William Franklin to Joseph Galloway, 16 June 1760
William Franklin to Joseph Galloway
ALS: Yale University Library
London June 16. 1760
My dear Friend
I wrote you a few Lines on Saturday last to go per the Pacquet,7 in which I mention’d a Pamphlet wrote by my Father in Answer to the Remarks on the Letter to Two Great Men.8 I could not send you one by that Opportunity, but as Capt. Monk has inform’d my Father that he is just upon the Point of sailing to America, and will take Charge of any Thing we may have to send, I have troubled him with one of the Pamphlets, and the Remarks, of which I desire your Acceptance. I formerly sent you one of the Letters to Two Great Men, wrote by Lord Bath,9 so that you will have the whole Merits of the Dispute before you. The Author of the Remarks is thought by some to be Horace Walpole,1 but ’tis generally believ’d to be one Burk who is appointed Secretary of Guadaloupe, and ’tis said was assisted by Mr. Wood Secretary to Mr. Pitt.2 Something by way of Answer to my Father’s Pamphlet has appear’d in the London Chronicle, wrote by one Dr. Tucker a Clergyman,3 who is an Intimate of Lord Hallifax’s and patroniz’d by him, and is one of the bitterest Enemies N. America has in Britain. ’Tis so contemptible a Performance, that my Father could not think it worthy his Notice, were it not that it affords him an Opportunity of saying somethings omitted in his former Publication, and may be a means of silencing the Doctor, or at least of lessening his Influence in American Affairs for the future. On that Account he intends at his first Leisure to take it into Consideration, and publish something by way of Reply. The only Fault I have to find with the Pamphlet is, a Compliment to a certain Person which is by no means merited, but was put in at the Request of a Friend,4 in hopes it might induce him to look with a more favorable Eye on the Colonies. If it has that Effect I shall be glad. But I hate every Thing that has even the Appearance of Flattery.
The Opinion of the Board of Trade on the 11 Pensylvania Acts is not yet known.5
My Compliments to all enquiring Friends, and believe me to be with great Sincerity Dear Galloway Yours affectionately
Wm: Franklin
P.S. If the Speaker has not seen the Remarks please to lend them to him.
7. Not found.
8. The Canada Pamphlet; above, pp. 47–100. WF’s categorical statement is further contemporary evidence of BF’s authorship.
9. Although WF, in common with many of his contemporaries, attributed A Letter to Two Great Men, on the Prospect of Peace to William Pulteney, Earl of Bath (1684–1764), it is now generally accepted that the author was John Douglas (1721–1807), although the earl, his patron, probably instigated the writing. See above, p. 52.
1. Horace Walpole (1717–1797), author and letter writer, son of Sir Robert Walpole. Writing to Henry Zouch, May 3, 1760, he flatly denied authorship of this “answer to my Lord Bath’s rhapsody,” although it was “true the booksellers sold it as mine.” Walpole and Bath had long been opponents. Wilmarth S. Lewis et al., eds., The Yale Edition of Horace Walpole’s Correspondence, XVI (New Haven, 1951), 39.
2. The Board of Trade had recommended the appointment of William Burke to be secretary and register of the recently captured island of Guadeloupe on Aug. 10, 1759, and the Privy Council had approved the appointment, September 12. Board of Trade Journal, 1759–1763, pp. 56, 57, 125; Acts Privy Coun., Col., IV, 428. Robert Wood (1717?–1771), traveler, writer, and politician, was undersecretary of state, 1756–63. DNB. The Remarks on a Letter Address’d to Two Great Men is now generally attributed to Burke. See above, p. 53.
3. Josiah Tucker (1712–1799), clergyman and economist, B.A. Oxon, 1736; M.A., 1739; D.D., 1755. He served successively as curate and rector of churches in Bristol and as a canon of the cathedral there, and in 1758 was appointed dean of Gloucester. His numerous writings on trade began in 1749; they often expressed unpopular views. He was unfriendly to the American colonies; he believed they provided no essential advantages to the mother country, and as the American Revolution approached he recommended that Great Britain let them separate without a struggle. Yet he supported the principle of royal authority in the colonies and was hostile to the political and constitutional views of colonial spokesmen. DNB. He and BF disagreed vigorously during later years. Whether he wrote the answers to the Canada Pamphlet which appeared in London Chron., as WF believed, is not now known.
4. The “certain Person” was Lord Halifax; see above, p. 71. The “Friend” was probably Richard Jackson.
5. See below, p. 126.