belonging to the two Societies, 69 to the Philosophical, and 41 to the American Society; total, 124. As 89 voted, it shows how large a proportion of those, presumed to be present in the city and county, were active on the occasion. The resident members of the Philosophical Society were more numerous than the same members of the American Society; though the total number of the former Society, from having fewer non-resident members, was less than the total of the latter. From these facts it is evident that Franklin could not have been elected first President of the United Society, unless he had received considerable support from the members of the Philosophical Society. If the election had turned upon party or Society feeling solely, Ex-Governor Hamilton, the President of the Philosophical Society, would have been elected. No doubt the fact was, that it was felt and admitted that Franklin possessed a high philosophical reputation, that he was the founder of the Philosophical Society, though the President of the American Society, and that his name, which was known all over Europe, would give greater weight to the United Society than that of Hamilton. Actuated, no doubt, by some such motives, a sufficient number of the members of the Philosophical Society voted in favor of Franklin to secure his election.

It is true that John Penn, at the time Governor of the Province, was displeased at the result. It had been agreed, that the Governor for the time being,

should be the patron of the United Society, as he had been of the Philosophical Society before the union; and the Vice-Presidents, at the first meeting, were appointed a Committee to request him to be patron of the Society. At the next meeting, the Vice-President reported that the Governor had declined the office.

It

Mr. Du Ponceau, in his paper, has given the following anecdote, connected with the conduct of the Governor on this occasion, on the authority of Bishop White. When the Governor was waited upon, to request his acceptance of the title of patron, he replied, "I never shall be the patron of a Society that has for its President such a as Franklin." is understood that the blank represents an opprobrious epithet, which was supplied in the reading of the paper before the Society. The same anecdote was related to the Chairman of this Committee on two occasions by Bishop White, and without any variation that he recollects. According to the version of the anecdote, as given to the Chairman, the reply of the Governor was "No, Gentlemen, I cannot consent to be the patron of a Society, whose first President is the greatest enemy of my family." As this anecdote was related in two different ways by Bishop White, both of which cannot be accurate, every one must be left to his own judgment, as to which version is most probably correct. There can be no doubt that the Governor felt vexed at the election of Franklin; but the Committee do not think it probable

that he used the harsh term attributed to him. His successor, Richard Penn, showed both better manners and better sense than to refuse the same honour; for, on the 22nd of January 1773, he attended, as patron, the oration of the Rev. Dr. Smith before the United Society, still under the Presidentship of Franklin. See Chronological Statement, Marked C, under this date.

There is reason to believe that the members of the Philosophical Society did not generally partake of the hostile feelings of the Governor towards Franklin. This may be inferred from the character of the second meeting of the United Society, at which 40 members were present,-5 common to the two parent Societies, 16 belonging to the Philosophical and 19 to the American Society. So large a number as 16 members of the Philosophical Society would hardly have been present at the first meeting after th election of Franklin, if deep dissatisfaction had been felt at the result.

The Committee now pass from the analysis of Mr. Du Ponceau's paper to a brief consideration of that of Mr. Fisher. The unsettled points relating to the early history of our Society, have been so fully discussed in what precedes, that little remains to be said in relation to the latter paper.

Mr. Fisher is, perhaps, not quite correct in saying that the Franklin-Junto "had no written communications, and possessed no library"; for Franklin says

that he published pieces in his newspaper, which he had read before the Junto; and that we had written papers for the Junto on the irregularities of the Watch, and on Fires. 1, Sparks, 123, and 132–33. He also speaks of the members having, at his suggestion, clubbed their books in a common Library, though afterwards they were separated. 1, Sparks, 96. See also Chronological Statement.

The suggestion thrown out by Mr. Fisher, that Philip Syng of the Society-Junto, was a son of Philip Syng of the Franklin Junto, is perfectly correct. He died in November, 1760, and his death is referred to, incidentally, in the minutes of the Society-Junto, about July 1761. See Minutes, part 1, p. 81.

Mr. Fisher is in error in stating that it was by the Philosophical Society "that the proposal was first made for an incorporation with the American Society." The first proposition came from the American Society, in the shape of a motion, passed unanimously on the 26th of January 1768, that a union with the Philosophical Society, on an equal footing, and on terms equally honorable to both was desirable, and would conduce to the public good. The next day, Dr. Morgan communicated this motion to Dr. Bond of the Philosophical Society; and the action taken by the latter Society upon it was to elect, by a general vote on the 2nd February following, the whole of the members of the American Society into their body.

In noticing the above inaccuracy, it is due to Mr. Fisher to state that he drew up his paper partly from recollection; for in a note, appended to his Communication, he says, "In the preceding sketch there may be several trifling errors, as I have depended on Mr. Sparks' Account of the Society and my own recollections."

The chief value of Mr. Fisher's Communication is given to it by the letter of Charles Thomson to Franklin, which he was so fortunate as to obtain through William B. Reed, Esq. This letter sheds much light on the unsettled points of the early history of our Society, and fixes the date of the establishment of the Society-Junto, as has been already mentioned.

The Committee are of opinion that the account given by Mr. Sparks of the origin of our Society, in the first volume of his Life of Franklin, p. 576, is substantially correct. There is, however, an unimportant error in the Statement, that, when the two Societies agreed to unite on equal terms, as they did after a renewal of the negotiation of union in November 1768," each, elected "all the members of the other." p. 578. No such mutual election ever took place.

An inconsistent and inaccurate statement is made in Mr. Sparks' second volume, p. 9, published four years earlier than the first volume, in which the Editor says, "Forty years after its establishment,"