, but would have the church and state united under Presbyterianism. They were intolerant, as against Roger Williams and the witches, and at first perpetrated cruelties like those from which they themselves had fled. But something in the free air of the big continent developed the spirit of liberty among them until they too, like the pilgrims, became independents and separatists, and so congregationalists rather their Presbyterians. End of Section 1 Section 2 of Beacon Lights of History, Volume 11, American Founders by John Lorde. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Kay Hand Preliminary Chapter, Part 2 The first thing we note among these New Englanders was their town meetings, derived from the ancient folk moat in which they elected their magistrates and imposed upon themselves the necessary taxes for schools, highways, and officers of the law. They formed self-governed communities who selected for rulers their ablest and fittest men, marked for their integrity and intelligence, grave, austere, unselfish, and incorruptible. Money was of little account in comparison with character. The earliest settlers were the picked and chosen men of the Yeomanry of England, and generally thrifty and prosperous. Their leaders had had high social positions in their English homes, and their ministers were chiefly graduates of the universities, some of whom were fine scholars in both Hebrew and Greek, had been settled in important parishes, and would have attained high ecclesiastical rank had they not been nonconformists, opposed to the ritual rather than the theological tenants of the English church, as established by Elizabeth. Of course, they were Calvinists, more rigid even than their brethren in Geneva. The Bible was to them the ultimate standard of authority, civil and religious. The only restriction on suffrage was its being conditioned on church membership. They aspired, probably from Calvinistic influence, but aspired in vain to establish a theocracy, borrowed somewhat from that of the Jews. I do not agree with Mr. John Fisk in his able and interesting history of the beginnings of New England, that the Puritan appealed to reason. I think that the Bible was their ultimate authority in all matters pertaining to religion. As the civil government, the reason may have had a great place in their institutions, but these grew up from their surroundings, rather than from study or the experience of the past. There was more originality in them than it is customary to suppose. They were the development of Old England life in New England, but grew in many respects away from the parent to stock. The next thing of mark among the colonists was their love of learning. All children were taught to read and write. They had been settled at Plymouth, Salem and Boston less than 20 years when they established Harvard College, chiefly for the education ministers, who took the highest social rank in the colonies and were the most influential people. Lawyers and physicians were not so well educated. As for lawyers, there was but little need of them since disputes were mostly settled either by the ministers or the select men of the towns who were the most able and respectable men of the community. What the theocratic Puritans desired the most was educated ministers and school masters. In 1641 a school was established in Hartford, Connecticut, which was free to the poor. By 1642 every township in Massachusetts had a school master and in 1665 everyone embracing 50 families, a common school. If the town had over 100 families it had a grammar school in which Latin was taught. It is probable, however, that the idea of popular education originated with the Dutch. Elizabeth and her ministers did not believe in the education of the masses, of which we read but little until the 19th century. As early as 1582 the estates of Friesland decreed that the inhabitants of towns and villages should provide good and able reformed school masters so that when the English non-conformist dwelt and laden in 1609 the school, according to Motley, had become the common property of the people. The next thing we note among the colonists of New England is the confederation of towns and the representation in the legislature or the general court. This was formed to settle questions of common interest to facilitate commerce, to establish a judicial system, to devise means for protection against hostile Indians, to raise taxes to support the common government. The legislature, composed of delegates chosen by the towns, exercised most of the rights of sovereignty, especially in the direction of military affairs and the collection of revenue. The governors were chosen by the people in secret ballot until the liberal charter granted by Charles I was revoked and a royal governor was placed over the four confederated colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. This confederation was in a federal union, but simply a league for mutual defense against the Indians. Each colony managed its own internal affairs without interference from England until 1684. Down to this time the colonies had been too insignificant to attract much notice in England and hence were left to develop their institutions in their own way, according to the circumstances which controlled them and the dangers with which they were surrounded. One thing is clear, the infant colonies governed themselves and elected their own magistrates from the governor to the selectman, and this was true as well of the middle and southern as of the eastern colonies. Even in Virginia, quite as large a proportion of the people took part in elections as in Massachusetts, it is difficult to find any similar instance of uncontrolled self-government, either in Holland or England at any period of their history. Either the king or the parliament or the Lord of the Manor or the parish priest controlled appointments or interfered with them, and even when the people directly selected their magistrates, suffrage was not universal as it gradually came to be in the colonies with slight restrictions, one of the features of the development of the American institutions. Another thing we notice among the colonies which had no inconsiderable influence on their growth was the use of firearms among all the people to defend themselves from hostile Indians. Every man had his musket and powder flask and there were several periods when it was not safe even to go to church unarmed. Thus were the new settlers inured to danger and self-defense and bloody contests with their savage foes. They grew up, practically soldiers, and formed a firm material for an effective militia, able to face regular troops and even engage in effective operations, as seen afterwards in the conquest of Lewisburg by Sir William Pepperall, a kiddery merchant. But for the universal use of firearms, either for war or game, it is doubtful if the colonies could have won their independence. And it is interesting to note that while the free carrying of weapons in these later days at least is apt to result in rough lawlessness as in our frontier regions, among the serious and law-abiding colonists of those early times it was not so. This was probably due both to their strict religious obligations and to the presence of their wives and children. The unrestricted selection of parish ministers by the people was no slight cause of New England growth and was also a peculiar custom or institution not seen in the mother country where appointment to parishes was chiefly in the hands of their aristocracy or the crown. Either the king or the lord chancellor or the universities or the nobility or the county squires had the gift of livings, often bestowed on ignorant or worldly or inefficient men, the younger sons of men of rank who made no mark and were incapable of instruction or indifferent to their duties. In New England, the minister of the parish was elected by the church members or congregation and if he could not edify his heroes by his sermon or if his character did not command respect, his occupation was gone or his salary was not paid. In consequence, the ministers were generally gifted men, well educated and in sympathy with the people. Who can estimate the influence of such religious teachers on everything that pertained to New England life and growth on morals, on education, on religious and civil institutions? Although we have traced the early characteristics of the New England colonists, especially because it was in New England first and chiefly that the spirit of resistance to English oppression grew to a sentiment for independence, it is not to be overlooked that the essential elements of self-controlling manhood were common throughout all the colonies. And everywhere it seems to have grown out of the germ of a devotion to religious freedom, developed on a secluded continent where men were shut in by the sea on one hand and perils from the fierce Aborigines on the other. The Puritans of New England, the Hollander's of New York, Penn's Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the Huguenots of South Carolina, the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania were all of Calvinistic training and came from European persecutions. All were rigidly puritanical in their social and sabbatarian observances. Even the Episcopalians of Virginia where a larger Norman English stock was settled with infusions of French Huguenot blood and were slavery bred more men of wealth and broader social distinctions were sternly religious in their laws although far more lax and pleasure-loving in their customs. Everywhere this new life of Englishmen in a new land developed their self-reliance, their power of work, their skill in arms, their habit of common association for common purposes and their keen intelligent knowledge of political conditions with a tenacious grip on their rights as Englishmen. In the enjoyment then of unknown civil and religious liberties of equal laws and a mild government, the colonies rapidly grew in spite of Indian wars. In New England they had also to combat a hard soil and a cold climate. Their equals in rugged strength, in domestic virtues and religious veneration were not to be seen on the face of the whole earth. They may have been intolerant, near-minded, brusque and rough in manners and with little love or appreciation of art. They may have been opinionated and self-sufficient but they were loyal to duties and to their invisible king. Above all things they were tenacious of their rights and scrupled no sacrifices to secure them and to perpetuate them among their children. It is not my object to describe the history of the Puritans after they had made a firm settlement in the primeval forests down to the Revolutionary War but only to glance at the institutions they created or adopted which have extended more or less over all parts of North America and laid the foundation for a magnificent empire. At the close of the Seven Years War in 1763 which ended in the conquest of Canada from the French by the combined forces of England and her American subjects, the population of the colonies in New England and the middle and southern sections was not far from two millions. Success in war and some development in wealth naturally engendered self-confidence. I apprehend that the secret and unavowed consciousness of power creating the desire to be a nation rather than a mere colony dependent on Great Britain or if colonies yet free and untrammeled by the home government had as much to do with the struggle for independence as the discussion of rights at least among the leaders of the people both clerical and lay. The feeling that they were not represented in parliament was not of much count for more than three quarters of the English at home had no representation at all. To be represented in parliament was utterly impracticable and everybody knew it. But when arbitrary measures were adopted by the English government in defiance of charters the popular orators made a good point in magnifying the injustice of taxation without representation. The colonies had been marvelously prospered and if not rich they were powerful and were spreading toward the indefinite and unexplored West. The Seven Years' War had developed their military capacity. It was New England's troops which had taken Louisbourg. The charm of British invincibility had been broken by Braddock's defeat. The Americans had lured self-reliance in their wars with the Indians and had nearly exterminated them along the coast without British aid. The colonists 3,000 miles away from England had begun to feel their importance and to realize the difficulty of their conquest by any forces that England could command. The self-exaggeration common to all new countries was universal. Few as the people were, compared with the population of the mother country their imagination was boundless. They felt if they did not clearly foresee their inevitable future. The North American continent was theirs by actual settlement and long habits of self-government and they were determined to keep it. Why should they be dependent on a country that crippled their commerce, that stifled their manufacturers, that regulated their fisheries, that appointed their governors and regarded them with selfish ends? As a people to be taxed in order that English merchants and manufacturers should be enriched? They did not feel weak or dependent. What new settlers in the Western wilds ever felt that they could not take care of their farms and their flocks and everything which they owned? Doubtless such sentiments animated far-reaching men to whom liberty was so sweet and power so enchanting. They could not openly avow them without danger of arrest until resistance was organized. They contented themselves with making the most of oppressive English legislation to stimulate the people to discontent and rebellion. Ambition was hidden under the burden of taxation which was to make them slaves. Although among the leaders there was great veneration for English tradition and law, the love they professed for England was rather an ideal sentiment than an actual feeling except among aristocrats and men of rank. Nor was it natural that the colonists, especially the Puritans, should cherish much real affection for a country that had persecuted them and driven them away. They felt that not so much from old England as new England was their home in which new sentiments had been born and new aspirations had been cultivated. It was very seldom that a colonist visited England at all and except among the recent comers, their English relatives were for the most part unknown. Loyalty to the king was gradually supplanted by devotion to the institutions which they had adopted or themselves created. In a certain sense, they admitted that they were still subject to Great Britain but 150 years of self-government had nearly destroyed this feeling of allegiance, especially when they were aroused to deny the right of the English government to tax them without their own consent. With the denial of the right of taxation by England naturally came resistance. The first line of opposition arose under a new attempt of England to enforce the Sugar Act which was passed to prevent the American importation of sugar and molasses from the West Indies in exchange for lumber and agricultural products. It had been suffered to fall into abeyance but suddenly in 1761 the government issued Ritz of Assistance or search warrants authorizing customs officers to enter private stores and dwellings to find imported goods not necessarily known but when even suspected to be there. This was first brought to bear in Massachusetts where the colonists spiritedly refused to submit and took the matter into the courts. James Otis, a young Boston lawyer, was advocate for the admiralty but, resigning his commission, he appeared on behalf of the people and his fiery eloquence aroused the colonists to a high pitch of revolutionary resolve. John Adams, who heard the speech declared, then and there American independence was born. Independence however was not yet in most men's minds but the spirit of resistance to arbitrary acts of the sovereign was unmistakably aroused. In 1763 a no less memorable contest arose in Virginia when the king refused to sanction a law of the colonial legislature imposing a tax which the clergy were unwilling to submit to. This too was tested in the courts and a young lawyer named Patrick Henry defended so eloquently the right of Virginia to make her own laws in spite of the king that his passionate oratory inflamed all that colony with the same treasonable spirit. But the center of resistance was in Boston where in 1765 the people were incited to enthusiasm by the eloquence of James Otis and Samuel Adams in reference to still another restrictive tax, the Stamp Act, which could not be enforced except by overwhelming military forces and was wisely repealed by parliament. This was followed by the imposition of duties on wine, oil, fruits, glass, paper, lead, colors and especially tea and indirect taxation but equally obnoxious. In increasing popular excitement the sending of troops, collision between the soldiers and the people in 1770 and in 1773, the rebellious act of the famous tea party when citizens and the guise of Indians emptied the chests of tea on board merchant men into Boston Harbor. Soon after the Boston Port Bill was passed which shut up American commerce and created immense irritation. Then were sent to the rebellious city regiments of British troops to enforce the acts of parliament and finally the troops were at the people's expense quartered in the town which was treated as a conquered city. In view of these disturbances and hostile acts the First Continental Congress of the different colonies met in Philadelphia, September 1774 and issued a petition to the king and addressed to the people of Great Britain and an address to the colonies thus making a last effort for conciliation. The British government obstinately refusing to listen to its own wisest counselors replied with restraining acts forbidding participation in the fisheries and other remunerative sea work. Moreover declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion in consequence of which the whole province prepared for war. At the same time the colonial legislatures promptly approved and agreed to sustain the acts of the Continental Congress. Nor did they neglect to appoint committees of safety for calling out minute men and committees of supplies for arming and provisioning them. General Gage, the British military commander in Massachusetts attempted to destroy the collection of ammunition and stores at Concord and in consequence on April 19th, 1775 the battle of Lexington was fought followed in June by that of Bunker Hill. Thus began the American Revolution which ended in the independence of the 13 colonies and their federal union as states under a common constitution. As the empire of the union expanded as power grew as opportunities increased so did obstructions arise and complications multiply. But what I have called the American idea which I conceive to be liberty under law has proved equal to all emergencies. The marvelous success with which American institutions have provided for the development of the Anglo-Saxon idea of individual independence without endangering the common wheel and rule has been largely due to the arising of great and wise administrators of the public will. It is to a consideration of some of the chief of these notable men who have guided the fortunes of the American people from the revolutionary period to the close of the Civil War that I invite the attention of the reader of the next two volumes. Those who have not materially modified the condition of public affairs I admit to discuss at large. Eminent as have been their talents and services. Consequently, I passed by the administrations of all the presidents since Jefferson except those of Jackson and Lincoln the former having made a new departure in national policy and the latter having brought to a conclusion a great war. I consider that Franklin, Hamilton, Clay, Webster, and Calhoun did more than any of the presidents except those I have mentioned to affect the destinies of the country and therefore I could not omit them. There will necessarily be some repetitions of fact in discussing the relations of different men to the same group of events but this has been so far as possible avoided. And since my aim is the portrayal of character and influence rather than the narration of historical annals I have omitted vast numbers of interesting details selecting only those of salient and vital importance. End of section two. Section three of Begin Lights of History, volume 11 American Founders by John Lorde. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Kay Hand. Benjamin Franklin part one. 1706 to 1790. Diplomacy. At the commencement of the Revolutionary War the most prominent and influential man in the colonies was perhaps Benjamin Franklin then 69 years of age. Certainly it cannot be doubted that he was one of the most illustrious founders of the American Republic. Among the great statesmen of the period his fame is second only to that of Washington. I will not dwell on his early life since that part of his history is better known than that of any other of our great men from the charming autobiography which he began to write but never cared to finish. He was born in Boston, January 17th, 1706. The youngest but two of 17 children. His father was a narrow-minded English Puritan but respectable and conscientious, a tello chandler by trade. And his ancestors for several generations had been blacksmiths in the little village of Ecton in Northamptonshire, England. He was a precocious boy not over promising from a moral or religious point of view but in ordinarily fond of reading such books as were accessible, especially those of a skeptical character. He had no sympathy with the theological doctrines then in vogue in his native town. At eight years of age he was sent to a grammar school and at 10 he was taken from it to assist his father in soap boiling but showing a repugnance to this sort of business he was apprenticed to his brother James at the age of 12 to learn the art or trade of a printer. At 15 we find him writing anonymously for his brother's newspaper which had just been started an article which gave offense to the provincial government and led to a quarrel with his brother who it seems was harsh and tyrannical. Boston at this time was a flourishing town of probably about 10,000 or 12,000 people governed practically by the Calvinistic ministers and composed chiefly of merchants, fishermen and ship carpenters yet all tolerably versed in the rudiments of education and in theological speculations. The young Benjamin having no liking for the opinions, manners and customs of this straight laced town or for his cold and overbearing brother concluded in his 17th year to run away from his apprenticeship. He found himself in a few days in New York without money or friends or employment. The printer's trade was not so flourishing in the Dutch capital as in the Yankee one he had left and he wandered on to Philadelphia the largest town in the colonies whose inhabitants were chiefly Quakers thrifty, prosperous, tolerant and kind-hearted. Fortunately there were several printing presses in this settlement and after a while through the kindness of a stranger who took an interest in him and pitted his forlorn condition wandering up and down Market Street poorly dressed and with a half-penny roll in his hand or who was attracted by his bright and honest face, frank manners and expressive utterances. Franklin got work with small wages. His industry and ability soon enabled him to make a better appearance and attract friends by his uncommon social qualities. It does not appear that Franklin was particularly frugal as a young man. He spent his money lavishly on convivial entertainments of which he was the life among his humble companions a favorite not only with them but with all the girls whose acquaintance he made. So remarkable was he for wit, good-nature and intelligence that at the age of 18 he attracted the notice of the governor of the province who promised to set him up in business and encouraged him to go to England to purchase types and a printing press. But before he sailed having earned money enough to buy a fine suit of clothes and watch he visited his old home and paraded his success with indiscreet ostentation much to the disgust of his brother to whom he had been apprenticed. On the young man's return to Philadelphia the governor, Sir William Keith gave him letters to some influential people in England with promises of pecuniary aid which however he never kept so that when Franklin arrived in London he found himself without money or friends. But he was not discouraged. He soon found employment as a printer and retrieved his fortunes, leading a gay life and spending his money as fast as he earned it at theaters and in social enjoyments with boon companions of doubtful respectability. Disgusted with London or disappointed in his expectations he returned to Philadelphia in 1726 as a mercantile clerk for a Mr. Durham who shortly after died and Franklin resumed his old employment with his former employer, Chimer, the printer. On his long voyage home he had had time for reflection and resolved to turn over a new leaf and become more frugal and respectable. He would not give up his social pleasures but would stick to his business and employ his leisure time in profitable reading. This Mr. Parton calls his regeneration. Others might view it as the completion of sowing his wild oats. He certainly made himself very useful to the old visionary Chimer who printed banknotes for New Jersey by making improvements on the copper plate but he soon left this employment and set up for himself in partnership with another young man. The young printers started fairly and hired the lower part of a house in Market Street most of which they sublet. Their first job brought them but five shillings. Soon after they were employed to print a voluminous history of the Quakers at a very small profit but the work was so well done that it led to a great increase of business. The idea then occurred to Franklin to print a newspaper, there being but one in the colony and that miserably dull. His old employer Chimer, hearing of his purpose accidentally, stole the march on him and started a newspaper on his own account but was soon obliged to sell out to Franklin and Meredith not being able to manage the undertaking. The Pennsylvania Gazette proved a great success and was remarkable for its brilliant and original articles which brought the editor then but 23 years old into immediate notice. He had become frugal and industrious but had not as yet renounced his hilarious habits which could scarcely be called moral. For about this time a son was born to him of a woman whose name was never publicly known. This son was educated by Franklin and became in later years the Royal Governor of New Jersey. Franklin was unfortunate in his business partner who fell into drinking habits so that he was obliged to dissolve the partnership. In connection with his printing office he opened a small stationers shop and sold blanks, paper, ink, and peddler's wares. His business increased so much that he took an apprentice and hired a journeyman from London. He now gave up fishing and shooting and convivial habits and devoted himself to money making but not exclusively since at this time he organized a club of 12 members called the Junto a sort of debating and reading society. This club contrived to purchase about 50 books which were lent round and formed the nucleus of a circulating library which grew into the famous Franklin library one of the prominent institutions of Philadelphia. In 1730 at the age of 24 he married Deborah Reed a pretty kind-hearted and frugal woman with whom he lived happily for 44 years. She was a true help-meat who stitched his pamphlets folded his newspapers, waited on customers at the shop and nursed and tended his illegitimate child. After his marriage, Franklin gave up what bad habits he had acquired though he never lost his enjoyment of society.  He also somewhat amended his religious creed and avowed his belief in a superintending providence and his own moral accountability to God discharging conscientiously the duties to be logically deduced from these beliefs submission to the divine will and kindly acts to his neighbors. He was benevolent, sincere, and just in his dealings abhorring deceit, flattery, falsehood, injustice, and all dishonesty. From this time Franklin rapidly gained in public esteem for his integrity, his sagacity, and his unrivaled good sense. His humor, wit, and conversational ability caused his society to be universally sought. He was a good judge of books for his infant library and he took a great interest in everything connected with education. He was the life of his literary club and made reading fashionable among the Quakers who composed the leading citizens of the town. A people tolerant but narrow, frugal but appreciative of good things to eat, kind-hearted but not remarkable for generosity except to the poor of their own denomination, law abiding but not progressive, modest and unassuming but conscious and conceited as most self-educated people are. It is a wonder that a self-educated man like Franklin was so broad and liberal in all his views. An impersonation of good nature and catholicity ever open to new convictions and respectful of opinions he did not share provoking mirth and jollity yet never disturbing the placidity of a social gathering by irritating sarcasm. Franklin's newspaper gave him prodigious influence both social and political in the infancy of journalism. It was universally admitted to be the best in the country. Its circulation rapidly increased and it was well managed financially. James Parton tells us that Franklin originated the modern system of business advertising. His essays or articles as we now call them had a great point, fervacity and wit and soon became famous. They thus prepared the way for his almanac originally titled Richard Saunders and selling for five pence. The sayings of poor Richard in this little publication combined more wisdom and good sense in a brief compass than any other book published in America during the 18th century. It reached the firesides of almost every hamlet in the colonies. The New England divines thought them deficient in spirituality rather worldly in their form and useful only in helping people to get on in their daily pursuits. But the 18th century was not a spiritual age in comparison with the age which preceded it either in Europe or America. The acute and exhaustive treatises of the 17th century on God on fixed fate free will for knowledge absolute on the foundation of morals on consciousness as a guide in metaphysical speculation had lost much of their prestige if Jonathan Edwards immortal deductions may be considered an exception. Prosperity and wars and adventures had made men material and political themes had more charm than theological discussion. Pascal had given place to Hobbes and Voltaire and Hooker to Paley. In such a state of society poor Richard inculcating thrift and economy in English as plain and lucid as that of Kabat half a century later had an immense popularity. For 25 years it annually made its way into nearly every household in the land. Such a proverbial philosophy as honesty is the best policy necessity never made a good bargain fish and visitors smell in three days God heals and the doctors take the fees keep your eyes open before marriage and half shut afterwards to bear other people's afflictions everyone has courage enough and to spare savored of a blended irony and cynicism exceedingly attractive to men of the world and wise old women even in New England parishes whatever Calvinistic ministers might say of the higher life. The sale of the Almanac was greater than that of the pilgrims progress and the wealth of Franklin stood out in market contrast with the poverty of Bunyan a century before. The business enterprise of the gifted publisher at this time was a most noticeable thing. He began to import books from England and to print anything that had money in it from political tracks to popular poems from the sermons of Wesley to the essays of Cicero. He made no mistakes as to the popular taste. He became rich because he was sagacious and an oracle because he was rich as well as because he was wise. Everybody asked his advice and his replies were like courteous and witty although sometimes ironical. Friend Franklin said a noted Quaker lawyer thou knowest everything kinst thou tell me how I am to preserve my small beer in the backyard for I find that my neighbors are tapping it for me. Put a barrel of Madeira beside it replied the sage. In 1736 Franklin was elected clerk of the General Assembly a position which brought more business than honor or emolument. It secured his acquaintance with prominent men many of whom became his friends for it was one of his gifts to win hearts. It also made him acquainted with public affairs. Its chief advantage however was that it gave him the public printing. His appointment in 1737 as postmaster in Philadelphia served much the same purposes. With increase of business the result of industry and good work and of influence based on character he was when but 30 years old one of the most prominent citizens of Philadelphia. His success as a businessman was settled. He had the best printing jobs in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware. No one could compete with him successfully. He inspired confidence while he enlarged his friendships to which he was never indifferent. Whatever he touched turned to gold. His almanac was a mine of wealth. The sermency printed and the school books he manufactured sold equally well. With constantly increasing prosperity he kept a level head and lived with simplicity over his shop. Most businessmen lived over their shops in both England and America at that period. He got up early in the morning worked nine or 10 hours a day, spent his evenings in reading and study and went to bed at 10 finding time to keep up his Latin and to acquire French, Spanish and Italian to make social visits and play chess of which game he was extravagantly fond till he was 80 years old. His income from business and investments was not far from $10,000 a year. A large sum in those days when there was not a millionaire in the whole country except perhaps among the Virginia planters. Franklin was not ambitious to acquire a large fortune. He only desired a competency on which he might withdraw to the pursuit of higher ends than printing books. He had the profound conviction that great attainments in science or literature required easy and independent circumstances. It is indeed possible for genius to surmount any obstacles but how few men have reached famous philosophers or historians or even poets without leisure and freedom from pecuniary cares. I cannot recall a great history that has been written by a poor man in any age or country unless he had a pension or office of some kind involving duties more or less nominal which gave him both leisure and his daily bread like Hume as a librarian in Edinburgh or Neander as a professor in Berlin. Franklin, after about 20 years of assiduous business and fortunate investments was able to retire on an income of about $4,000 a year which in those times was a comfortable independence anywhere. He retired with universal respect of the community both as a businessman and a man of culture. Thus far his career was not extraordinary not differing much from that of thousands of others in the mercantile history of this country or any other country. By industry, sagacity and thrift he had simply surmounted the necessity of work and had so improved his leisure hours by reading and study as to be on an intellectual quality with anybody in the most populous and wealthy city in the country. Had he died before 1747 his name probably would not have descended to our times. He would have had only a local reputation as a philanthropical, intelligent and successful businessman, a printer by trade who could both write and talk well but was not able to make a better speech on a public occasion than many others who had no pretension to fame. But a new career was opened to Franklin with the attainment of leisure and independence, the career of a scientific investigator. The subject which most interested him was electricity just then exciting great interest in Europe. In 1746 he attended in Boston a lecture on electricity by Dr. Spence of Scotland which induced him to make experiments himself the result of which was to demonstrate to his mind the identity of the electrical current with lightning. What the new mysterious power was of course he could not tell nor could anyone else. All he knew was that sparks under certain conditions were emitted from clothing, furs, amber, jet, glass, ceiling wax and other substances when excited by friction and that the power thus producing the electric sparks would repel and attract. That amber when rubbed possesses the property of attracting and repelling light bodies was known to Thales and Pliny and subsequent philosophers discovered that other substances also were capable of electrical excitation. In process of time Otto Gerke added to these simple discoveries that of electric light, still further established by Isaac Newton with his glass glow. A Dutch philosopher at Leiden having observed that excited electrics soon lost their electricity in the open air, especially when the air was full of moisture conceived the idea that the electricity of bodies might be retained by surrounding them with bodies which did not conduct it. And in 1745 the Leiden jar was invented which led to the knowledge that the force of electricity could be extended through an indefinite circuit. The French savants conveyed the electric current through a circuit of 12,000 feet. It belonged to Franklin however to raise the knowledge of electricity to the dignity of a science. By a series of experiments extending from 1747 to 1760 he established the fact that electricity is not created by friction but merely collected from its state of diffusion through other matter to which it has been attracted. He showed further that all the phenomena produced by electricity had their counterparts in lightning. As it was obvious that thunder clouds contained an immense quantity of the electrical element he devised a means to draw it from the clouds by rods erected on elevated buildings. As this was not sufficiently demonstrative he succeeded at length in drawing the lightning from the clouds by means of a kite and silken string so as to ignite spirits and other combustible substances by an electric spark similar to those from a Leiden jar. To utilize his discovery of the identity of lightning with electricity he erected lightning rods to protect buildings that is to convey the lightning from the overhanging clouds through the conductors to the ground. The importance of these lightning rods was doubtless exaggerated. It is now thought by high scientific authorities that tall trees around a house are safer conductors in a thunderstorm than metallic rods but his invention was universally prized most highly for more than 100 years and his various further experiments and researches raised his fame as a philosopher throughout Europe. His house was a museum of electrical apparatus and he became the foremost electrician in the world. His essays on the subject were collected and printed abroad and translated into several languages and among the scientists and philosophers of Europe he was the best known American of his time. While at home both Harvard and Yale colleges conferred on this self-educated printer's apprentice the degree of master of arts. The inquiring mind of Franklin did not rest with experiments in the heavens. As a wealthy and independent citizen of Philadelphia he interested himself in all matters of public improvement. He founded a philosophical society to spread useful knowledge of all kinds. He laid the foundation of what is now the University of Pennsylvania and secured a charter from George II but he had little sympathy with the teachings of dead languages attaching much more importance to the knowledge of French and Spanish than of Latin and Greek. We see in all his public improvements the utilitarian spirit which has marked the genius of this country but a spirit directed to philanthropic channels. Hence he secured funds to build a hospital which has grown into one of the largest in the United States. He established the first fire company in Philadelphia as well as the first fire insurance company. He induced the citizens of Philadelphia to pave and sweep their streets which were almost impassable in rainy weather. He reorganized the night watch of the town. He improved the street lighting. He was the trustee of a society to aid German immigrants. He started a volunteer military organization for defense of the state against the Indians. He made a new fertilizer for the use of farmers. He invented the open Franklin stove to save heat and remedy the intolerable smoky chimneys which the large flues of the time made very common. He introduced into Pennsylvania the culture of the vine. In short he was always on the alert to improve the material condition of the people. Nor did he neglect their intellectual improvement inciting them to the formation of debating societies and founding libraries. His intent however was avowedly utilitarian to supply the vulgar wants of mankind which he placed above any form of spiritual philosophy inculcating always the worldly expediency of good character and the poor economy of vice. Herein he agreed with Macaulay's idea of progress as brought out in his essay on Lord Bacon. He never soared beyond this theory in his views of life and duty. The puritanic idea of spiritual loftiness he never reached and never appreciated. End of section three. Section four of Beacon Lights of History volume 11, American Founders by John Lorde. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Kay Hand. Benjamin Franklin part two. But it was not as a public spirited citizen nor as a successful man of business nor even as a scientific investigator that Franklin earned his permanent fame. In each of these respects, he has been surpassed by men of whom little is known. These activities might have elevated him into notice and distinction but would not have made him an immortal benefactor to his country. It was his services as a diplomatist and a political oracle united with his patriotism and wisdom that gave to him his extraordinary prominence in American history. It should be remarked, however, that before his diplomatic career began, Franklin had become exceptionally familiar with the affairs of the colonies. We have already noted his appointment as postmaster of Philadelphia in 1737. This experience led to his employment by the postmaster general of the colonies in regulating the accounts of that widely extended department and to Franklin's appointment in 1753 to the head of it, which greatly increased his specific knowledge of men and affairs throughout the whole land. Besides this, he had gained some political experience as a member of the provincial general assembly of which he had been clerk for 20 years and thus was well acquainted with public men and measures. The assembly consisted of only 40 members who were in constant antagonism with the governor, James Hamilton, whom the pens, the proprietaries of the province had appointed to look after their interests. This official was a narrow-minded, intriguing Englishman while the sons of William Penn themselves were selfish and grasping men living in England far distant from their possessions and regarding themselves simply as English landlords of a vast estate. Under the royal charter granted by Charles II to William Penn, his heirs exacted 30,000 pounds yearly from the farmers as rent for their lands, more than they could afford to pay. But when, in 1756, at the beginning of the Seven Years' War, French and Indian hostilities put the whole province in jeopardy and it became necessary for the provincial legislature to tax the whole population for the common defense, the governor thought that the estates of the proprietaries should be exempted from this just tax, hence the collision between the legislature and the governor. The Quakers themselves, in accordance with their peace principles, were opposed to any war tax, but Franklin induced the general assembly to raise 60,000 pounds to support the war then conducted by General Braddock, while he himself secured a large number of wagons for the use of the army across the wilderness. Meanwhile, the assembly was involved in fresh disputes with the governor. Although the assembly taxed the proprietaries but a small proportion for the defense of their own possessions, the governor was unwilling to pay even this small amount, which so disgusted Franklin that he lost his usual placidity and poured out such a volley of angry remonstrances that the governor resigned. His successor fared no better with the angry legislature, and it became necessary to send someone to England to lay the grievances of the colonies before the government and to obtain relief from parliament. The fittest man for this business was Franklin, and he was sent as agent of the province of Pennsylvania to London. The assembly granting 1,500 pounds to pay his expenses, which with his own private income, enabled him to live in good style in London and set up a carriage. He held no high diplomatic rank as yet, but was simply an accredited business agent of the province, which position, however, secured to him an entrance into society to a limited extent and many valuable acquaintances. The brother's pen with whom his business was chiefly concerned were cold and haughty and evaded the matter in dispute with miserable quibbles. Franklin then resolved to appeal to the lords of trade who had the management of the American colonial affairs and also to the king's privy council. This was in 1757 when William Pitt was at the height of his power and fame, cold, reserved, proud, but intensely patriotic, before whom even George III was ill at ease, while his associates in the cabinet were simply his clerks and servilely bent before his imperious will. To this great man, Franklin had failed to gain access, not so much from the minister's disdain of the colonial agent as from his engrossing cares and duties. He had no time indeed for anybody, not even the peers of the realm, no time for pleasure or relaxation, being devoted entirely to public interests of the greatest magnitude, for on his shoulders rested the government of the kingdom. What was the paltry dispute of a few hundred pounds and a distant colony to the prime minister of England? All that Franklin could secure was an interview with the great man's secretaries, and they did little to help him. But the time of the active-minded American was not wasted. He wrote for the newspapers, he prosecuted his scientific inquiries, he became intimate with many imminent men, chiefly scientists, members of the royal society, like Priestly and Price, professors of political economy like Adam Smith, historians like Hume and Robertson, original thinkers like Burke, liberal-minded lawyers like Pratt. It does not seem that he knew Dr. Johnson, and probably he did not care to make the acquaintance of that overbearing Tory and literary dogmatist who had little sympathy with American troubles. Indeed, his political associates among the great were few, unless they were patrons of science who appreciated his attainments in a field comparatively new. Among these men he seems to have been much respected and his merits secured an honorary degree from St. Andrews. His eminent social qualities favored his introduction into a society more cultivated than fashionable, and he was known as a scientific rather than a political celebrity. His mission then was uphill work. The pens stood upon their prerogatives and the lords of the committee for plantations were unfriendly or dilatory. It was nearly three years before they gave their decision, and this was adverse to the Pennsylvania Assembly. The Preview Council, however, to whom the persistent agent appealed, composed of the great dignitaries of the realm, decided that the proprietary estates of the pens should contribute their proportion of the public revenue. On this decision, Franklin, feeling that he had accomplished all that was possible, returned home in 1762, little more than a year after the accession of George III. Through the kindness of Lord Butte, the king's favorite, Franklin also secured the appointment of his son to the government of New Jersey. This appointment created some scandal and the pens rolled up their eyes, not at the nepotism of Franklin, but because he had procured the advancement of his illegitimate son. Franklin, during his absence of more than five years, had been regularly reelected a member of the Assembly, and he was received on his return with every possible public and private attention. He had hoped now for leisure to pursue his scientific investigations and had accordingly taken a new and larger house. But before long, new political troubles arose between the governor of Pennsylvania and the legislature, and what was still more ominous, troubles in New England respecting the taxation of the colonies by the British government, at the head of which was Grenville, an able man but not farsighted, who in March, 1764, announced his intention of introducing into parliament the bill known as the Stamp Act. To this famous bill, there was not great opposition since a large majority of the House of Commons believed in the right of taxing the colonies. Lord Camden, a great lawyer, took different views. Burke and Pitt admitted the right of taxation but thought its enforcement inexpedient, as likely to alienate the colonies and make them enemies instead of loyal subjects. At this crisis, appeared in America a group of orators who at once aroused in intensified the prevailing discontents by their inflammatory speeches in much the same manner that Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison, 70 years later, aroused public sentiment in reference to slavery. James Otis, the lawyer from Barnstable on the shores of Cape Cod who had opposed the rites of assistance, led the van of these patriots, an impassioned orator, incapable of cold calculation, now foaming with rage, and then desponding, not steadfast in conduct, yet by flashes of stagacity lighting the people along their perilous ways, combining legal learning with speculative opinion. He eloquently maintained that there is no foundation for distinction between external and internal taxes, that the imposition of taxes in the colonies, whether on trade, on land, or houses, or floating property, is absolutely irreconcilable with the rites of colonists as British subjects or as men, and that acts of parliament against the fundamental principles of the British constitution are void. More influential and more consistent than Otis was Samuel Adams, a lawyer of Boston, a member of the Massachusetts Assembly. At that time, about 40 years of age, a political agitator, a Puritan of the strictest creed, poor and indifferent to money, an incarnation of zeal for liberty, a believer in original inherent rights, which no parliament can nullify, a man of the keenest political sagacity and management, and of almost unlimited influence in Massachusetts from his long and notable services in town meeting, as writer in the journals of the day, and actor in every public crisis. 11 years younger than he was his cousin John Adams, a lawyer in Quincy, the leading politician of the colony, able and ambitious, patriotic, and honest, but irascible and jealous, of whom I shall have more to say hereafter. Of about the same age as John Adams was Patrick Henry of Virginia, a born orator but of limited education. He espoused the American cause with extraordinary zeal, and, as in the matter of the Virginia tax law, was vehement in opposition to the Stamp Act as an unconstitutional statute, which the colonies were not bound to obey. Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina, too, was early among the prominent orators who incited opposition to the Stamp Act and other oppressive measures. These men were the great pioneers of American independence by their ceaseless agitation of popular rights and violent opposition to English schemes of taxation. They were not, indeed, the equals of Franklin, then the agent of Pennsylvania in London. They had not his catholicity, his breadth of knowledge, his reputation, or his genius, but they were nevertheless foremost among American political orators and had great local influence. The first overt act of hostility on the part of the English government in coercing the colonies was to send to Boston the seat of disaffection, a large body of soldiers. In 1768, there were four regiments of British troops in Boston, doubtless with the view of intimidation, and to enforce the collection of duties. The English did not overrate the bravery of their troops or the abilities of their generals, but they did underrate the difficulties in conquering a population scattered over a vast extent of territory. They did not take into consideration the protecting power of nature, the impenetrable forests to be traversed, the mighty rivers to be crossed, the mountains to be climbed, and the coasts to be controlled. Nor did they comprehend the universal spirit of resistance in a vast country and the power of sudden growth and a passion for national independence. They might take cities and occupy strong fortifications, but the great mass of the people were safe on their inland farms and in their untrodden forests. The Americans may not have been unconquerable, but English troops were not numerous enough to overwhelm them in their scattered settlements. It would not pay to send army after army to be lost in swamps or drowned in rivers or ambushed and destroyed in forests. It was in the earlier stages of the revolt against taxation. In the autumn of 1764, that Benjamin Franklin was again sent to England to represent the province of Pennsylvania in the difficulties which hung as dark a cloud over the whole land. He had done well as a financial agent. He might do still better as a diplomatist since he was patient, prudent, sagacious, intelligent and accustomed to society, besides having extraordinary knowledge of all the phases of American affairs. And he probably was sincere in his desire for reconciliation with the mother country, which he still deemed possible. He was no political enthusiast like Samuel Adams, desirous of cutting loose entirely from England, but a wise insensible man who was willing to wait for inevitable developments, intensely patriotic but armed with weapons of reason and trusting in these alone until reconciliation should become impossible. As soon as Franklin arrived in England, he set about his difficult task to reason with infatuated ministers and with all influential persons so far as he had opportunity. But such were the prevailing prejudices against the colonists. And such was the bitterness of men in power that he was not courteously treated. He was even grossly insulted before the Privy Council by the Solicitor General, Wetterburn, one of those brow-beating lawyers so common in England 100 years ago, who made up in insolence what was lacking in legal ability. Grenville, the premier, was civil but stubborn and attempted to show that there was no difference between the external indirect taxation by duties on importations and the direct internal taxation proposed by the Stamp Act, both being alike justifiable. In March, 1765, the bill was passed by an immense majority, then blazed forth indignation from every part of America and the resolute colonists set themselves to nullify the tax laws by refraining from all taxable transactions. Franklin, undismayed, sedulously went about working for a repeal of the odious stamp law and at length got a hearing at the bar of the House of Commons where he was extensively and exhaustively examined upon American affairs. In this famous examination, he won respect for the lucidity of his statements and his conciliatory address. It soon became evident that the Stamp Act could not be enforced. No one could be compelled to buy stamps or pay tariff taxes if he preferred to withdraw from all business transactions where homespun do without British manufacturers and even refrain from eating lamb that flocks of sheep might be increased and the wool used for homespun cloth. It was in March, 1766 that Franklin, after many months of shrewd, wise and extraordinarily skillful work with tongue and pen and social influence, had the satisfaction of seeing the Stamp Act repealed by Parliament and the bill signed by the unwilling King. Although he was at all possible disadvantage as being merely the insignificant agent of distant and despised colonists, his influence in the matter cannot be exaggerated. He made powerful friends and allies and never failed to supply them with ample ammunition with which to fight their own political battles in which his cause was involved. On the repeal of the Stamp Act, Grenville was compelled to resign and his place was taken by Lord North, an amiable but narrow-minded man, utterly incapable of settling the pending difficulties. Lord Shelburne, a friend of the colonies, of which he had the charge, was superseded by Lord Hillsborough, an Irish peer of great obstinacy, who treated Franklin very roughly and of whom the King himself soon tired. Lord Dartmouth, who succeeded him, might have arranged the difficulties had he not been hampered by the King, who was inflexibly bent on taxation in some form and on pursuing impolitic measures against the exhortations of Chatham, Barray, Conway, Camden, and other far-reading statesmen, who foresaw what the end would be. Meantime, in 1770, Franklin was appointed agent also for Massachusetts Bay in about the same time for New Jersey and Georgia. Schemes for colonial taxation were rife and although the Stamp Act had been withdrawn as impracticable, the principle involved was not given up by the English government nor accepted by the American people. Franklin was kept busy. In 1773, Franklin was further impeded in his negotiations by mischievous letters which Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts had written to the Colonial Office. This governor was an able man, a New Englander by birth, but an inveterate Tory, always at issue with a legislature whose axi had the power to veto. Indiscreetly, rather than maliciously, he represented the prevailing discontents in the worst light and considerably increased the irritation of the English government. Franklin in some way got possession of these inflammatory letters and transmitted a copy to a leading member of the Massachusetts General Court as a matter of information, but with the understanding that it should be kept secret. It leaked out, however, of course, and the letters were printed. A storm of indignation in Massachusetts resulted in a petition for the removal of Governor Hutchinson and Lieutenant Governor Oliver which was sent by the House of Representatives to Franklin for presentation to the government. While on the other hand, a torrent of obliquely overwhelmed the diplomatist in England who was thought to have stolen the letters although there was no evidence to convict him. Franklin's situation in London now became uncomfortable. He was deprived of his office of deputy postmaster general of the colonies which he had held since 1753, was virtually discredited and generally snubbed. His presentation of the petition afforded an opportunity for his being publicly insulted at the hearing appointed before the committee for plantation affairs, while the press denounced him as a fomenter of sedition. His work in England was done and although he remained there some time longer, on the chance of still being of possible use, he gladly availed himself of an opportunity in early 1775 to return to America. Before his departure, however, Lord Chatham had come to his rescue when he was one day attacked with bitterness in the House of Lords and pronounced upon him this splendid eulogium. If, said the great statesman, I were prime minister and had the care of settling this momentous business, I should not be ashamed to call to my assistance a person so well acquainted with American affairs, one whom all Europe ranks with our boils and newtons as an honor not to the English nation only, but to human nature itself. From this time, 1775, no one accused Franklin of partiality to England. He was wounded and disgusted and he now clearly saw that there could be no reconciliation between the mother country and the colonies. That differences could be settled only by the last appeal of nations. The English government took the same view and resorted to coercion, little dreaming of the difficulties of the task. This is not the place to rehearse those coercive measures or to describe the burst of patriotic enthusiasm which swept over the colonies to meet the issue by the sword. We must occupy ourselves with Franklin. On his return to Philadelphia at the age of 69, he was most cordially welcomed. His many labors were fully appreciated and he was immediately chosen a member of the Second Continental Congress, which met on the 10th of May, 1775. He was put on the most important committees and elected postmaster general. He was also selected as one of the committee to draft the Declaration of Independence. Does not appear that he was one of the foremost speakers. He was no orator, but his influence was greater than that of any other one man in the Congress. He entered heart and soul into the life and death struggle which drew upon it the eyes of the whole civilized world. He was tireless in committee work. He made long journeys on the busyness of the Congress, to Montreal, to Boston, to New York. He spent the summer of 1776 as chairman of the first Constitutional Convention of the State of Pennsylvania. On every hand, his resources were in demand and were lavishly given. He was universally felt at the beginning of the struggle that unless the colony should receive material aid from France, the issue of the conflict with the greatest naval and military power in Europe could not succeed. Congress had no money, no credit, and but scant military stores. The Continental troops were poorly armed, clothed, and fed. Franklin's school head, his knowledge, his sagacity, his wisdom, and his patriotism marked him out as the fittest man to present the cause in Europe. And in September 1776, he was sent to France as an envoy to negotiate a treaty of amity and commerce between France and the United States. With him were joined Arthur Lee and Silas Dean, the latter having been sent some months previously in a less formal way to secure the loan of money, ammunition, and troops. End of section four. Section five of Beacon Light of History, volume 11, American Founders by John Lord. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Kay Hand. Benjamin Franklin, part three. It is not to be supposed that the French monarchy had any deep sympathy with the Americans in their struggle for independence. Only a few years had elapsed since the colonies had fought with England against France to her intense humiliation. Canada had been by their help wrenched from her hands. But France hated England and was jealous of her powers and would do anything to cripple that traditional enemy. Secret and mysterious overtures had been made to Congress which led it to hope for assistance. And yet the government of France could do nothing openly for fear of giving Umbridge to her rival since the two powers were at peace and both were weary of hostilities. Both were equally exhausted by the Seven Years War. Moreover, the King Louis XV sought above all things repose and pleasure. It was a most unpropitious time for the colonies to seek for aid when the policy of the French government was Pacific and when Terjeu was obliged to exert his financial genius to the utmost to keep the machine of the government in running order. Under these circumstances, the greatest prudence, circumspection and tact were required of a financial and diplomatic agent sent to squeeze money from the French treasury. If aid were granted at all, it must be done covertly without exciting even the suspicions of the English emissaries at Paris. But hatred of England prevailed over the desire of peace and money was promised. There were then in France many distinguished men who sympathized with the American cause while the young king himself seems to have had no decided opinions about the matter. The philosophy of Rousseau had permeated even aristocratic circles. There was a charm in the dogma that all men were created equal. They pleased sentimental philosophers and sympathetic women. I wonder why the king, then absolute, did not see its logical consequences. Surely there were rumblings in the political atmosphere to which he could not be deaf and yet with inconceivable apathy and levity the blinded monarch pursued his pleasures and remarked to his courtiers that the storm would not burst in his time. Après moi, les deluges. Terjeu, the ablest man in France, would have stood aloof but Terjeu had been dismissed and the Count de Vergeny was at the helm, a man whose ruling passion was hatred of England. If he could help the colonies he would provided he could do it secretly. So he made use of a fortunate adventurer, originally a watchmaker by the name of Beaumarchais, who set up for a merchant through whom supplies were sent to America. All paid for, however, out of the royal checker. The name even of this supposed mercantile house was fictitious. A million of livras were transmitted through this firm to America, apparently for business purposes. Silas Dean of Connecticut, the first agent of the Americans, alone being acquainted with the secret. He could not keep it, however, but imparted it to a friend who was a British spy. In consequence, most of the ships of Hortelaise and Company, loaded with military stores, were locked up by technical governmental formalities in French ports, while the American vessels bearing tobacco and indigo and exchange also failed to appear. The firm was in danger of bankruptcy while Lord Stormont, the British ambassador, complained to Virginie of the shipment of contraband goods and offense against the law of nations. Amid the embarrassments which Dean had brought about by his indiscretion, Franklin arrived at Paris. But he wisely left Dean to disentangle the affairs of this supposed mercantile house until this unfortunate agent was recalled by Congress, a broken down man who soon after died in England, poor and dishonored. Dean had also embarrassed Franklin and still more the military authorities at home by the indiscriminate letters of commendation he gave to the impecunious and incapable German and French officers as being qualified to serve in the American Army. Probably no American ever was hailed in Paris with more a claw than Benjamin Franklin. His scientific discoveries, his cause invested with romantic interest, his courtly manners, his agreeable conversation, and his reputation for wisdom and wit made him an immediate favorite among all classes with whom he came in contact. He was universally regarded as the apostle of liberty and the impersonation of philosophy. Not wishing to be too conspicuous and dreading interruptions to his time, he took up his residence at Passy, a suburb of Paris where he lived most comfortably, keeping a carriage and entertaining at dinner numerous guests. He had a beautiful garden in which he delighted to show his experiments to distinguished people. His face always wore a placid and benignant expression. He had no enemies and many friends. His society was particularly sought by fashionable ladies and eminent savants. While affable and courteous, he was not given to flattery. He was plain and straightforward and only said and did, thus presenting a striking contrast to diplomatists generally. Indeed, he was a universal favorite, which Don Adams, when he came to be associated with him, could not understand. Adams was sent to France in 1778 to replace Silas Dean, and while there was always jealous of Franklin's ascendancy in society and in the management of American affairs. He even complained that the elder envoy was extravagant in his mode of living. In truth, Franklin and alone had the ear of the Count de Virginie through whom all American business was transacted, which exceedingly nettle the intense confident and industrious Adams whose vanity was excessive. I need not dwell on the embarrassments of Franklin in raising money for the American cause. There was no general confidence in its success among European bankers or statesmen. The French government feared to compromise itself. Many of the remittances already sent had been intercepted by British cruisers. The English minister at Paris stormed and threatened. The news from America was almost appalling for the British troops had driven Washington from New York and Long Island, and he appeared to be scarcely more than a fugitive in New Jersey, with only three or 4,000 half-starved and half-frozen followers. A force of 10,000 men had been recently ordered to America under General Burgoyne. Almost discouraged, the envoys applied for loans to the Dutch bankers and to Spain, but without success. It was not until December 1777 when the news arrived in France of the surrender of General Burgoyne and his army to the Americans at Saratoken, New York in October that Franklin had any encouragement. Not until it was seen that the conquest of America was hopeless did the French government really come to the aid of the struggling cause and then privately. Spain joined with France in offers of assistance, but as she had immense treasures on the ocean liable to capture, the matter was kept secret. When secrecy was no longer possible, a commercial treaty was made between the United States and the Allies, February 6, 1778, but was not signed until Arthur Lee of Virginia, one of the commissioners, had made a good deal of mischief by his capacious opposition to Franklin, whom he envied and hated. The treaty becoming known to the English government in a few days, Lord North, who saw breakers ahead, was now anxious for conciliation with America. It was too late. There could be no conciliation short of the acknowledgement of American independence and a renewal of war between France and England became certain. If the conquest of the United States had been improbable, it had now become impossible, with both France and Spain as their allies, but the English government was stubborn malignity, persevered in the hopeless warfare. After the recall of Silas Dean, the business of the embassy devolved chiefly on Franklin, who indeed within a year was appointed sole minister, Adams and Lee being relieved. Besides his continuous and exhausting labors and procuring money for Congress at home and for nearly all of its representatives abroad, Franklin was always affecting some good thing for his country. He especially commended to the American authorities, the Marquita Lafayette, then a mere youth, who had offered to give his personal services to the conflict for liberty. This generous and enthusiastic nobleman was a great accession to the American class from both a political and a military point of view and always retained the friendship and confidence of Washington. Franklin rendered important services in securing the amelioration of the condition of the American prisoners in England, who therefore had been treated with great brutality. After years of patience and untiring effort, he so well succeeded that they were now honorably exchanged according to the rules of war. Among the episode of this period, largely due to Franklin's sagacity and monetary aid, was a gallant career of John Paul Jones, a Scotchman by birth, who had entered the American Navy as lieutenant and in one short cruise had taken 16 British prizes, the first man to hoist the stars and stripes on a national vessel. He was also the first to humble the pride of England in its sorest point since, with unparalleled audacity, he had successfully penetrated to the harbor of the town in which he was born. The Bon Homme Richard, a large frigate of 40 guns, of which by the aid of Franklin, Jones secured the command and which he named in honor of poor Richard of the Almanac, made his name famous throughout both Europe and America. The turning point of the American War was the surrender of Burgoyne, which brought money and men and open aid from France. The decisive event was the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, October 19th, 1781, to Washington, commanding the Allied French and American forces with the aid of the French fleet. Although the war was still continued in a half-hearted way, the Cornwallis disaster convinced England of its hopelessness and led to negotiations for peace. In these, the diplomatic talents of Franklin eclipsed his financial abilities, and this was the more reimbarkable since he was not trained in the diplomatic school where dissimulation was the leading peculiarity. He gained his points by Frank, straightforward lucidity of statement, and marvelous astuteness, combined with an imperturbable command of his temper. The trained diplomatists of Europe with their cost history and lies found in him their match. The subjects to be discussed and settled, however, were so vital and important that Congress associated with Franklin, John Adams, Minister at the Hague, and John Jay, then accredited to Madrid. Nothing could be more complicated than the negotiations between the representatives of the different powers. First, there was a compact between the United States and their allies that peace should not be concluded without their common consent, and each power had some selfish aim in view. Then England and France each sought a separate treaty. In England itself were divided councils. Fox had France to look after and shall burn the United States, and these rival English statesmen were not on good terms with each other. In the solution of the many questions that arose, John Jay displayed masterly ability. He would take nothing for granted while Franklin reposed the utmost confidence in the count de Virginie. Jay soon discovered that the French minister had other interests at heart than those of America alone, that he had an eye on a large slice of the territories of the United States, that he wanted some substantial advantage for the ships and man he had furnished. He wanted no spoils, for there were no spoils to divide, but he wanted unexplored territories extending to the Mississippi, which Jay had no idea of granting. There were other points to which Franklin attached but little importance, but which were really essential in the eye of Jay. Among other things, the agent of England, a Mr. Oswald, a man of high character and courteous bearing, was empowered to treat with the 13 colonies to which Franklin, eager for peace, saw no objection. But Jay declined to sign the preliminaries of peace unless the independence and sovereignty of the United States were distinctly acknowledged. At this stage of the negotiations, John Adams, honest but impetuous and irritable, hastened from the Hague to take part in the negotiations. He sided with Jay and Franklin had to yield, which he did gracefully, probably attaching but small importance to the matter in question. What mattered, it, whether the triumphant belligerents were called colonies or states, so long as they were free? To astute lawyers like Jay and Adams, however, the recognition of the successfully rebellious colonies as sovereign states was a main point in issue. From that time, as Franklin suffered from a severe illness, Jay was the life of the negotiations and the credit is generally given to him for the treaty which followed and which was hurried through hastily for fear that a change in the British ministry would hazard its success. It came near alienating France, however, since it had been distinctly understood that peace should not be made without the consent of all the contracting powers and this treaty was made with England alone. Franklin in the transaction was the more honest and Jay the more astute. Strictly speaking, all these three commissioners rendered important services in their various ways. Franklin's urbanity and frankness and the high esteem in which he was held both in France and in England made easy the opening of the negotiations and he gained a special point in avoiding any agreement of indemnity to American royalists who had suffered in person or property during the war. While he maintained pleasant relations with France when Virginie was pursuing his selfish policy to prevent the United States from becoming too strong and when he became indignant that the treaty had been concluded with England irrespective of France. Jay, with keen sagacity, fathomed the schemes of the French minister and persistently refused to sign a treaty of peace unless it was satisfactory and promised to be permanent and mutually advantageous. Adams was especially acquainted with the fisheries question and its great importance to New England and he insisted on the right of Americans to fish on the banks of Newfoundland. All three persisted in the free navigation of the Mississippi, which it was the object of Spain to prevent. Great Britain, Spain and France would have enclosed the United States by territories of their own and would have made odious commercial restrictions. By the firmness and sagacity of these three diplomatists the United States finally secured all they wanted and more than they expected. The preliminary articles were signed November 30th, 1782 and the final treaties of peace between England, France and the United States on September 3rd, 1783. These negotiations, at last having been happily concluded Franklin wished to return home but he remained at the request of Congress to arrange commercial treaties with the various European nations. Reluctantly at last his request to be relieved was granted and he left France in July, 1785. Thomas Jefferson was appointed to the position. You replace Dr. Franklin, said the Count de Vergeny to the new plenipotentiary. I succeed him, replied Jefferson. No one can replace him. Franklin would have been the happiest man in Europe at the conclusion of peace negotiations but for his increasing bodily infirmities, especially the gout, from which at times he suffered excruciating agonies. He was a universal favorite, admired and honored as one of the most illustrious men living. His house in Paris was the scene of perpetual hospitalities. Among his visitors were the younger Pitt, Wilberforce, Romely and a host of other celebrities, French and English, especially eminent scientific men. He was then 78 years of age but retained all the vivacity of youth. His conversation is said to have been as enchanting as it was instructive. His wit and humor never ceased to flow. His pregnant sentences were received as oracles. He was a member of the French Academy and attended most of its meetings. He was a regular correspondent of the most learned societies of Europe. When the time came for him to return home, he was too ill to take leave of the king or even of the minister of foreign affairs. But Louis XVI ordered one of the royal litters to convey the venerable sufferer to the coast as he could not bear the motion of a carriage. In his litter, swung between two mules, Franklin slowly made his way to Havre and then proceeded to Southampton to embark for America. The long voyage agreed with him and he arrived in Philadelphia in September in improved health after an absence of nine years. No one would have thought him old except in his walk, his feet being tender and swollen with the gout.  Settled in his fine house in Market Street, surrounded by his grandchildren and idolatrous neighbors and friends, he was a rare exception to the rule that a prophet is not without honor save in his own country. He had fortune, friends, fame, and a numerous family who never disgraced his name. Of all the great actors in the stormy times in which he lived, he was one of the most fortunate. He had both genius and character which the civilized world appreciated and so Bruton had been his early business life and his later investments that he left a fortune of about $150,000, a great sum to accumulate in his times. The last important service rendered by Franklin to his country was as a member of the Memorable Convention which gave the Constitution to the American nation in 1787. Of this assembly in which sat Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Dickinson, Livingston, Ellsworth, Sherman and other great men, Franklin was the nester in wisdom as well as years. He was too feeble to take a conspicuous part in the discussions but his opinion and counsel had great weight whenever he spoke for his judgment was never clearer than when he had passed four score years. The battle of wards had to be fought by younger and more vigorous men of whom perhaps Madison was the most prominent. At no time of his life however was Franklin a great speaker except in conversation but his mind was vigorous to the end. This fortunate man lived to see the complete triumph of the cause to which he had devoted his public life. He lived also to see the beginning of the French Revolution to which his writings had contributed. He lived to see the amazing prosperity of his country when compared with its condition under royal governors.  A few weeks before his death he replied to a letter of president's styles of Yale College setting forth his theological belief. Had he been more orthodox he would have been more extolled by those men who controlled the religious opinions of his age. Franklin died placidly on the 17th of April, 1790 in the 85th year of his age and his body was followed to the grave by most of the prominent citizens of Philadelphia in the presence of 20,000 spectators. James Madison pronounced his eulogy in Congress in Mirabeau in the French National Assembly while the most eminent literary man in both Europe and America published elaborate essays on his deeds and fame recognizing the extent of his knowledge, the breadth of his wisdom, his benevolence, his patriotism and his moral worth. He modestly claimed to be only a printer but who among the great lights of his age with the exception of Washington has left a nobler record. Authorities. Mr. James Parton has I think written the most interesting and exhaustive life of Franklin although it is not artistic and is full of unimportant digressions. Sparks has collected most of his writings which are rather dull reading. The autobiography of Franklin was never finished. A unique writing as Frank as the confessions of Rousseau. A good biography is won by Morse in the series of American statesmen which he is editing. Not a very complimentary view of Franklin is taken by McMaster in the series of American men of letters. See also, Bancroft's United States. End of section five.