3. No laws were passed or printed for the two Assemblies which convened in October 1752 and October 1753. Note in this connection the pagination of the official printing by BF. The Charlemagne Tower Collection of American Colonial Laws (Phila., 1890), nos. 685, 686.

4. Both William Franklin and James Read (see above, III, 39 n) asked for appointment to the clerkship of the Assembly, which BF vacated; young Franklin was chosen.

5. The bill was to repeal a supplement to an act imposing a duty on the importation of convicts and preventing “poor and impotent Persons” from being imported into Pennsylvania, passed in 1749. The committee reported its bill August 14; it passed the House August 16, and, after some amendment, received the governor’s assent. The law is in Stats. at Large, V, 131–2. Thomas Penn’s letter on the subject was laid before the House Oct. 17, 1752.

6. This was to inquire what progress the governor had made in getting a contribution from the Proprietors towards the heavy charges of Indian affairs.

7. The governor’s reply to the committee’s inquiry of August 15 was made August 16. The House’s answer was read August 21 (see below, p. 181).

8. See below, p. 180.

9. See below, p. 184.

10. See below, p. 186.

11. The progress of the Address through the Assembly is recorded in Votes, 1750–51, pp. 85–8. It was not printed in the Votes until Dec. 31, 1754 (see below, p. 188).

12. The message was merely formal notification that the House had met and organized.

13. The Grievance and Auditing Committees were appointed on October 15; the committee to revise the minutes on October 16.

14. The message was formal notification that the House was in session.

15. The accounts were those of the Overseers of the Poor of Germantown township. BF and Hugh Roberts reported, February 27, “That it is their Opinion, the Sum of Twelve Pounds, Four Shillings, and Tenpence, be allowed in full, for Discharge of the same; and also that the Sum of Fifteen Pounds be allowed to Doctor Charles Bensel, in full of his Account for Medicines and Attendance in the Cure of the wounded Indian.” The House agreed, and payments were made accordingly.

16. The loaf-bread bakers of Philadelphia petitioned, February 7, that the assize of bread (see above, II, 214–15) be amended to allow them to make bread “agreeable to a proper Assize,” of one-, three-, six-, nine-, and twelve-penny size. A bill was reported February 21, passed the House February 28, was approved by the governor after some amendment, and enacted March 11. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 147–50.

17. BF overlooked this appointment in his record of service. The committee reported February 14, and brought in a bill, February 19, barring attachments for debts under £5; it passed the House February 29, but was rejected by the governor March 5. The governor’s amendments were accepted at the next session, August 14, and the bill was enacted, Aug. 22, 1752. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 179–83.

18. BF also neglected to record this appointment. The bill, calling for re-emitting and continuing the currency of £40,000, was reported February 21 and passed the House February 25. Governor Hamilton rejected it March 6; and BF was named to the committee, March 11, to prepare a report on the state of the currency (see below, p. 344).

19. This committee reported February 21; a bill was presented February 27 and passed the House March 7. The governor took it under advisement, March 10, and sent it back at the next session, August 11, with amendments, only some of which the House accepted. BF was one of a committee of two to wait on the governor August 13, but without success; and a second committee was sent. The governor replied, August 19, with a protest that the Secretary’s fees should not be fixed and that the attorney general’s were too low. BF was on a conference committee, August 20. The House accepted the governor’s amendments the same day and the bill was enacted August 22. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 161–78.

20. A petition from sundry inhabitants of Philadelphia about the mischief and damage caused by stray dogs was presented February 12. Consideration of a bill to levy a dog tax was postponed from session to session.

1. BF overlooked this assignment in his record of service. The petition on vendues was presented February 6; a bill was brought in February 13; on its second reading it was committed for amendment. At the following session it was referred, August 20, with the dog tax and other bills, to the next Assembly.

2. The message was the governor’s veto of the bill for striking £40,000. The reply was read and approved by the House March 7 (see below, p. 272).

3. The report was presented August 20 (see below, p. 344).

4. The bill regulating fees was returned by the governor, with amendments, August 11. BF and Mahlon Kirkbride were appointed August 13 to inform him the House agreed to some amendments but in other points adhered to their bill. The governor returned the bill August 18, and another committee was sent to inform him of the points to which the House still adhered. The governor replied in writing August 19, and on August 20 another committee, including BF, was named to confer with the governor. Agreement was reached and the bill passed later the same day.

5. Consideration of the report was postponed until the next session. The House considered the report, Jan. 18, 1753; certain resolutions by the chairman of the committee were laid before the House and unanimously agreed to; and the committee was directed to bring in a bill agreeable thereto.

6. The purpose was to compare the bill regulating fees with the amendments.

7. The message was simply notification of adjournment. BF and Evan Morgan were also appointed to see that the Great Seal was affixed to the laws and that they were deposited in the Rolls Office.

8. The message was that the House was in session.

9. The committee “on laws”—the fifth to which BF was named—was appointed to inspect the laws “and report which of them are expired, or near expiring, and ought to be re-enacted.”

10. The books and maps were for the use of the House. The accounts of the House, approved September 11, show £850 paid Speaker Isaac Norris “to purchase Books for the Use of the Assembly.”

11. The bill was to be agreeable to the resolves of January 18 that paper currency be re-emitted and the issue increased. It was reported January 19, and passed the House January 24. BF was on the committee which carried the bill to the governor the same day. Governor Hamilton sent word, January 26, that he would veto any bill for re-emitting current money or issuing additional sums. For the background of the governor’s message, see Richard Peters to Thomas Penn, Feb. 7, 1753, Penn Papers, Off. Corres., VI, 5–7, Hist. Soc. Pa. See below, p. 495.

12. See below, p. 495.

13. See below, pp. 410–11.

14. This representation is dated Aug. 23, 1751 (see below, p. 188). On May 23 the Assembly read it, inquired of the governor whether he had received an answer from the Proprietors. The governor sent down the answer May 24. The documents were laid on the table for the members’ perusal. On May 30 a committee was appointed to consider and report on the Assembly’s representation and the Proprietors’ answer. Their report was read, Sept. 11, 1753, “unanimously approved, and ordered to be deposited among the other Papers belonging to this House.” It was finally put into the minutes, Dec. 31, 1754, and was printed in Votes, 1754–55, PP. 44–6.

15. The committee’s answer to the governor’s message of May 22 relating to Indian affairs, was reported May 31 (see below, p. 500).

16. The report was presented September 3 (see below under that date).

17. The reply to the governor’s message of August 29 was reported Sept. 5, 1753 (see below under that date).

18. The reply to the governor’s message of this day was reported September 11 (see below under that date).

19. This was merely formal notice that the House was organized and in session.

20. The committee “to enquire into the State and Circumstances of the Trade of this Province, with regard to the Quantity of our Paper Currency from its first Emission in 1723, to the present Time,” made its report at the next session, Feb. 6, 1754.

1. Incorrectly given as February 5 in MS. After considering the report (see below under this date), the House adopted the following resolutions:

“That it is necessary that the Paper Money of this Province should be re-emitted for a further Time.

“That there is a Necessity of a further Addition to the Paper Money at present current by Law within this Province.

“That there is a Necessity that a Sum should be struck to exchange the ragged and torn Bills, now by Law current within this Province.”

BF was appointed the same day to a committee to prepare a bill agreeable to these resolves. A bill for £40,000 was accordingly brought in; it passed the House February 12; was sent to the governor with a special message February 14; and was disapproved February 19.

2. The letter was from Legardeur de St. Pierre, commandant at Fort LeBoeuf, Dec. 15, 1753; it replied to the letter brought by George Washington, which he forwarded to the Marquis DuQuesne. BF’s translation is accurate but stiff. Votes, 1753–54, pp. 17–18.

3. See below under this date.

4. The committee was to prepare a bill to regulate the Indian trade as recommended in the report of the committee on the laws, February 15 (see below under that date), of which BF was also a member. The committee reported the bill, May 11, 1754.

5. Omitted by BF.

6. See below under this date.

7. The bill was to grant a sum of money “to the King’s Use,” to be defrayed by a liquor tax and to strike a further sum of bills of credit, for exchanging those that were torn and ragged. The bill was defeated April 9.

8. On this date the governor informed the House he intended to appoint John Penn, Richard Peters, Isaac Norris, and BF as commissioners. On April 12 the House approved the commissioners the governor was pleased to nominate. The commission was dated May 13 (see below under the latter date).

9. Omitted by BF. When the draft was reported the House directed the committee to add a clause informing the governor they approved his appointments of commissioners for Albany and had voted £500 as a present to the Indians. The draft was amended accordingly and approved by the House April 12 (see below under that date). The governor’s reply, April 13, expressed dissatisfaction with the House’s refusal to make any appropriation for defense.

10. I.e., as commissioner to the Albany Congress.

11. The petition was from Benjamin Bagnall, Jr., a debtor, confined by his creditors, who refused to accept a pro-rata division of his assets, to the great suffering of his wife and children. On May 10 the House referred to the same committee a petition of Robert Sitlinton, confined to the city jail under circumstances similar to Bagnall’s.

12. See below under this date.

13. See below under this date.

14. The committee was to draft a bill for £10,000 “to the King’s Use,” to be sunk by an extension of the excise tax for ten years, and for £20,000 in paper bills for exchanging the torn and ragged bills now current. On August 13 the sum for the King’s use was increased to £15,000, making the total £35,000; and the bill passed the House in this form. The governor had objections he refused to withdraw.

15. See below under this date.

16. BF was in New York and New England from September 1754 to February 1755. For his absence and his dislike of the Assembly’s Address to the King, see BF to Collinson, June 29, 1755.

17. The answer, to two short messages Governor Morris sent the afternoon of March 18, was sent him March 19 (see below under the latter date).

18. This answer to the governor’s message of the morning of March 18 was sent to the governor March 20 (see below under the latter date).

19. This was a letter from Governor Morris to Franklin and Hall, March 19, 1755, forbidding them to print two letters from Sir Thomas Robinson to Morris, July 5 and Oct. 26, 1754. The House denied the governor had any right to direct what should or should not go into their minutes; and BF was instructed to print them as they stood, with Robinson’s letters included (see below under March 19, 1755).

20. The committee was “to prepare a Bill for preventing the Exportation of Provisions and Naval or Warlike Stores, to Cape-Breton,” or other French colonies. The bill passed the House, March 29, 1755. The governor’s suggestions, April 1, were accepted, and the bill was enacted April 5. It was continued in force, June 18, 1755. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 184–7.

1. In a letter of February 28, General Braddock asked Governor Morris to establish a post between Philadelphia and Winchester to carry his dispatches. The House, March 22, asked BF to consider and report. He did so April 9 (see below under that date). Subsequently the House paid BF £210 13s. 9½d. for his expenses in establishing the post and the postage of letters to the army. Votes, 1755–56, p. 165.

2. Omitted by BF. This bill was to be consistent with the five resolutions of the House to raise £25,000 “for the King’s Use”: £5000 to discharge debts already contracted; £10,000 to purchase provisions as requested by Massachusetts; £5000 to pay orders drawn on Pennsylvania by General Braddock; and £5000 for support of the refugee Indians, post and express hire, clearing of roads, and the like. The bill passed the House, March 28, 1755; but the governor vetoed it April 1. He gave his reasons, May 16; and the Assembly appointed a committee to reply, which they did May 17 (see below under that date).

3. See below under this date.

4. See below under this date.

5. BF omitted this. The reply to Governor Morris’ message of April 1 was presented April 9 (see below under the latter date).

6. BF expressed his willingness to maintain a regular post between Philadelphia and Winchester, and proposed to keep an account of expenses and income, which he would lay before the Assembly at the end of the year, “if the House shall think fit to agree to make good the Deficiency, in case the Produce should not prove equal to the Expence.” The House unanimously agreed to the proposal and ordered that all letters sent by that post to and from the army should go free of charge. Votes, 1754–55, p. 87.

7. These services included his visit to General Braddock at Frederick, Md., and his raising wagons for the expedition. See below under date of Sept. 29, 1755.

8. I.e., state of bills and other unfinished business in the House.

9. The message was in reply to amendments and changes the governor proposed in the bill to prevent the importation of Germans in too great numbers in any one ship. It was read to the House and approved May 15 (see below under that date).

10. The reply was read May 17, 1755 (see below under that date).

11. The letters thanked the House for their present of tea, sugar, biscuit, cheese, wine, ham, rice, raisins, and similar foods sent to their respective regiments. The episode is related in Par. Text edit., p. 346–8. For extracts from the letters of thanks, see the message to the governor, Sept. 29, 1755 (below, under that date).

12. The answer was read June 16 (see below under that date).

13. The bill was to make a more regular provision of carriages and pack horses for His Majesty’s service in Pennsylvania. It was in response to the governor’s message of June 14. Votes, 1754–55, pp. 100–1, 102, 109, 112.

14. The committee was to draft a bill to appropriate a further sum for the King’s use, as the funds voted in April were unprovided for. A bill for £15,000 passed the House June 21, and was sent to the governor with a special message.

15. The reply to the governor’s message of June 21 was approved and sent to him June 27 (see below under the latter date).

16. To prepare a reply to that part of the governor’s message of the same day relating to Colonel Dunbar’s plan to come to Philadelphia with his army, including about 300 wounded. The reply was read and approved the same day. See below under this date.

17. The bill was to conform to resolutions of the House that a real-estate tax be levied, that the sum of £50,000 be raised by a tax of 12d. per pound and 20s. per head yearly for two years, on all estates, real and personal, and taxables, in the province. The bill passed the House August 2. The text of the bill, with the governor’s amendments, is in the appendix of Votes, 1754–55.

18. BF misread the record. He was on the committee to prepare the bill, but what he carried to the governor, July 30, was the House’s address replying to the governor’s speech of July 24 on Braddock’s defeat and Dunbar’s withdrawal, and assuring him of their willingness to take the necessary measures.

19. The governor’s proposed amendments to the appropriation bill of August 2 would exempt the proprietary estates. The committee’s answer was presented later this same day (see below under this date).

20. The governor gave his reasons for refusing to allow proprietary lands to be taxed, August 6; and a committee prepared an answer, which was read August 8 (see below under the latter date).

1. This was in response to notice by Colonel Dunbar that he intended to quarter 100 officers and 1200 men in Philadelphia. The governor requested the mayor and council to provide quarters, but they refused. The relevant portions of the Mutiny Act were passed by the House August 13. The bill is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 194–5.

2. The governor explained his refusal to allow the proprietary estates to be taxed, in a long message dated August 12 and laid before the House August 13. The committee presented their reply to the House August 19 (see below under this last date).

3. Omitted by BF. The reply to the governor’s message of August 16, on prohibiting the export of provisions to Louisbourg, was reported to the House August 20 (see below under this date).

4. The answer to the governor’s written message of August 16 and his verbal message of August 21, on the bill for striking paper currency, was sent August 22 (see below under this last date).

5. In response to petitions from frontier townships on the dangers to which they were exposed, pointing out that many of the poorer inhabitants were unarmed and unable to purchase arms to defend their houses and families, the House appropriated £1000. The committee designated in the bill, which included BF, reported September 26 that they had purchased some arms and received the governor’s approval for sending them to different places. The accounts of the spending of the appropriation are in Votes, 1755–56, pp. 165–7.

6. The date should be September 16. The bill was to continue the law directing the choice of inspectors in the western counties. It passed the House September 17. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 195–6.

7. This appointment was in response to a complaint from the inhabitants of Philadelphia that some servants and apprentices had enlisted in Sir Peter Halkett’s former regiment. For General Shirley’s orders to Dunbar on enlisting apprentices, Sept. 19, 1755, see 1 Pa. Arch., II, 417–8. These were issued in response to BF’s representations. See Shirley to BF, Sept. 19, 1755, and BF to Shirley, Oct. 23, 1755.

8. The reply to the governor’s short-tempered message of September 24 was read September 29 (see below under the latter date). Both message and reply were ordered printed in Pa. Gaz.

9. The letter (not found) mentions Massachusetts’ application to Pennsylvania for provisions, and the necessity of an immediate supply. The House accordingly resolved that a voluntary subscription not exceeding £10,000 should be raised to furnish provisions, blankets, and warm clothing to the troops at or near Crown Point, and that the subscribers should be thankfully reimbursed by future assemblies. The account of the clothing sent to Albany for the New England troops was printed in the Votes, December 3; and the House authorized repayment.

10. The message was merely formal notification that the House had met and organized.

11. The bill was for £60,000 paper bills of credit for the King’s use, to be sunk by a tax of 6d. per pound and 10s. per head for four years, on all estates, real and personal, and all taxables. The bill passed the House November 8. The governor’s proposed amendments, Nov. 17, 1755, were rejected by the House, which resolved that if the governor still withheld assent to the bill, they would petition the King to remove him.

12. The bill passed the House November 11. The governor postponed approving it, saying it required many amendments and the delay would do the province no harm, as the Indian trade had practically ceased. The House replied, December 3, with three resolutions, that the bill be sent directly to the Proprietors, that any delay was dangerous, and that “any ill Consequences which may attend the Postponing the Consideration of the said Bill at this Time, will not lie at the Door of this House.” Votes, 1755–56, P. 53.

13. The answer to the governor’s message of November 8 was read November 11 (see below under this last date).

14. The reply to the governor’s message of November 10 was presented November 11 (see below under the latter date).

15. These were a representation from the mayor and 133 citizens of Philadelphia, a petition from William Moore and others of Chester County, and an address of Anthony Morris and some other Quakers, all on defensive measures. The committee’s answer was read November 14, but was recommitted for amendment.

16. The committee was appointed to reply to the governor’s message of November 17 on the £60,000 money bill, and to draft a message to him about the application of a Shawanese chief for recompense of Indian lands surveyed into the Manor of Conedoguinet. The two replies were read November 18 (see below under that date).

17. The bill was referred for revision and amendment, November 20, to a committee including BF; it passed the House November 21. Though objecting to many features, the governor signified his assent November 22 (see below under this last date). It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 197–201.

18. The answer to the governor’s message of November 18 was read November 19 (see below under the latter date).

19. The committee’s report on the governor’s message of November 22 was read November 25 (see below under the latter date); its first draft of an answer was not sent, but was printed in Votes, 1755–56, appendix, pp. i-iii.

20. The bill passed the House November 26, and received the governor’s assent. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 201–12.

1. The reply to the governor’s message of November 24 was read December 3 (see below under that date).

2. The answer to the governor’s message of December 2 was read December 3 (see below under that date).

3. The House adjourned December 3 until March, but was recalled February 3. William Franklin, clerk of the House, was also necessarily absent, being on the frontier with his father; and he was excused. See J. Bennett Nolan, General Benjamin Franklin (Phila., 1936).

4. The address was read February 11 (see below under that date).

5. The letters were one of Feb. 4, 1756 (see below under that date) and another, informing BF that Shirley had removed the prohibition formerly placed on enlisting servants and apprentices. See also Shirley to BF, Sept. 19, 1755, and 1 Pa. Arch., II, 572–3, 576.

6. The answer to the governor’s message of February 17 was read February 20 (see below under that date).

7. The bill was sent to a committee, of which BF was one, March 10; it was rejected by the House March 12. See below, next footnote 9.

8. The bill passed the House March 9. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 224–43.

9. BF, who was one of the commissioners for disposing of the £60,000 granted for the King’s use, represented to the House “that there was an absolute Necessity for some Law to be speedily passed for the better Regulation of the Soldiers in the Pay of the Province, or that otherwise they must be disbanded; and therefore moved, that though the Bills which had already been prepared for that Purpose were not agreeable to the Mind of the House, yet that the House should meet again this Afternoon, in order to consider if some other Measures could not be fallen upon to answer the good End proposed.” That afternoon, after considering the question, the House directed the committee to bring in another bill. Votes, 1755–56, pp. 74–5. The bill is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 219–21.

10. The bill was the one the House called for, March 13, and passed, March 17, for regulating officers and soldiers in the provincial service. BF delivered it to Governor Morris at New Castle on his way to Virginia. He left Philadelphia immediately after the bill’s passage, for he was in Frederick, on the Sassafras River, Md., March 20.

11. The answer to the governor’s message, dated May 9, but laid before the House May 11, was read May 14 (see below under this last date).

12. Omitted by BF. The bill passed the House May 13. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 222–4.

13. Omitted by BF. The bill, for £40,000, passed the House July 3.

14. That is, on a committee to answer Governor Morris’ message of June 2. The answer was read June 3 (see below under this last date).

15. On July 21 the governor sent to the Assembly Shirley’s letter to him of July 13, announcing the appointment of the Earl of Loudoun as commander-in-chief in North America and his own recall to England, and thanking Governor Morris and Pennsylvania for their contribution to the Crown Point expedition. The Assembly’s address to Shirley was passed, July 22, and sent to BF for delivery. Votes, 1755–56, p. 125. BF had been in New York since June 16 or 17. See also Governor Morris to Shirley, July 22, 1756, about the address, and warning him against BF. I Pa. Arch., II, 715–6.

16. The appropriation was for the King’s use. On August 25 the committee was instructed to bring in a bill with a blank for the sum to be granted instead of the £40,000 first voted, August 17. On September 2 the House voted to insert the amount of £60,000; and the bill passed in this form September 8. The appropriating clauses are printed in Votes, 1755–56, p. 143. The new governor, William Denny, refused assent September 15.

17. Omitted by BF. The reply to the governor’s message of August 16 was read August 18 (see below under the latter date).

18. On August 19, hearing that Denny was expected the next day, the House adjourned until 5 o’clock on August 20, when they accepted an invitation of the City Corporation to dinner in honor of the new governor. The House also directed their clerk to arrange “a handsome Dinner” at the State House, August 23, to which “the present and late Governor, the Governor’s Council, Mayor and Corporation, Officers Civil and Military, Clergy, and Strangers, now residing in this City” should be invited. Votes, 1755–56, p. 129. An account of Governor Denny’s entry into Philadelphia and of the receptions and dinners in his honor is in Pa. Gaz., Aug. 26, 1756, quoted in PMHB, XLIV (1920), 102–3.

19. The address was read in the House and presented to the governor August 23 (see below under that date), together with an order by the House for £600. Denny’s reply was read in the House, August 24.

20. The answer to the governor’s speech of August 24 and to his message of August 27 was read on August 31 (see below under this last date).

1. After considering the proprietary instructions and the ways and means of raising money for the King’s use, the House asked Governor Denny whether he would assent to an equitable tax bill, notwithstanding his instructions; and BF was one of the committee to carry the inquiry to the governor.

2. The appropriating clauses are printed in Votes, 1755–56, p. 143.

3. On September 11 BF was appointed to a committee to confer with the governor on the bill for £60,000. The committee made its report September 13 (Pa. Col. Recs., VII, 251–5), reporting the governor’s objections; and on that day BF was named to a committee to prepare reasons to be included in an answer to the governor. They were read September 14 (see below under that date).

4. Omitted by BF. The report was made September 23 (see below under that date).

5. See below under this date.

6. The bill passed the House September 17. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 243–61.

7. BF and William Masters were appointed to carry the appropriation bill for £30,000 to the governor. The governor tried unsuccessfully to prevail on BF and the speaker to accept an alteration in the bill or to substitute one for £15,000 to be sunk in five years, but he won a concession on the fines and forfeitures to be paid to the treasurer. Pa. Col. Recs., VII, 257, 264.

8. This report was drawn up by the committee appointed September 14. It was presented September 23 and unanimously approved next day. On September 24 the House resolved that a remonstrance should be drafted to the Crown against the Proprietorship, but as time was short, they recommended it to the consideration of the next Assembly.

9. The bill passed the House March 8, 1757. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 291–4.

10. The bill passed the House Dec. 3, 1756; it was objected to by the governor December 7, and amended and approved December 8. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 269–78. See Pa. Col. Recs., VII, 346, 348–50.

11. The committee conferred with Governor Denny about the proper disposition of Indians in town. They reported to the House, October 28, that Denny had told them the Indians might use any part of Pennsbury Manor for the present; and that if the House would name someone for the purpose, he would direct Secretary Richard Peters and Richard Hockley to accompany such person to Pennsbury to lay out accommodations.

12. The House considered BF’s bill for regulating the provincial forces, that part of the governor’s message relating to a militia law, and the militia laws of several neighboring colonies and of Great Britain; and then named a committee, including BF, to prepare a bill to form and regulate a militia. It is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 266–8. See also BF to Collinson, Dec. 19, 1756.

13. The accounts, covering the period April 26, 1755—April 26, 1756, are printed in Votes, 1756–57, pp. 19–22.

14. The answer to the governor’s message of October 29 was read later the same day (see below under this date).

15. The bill was for regulating the provincial forces. The governor suggested a change regarding courts martial; the House judged a change unnecessary and ordered that the bill be engrossed and BF and Thomas Leech meet with members of the Council to compare the original and engrossed bills and to inform the governor why the House adhered to its version. The governor assented to the bill and it was accordingly enacted.

16. The Indian Conference was at Easton, November 8–17. On being notified of the names of the commissioners chosen to attend him there, Governor Denny replied they were “extreamly agreeable to him.” Their report was made to the House, Jan. 29, 1757 (see below under that date).

17. The message asked Governor Denny to lay before the House “such of the Proprietary Instructions to him as relate to Matters of Legislation,” and also a copy of the late conference with the Indians at Easton. It was read November 24 (see below under that date).

18. See below under this date.

19. The answer to the governor’s message of December 8 was read later the same day (see below under this date).

20. The message, about a report in Philadelphia that Governor Denny had ordered soldiers to be quartered in private houses, was read December 17 (see below under that date). See also Pa. Col. Recs., VII, 361–2.

1. The answer to the governor’s message of December 18 was read on December 19, a Sunday (see below under that date).

2. The subject of the conference was the quartering of soldiers. The committee reported to the House December 20 (see below under that date). For other accounts of the conference, see Pa. Col. Recs., VII, 369–70, 374, and the governor’s letter to the Proprietor, in I Pa. Arch., III, 112.

3. The answer to the governor’s message of December 21 was read December 24 (see below under the latter date).

4. The bill passed the House Jan. 22, 1757. The governor rejected it January 25; the House replied with a remonstrance, January 26, demanding that he give his assent; and when the governor continued to withhold his assent, the House resolved, January 28, “That a Commissioner, or Commissioners, be appointed to go Home to England, in Behalf of the People of this Province, to solicit a Removal of the Grievances we labour under by Reason of Proprietary Instruction, &c.”

5. The committee was appointed in response to a petition of the public-house keepers of Philadelphia to equalize the burden of quartering troops. The bill was reported January 18; it passed the House January 24. The governor refused assent February 7; the House prepared an answer February 9 (see below under this last date); and the governor approved March 17. The bill is printed in Stats. at Large, V, 288–90.

6. No further mention is made of this committee and bill in the Votes during BF’s attendance in the Assembly.

7. The message was a request from the House that the governor would cause the Great Seal to be affixed to an exemplification of the supply bill, and that he would give the House a copy of his reasons for not passing the bill, which he intended to forward to the King.

8. See below under this date.

9. The speaker, Isaac Norris, and BF were “requested” to go to England “to solicit the Removal of our Grievances, occasioned by Proprietary Instructions, &c.” They asked some time to consider the request.

10. Norris declined the appointment because of health; BF accepted (see below under this date). On April 1 the sum of £1500 sterling was appropriated for BF’s expenses, half to be given him at once, the other half to remain subject to his drafts.

11. The answer to the governor’s message of February 7 was read in the House February 9 (see below under the latter date).

12. The answer to the governor’s message of February 11 (read in the House February 12) was approved by the House February 17 (see below under that date).

13. Omitted by BF. He was added to the committee that had been appointed February 19 to present an address of welcome to Lord Loudoun. The appointment may have been made because Loudoun suggested to BF, Feb. 20, 1757, that he expected to meet BF in Philadelphia. The address was presented March 16; its text is in Votes, 1756–57, p. 93, and Loudoun’s reply is reported in ibid., pp. 100–1.

14. The governor consulted Lord Loudoun on the supply bill, and Loudoun asked for a statement of his position, promising to ask for a similar statement from the Assembly. Benjamin Chew and Richard Peters were named to draft a statement for the governor, entitled “Propositions in Relation to the Money Bill,” March 17. These Loudoun showed to Isaac Norris and BF, and their answer was communicated by him to the Council March 21 (see below under this date for the answer). The same day letters were received reporting the gathering of French and Indian forces and disaffection at Fort Augusta for lack of pay; whereupon Governor Denny obtained a letter from Loudoun advising him to accept the bill. The governor notified the House, March 22, that he would accept the bill, and it was signed the next day. Its text is in Stats. at Large, V, 294–302. For the accounts of the conferences with Loudoun, see Pa. Col. Recs., VII, 441, 453–4; 1 Pa. Arch., III, 118; and Stanley M. Pargellis, Lord Loudoun in North America (New Haven, 1933), p. 223.

This is the last entry in the Votes of BF’s activities in the Assembly before his departure for New York, April 4, on his way to England.

15. Omitted by BF. He and William Masters were returned for Philadelphia city.

16. Omitted by BF.

17. Omitted by BF.

18. Omitted by BF.

19. The Proprietors’ message was dated Nov. 28, 1758; BF’s Heads of Complaint were dated Aug. 20, 1757 (see below under that date); and Ferdinand John Paris’ answer was dated Nov. 27, 1758. See also BF’s reply of Nov. 28, 1758, under that date.

20. As soon as the House received notice of the governor’s assent, they voted £1000 for his support for the year. The text of the act is in Stats. at Large, V, 379–96.

1. Omitted by BF.

2. Omitted by BF.

3. See below under this date.

4. This complicated transaction can be followed in the Votes and in BF’s correspondence below. On this day a letter from BF to the speaker, July 10, 1761, was read; it has not been found.

5. Omitted by BF.

6. Omitted by BF.

7. The letters probably included one or more of BF’s reports to Charles Norris and Thomas Leech, commissioners of the Loan Office, Jan. 9, 14, 16; Feb. 13, 1762, with the enclosures mentioned therein.

8. By letter of July 10 (not found). He sailed from Portsmouth in late August.

9. The committee gave the governor formal notice that the House was organized and in session. BF appeared and took his seat, January 11.

10. The committee was to draft a bill to reimburse masters who had lost apprentices by enlistment in the army. It passed the House February 3.

11. The first committee was to bring in a bill to strike £50,000 in small bills of credit (not exceeding 18d.). It passed the House January 25, but was disapproved by the governor January 29. The second committee was to examine the laws of the province and report on those which were defective or nearing expiration. Their report was read January 19 (see below under that date).

12. This engagement by BF and Robert Charles, Aug. 28, 1760 (in Pa. Col. Recs., VIII, 555), is quoted in Governor Hamilton’s message to the Assembly of this date. It had been laid before the Assembly, Jan. 28, 1761, but was not printed in Votes.

13. BF was appointed to three committees this day. The first was to bring in a bill to continue and amend the act regulating wagoners, carters, and draymen in Philadelphia. It was passed February 24, and is printed in Stats. at Large, VI, 249–50. The second was to bring in two bills, one to regulate the courts, and the other to limit the continuance of actions in the said courts. The bill regulating courts passed the House February 10, and is printed in ibid., 273–4. The third committee was to examine the several laws of the province for the relief of the poor and to reduce them into a single general law, for the consideration of the House.

14. The two committees were instructed respectively to draft a bill enabling certain persons therein named to borrow a sum of money to erect fortifications for defense, and to draft a bill supplementary to the act for regulating, pitching, paving, and cleaning the streets of Philadelphia. The second bill passed the House February 22, and is printed in Stats. at Large, VI, 234–46.

15. Omitted by BF. The report on the petition for cleaning the Dock between Chestnut and Walnut Streets was read February 9 (see below under that date).

16. The bill was to amend and continue the act regulating Indian trade. It passed the House February 23. The governor objected and suggested amendments, which the House rejected. After further consideration and a petition from the Friendly Association, the House appointed a committee, March 29, to bring in another bill. See below, p. 177, note 19.

17. BF’s accounts were submitted February 16. The report on them was made February 19; and the House voted him the thanks of the House and £500 sterling per year for his services (see below under that date).

18. The amount is given as £2214 10s. 7d. in Votes.

19. The bill was to continue the law for preventing abuses in the Indian trade, and is printed in Stats. at Large, VI, 283–93. See above, page 176, note 16.

20. For BF’s reply, see below under this date.

1. The House adjourned later this day to September 12 (it was recalled July 4), and no further action seems to have been taken on this matter.

2. BF was in New York and New England from mid-June until November 5.

3. The murder of Conestoga Indians at Lancaster in December and the threats of further attacks on them and their protectors had roused the governor and authorities. On December 23 Lewis Weiss petitioned that a certain Moravian Indian, in jail in Philadelphia on a charge of murder, be tried there instead of being returned to Northampton County. The Assembly professed concern for the Indians and readiness to pay the expenses of removing them to a safer place and to raise money to suppress the rioters. On January 4, after further consideration of the case of the Indian of Weiss’s petition, the House appointed a committee to bring in a bill on the subject, which was ordered to lie on the table. According to Samuel Foulke, a member of the Assembly, this bill, providing for trial in Philadelphia, “Occasion’d such a Clamour’ in the House and out-a-doors that the house thought proper to let it lye” until the commotion and ferment subsided. PMHB, V (1881), 67–8.

4. The bill was to pay the several colonies the amounts the Pennsylvania agents had stipulated would be paid them from the Parliamentary grant of 1760. The amount was £10,947 sterling. The bill passed January 13; its text is in Stats. at Large, VI, 329–31.

5. The answer was read January 20 (see below under that date).

6. The bill passed the House March 16, and, as amended and finally approved, is printed in Stats. at Large, VI, 339–42. Thomas (1731–1821) and Charles (1738–1788) Willing were sons of Charles Willing, Sr. (1710–1754). For the latter’s will, see PMHB, XXXII (1908), 216–7.

7. No action was taken at this session. On Jan. 10, 1765, the House resumed consideration of the subject and appointed another committee (BF was then in England) to reduce the poor laws into one general act. On petition from the Overseers of the Poor, Jan. 14, 1766, a new committee was named to prepare a bill for erecting a poorhouse. They offered instead a bill for the relief of the poor, which passed the House February 6, and received the governor’s assent, February 8.

8. The answer was read February 11 (see below under that date).

9. The bill passed the House February 28.

10. The remonstrance had been laid before the House February 15 (Votes, 1763–64, pp. 44–6). The committee made its report February 21 (see below under that date).

11. The report was read March 6, 1764 (see below under that date).

12. Samuel Wallis’ first petition was read Sept. 20, 1763; John Moore’s on the same subject, September 27; and a second petition from Wallis, on Jan. 20, 1764. The bill passed the House March 6; it is printed in Stats. at Large, VI, 335–9. Wallis, a Marylander whose trading venture to Quebec had failed, was caught in a suit between his creditor and the assignees of the creditor, and had been in jail over eight months.

13. The resolutions were reported March 24 (see below under that date). These were the “necklace of Resolves” BF sent William Strahan, March 30, 1764, and which Strahan printed, as BF suggested, in the London Chronicle. BF to Strahan, Sept. 24, 1764.

14. The message was read March 22 (see below under that date).

15. The answer was read March 24 (see below under that date). BF sent it to Strahan to publish in London.

16. The answer was read May 30, and signed by BF as speaker (see below under that date).

17. It passed the House May 22, and is printed in Stats. at Large, VI, 344–67.

18. That same day the committee laid a draft of the petition before the House. It was ordered signed May 26 (see below under that date).

19. The committee was to consider and report on the petitions submitted this day on frontier grievances, as well as on the remonstrances of Matthew Smith and James Gibson, and also the petitions submitted this day from inhabitants of Paxtang in Lancaster County and of Cumberland County. Two more petitions were referred to them May 25. The committee’s report, September 20, is not signed by BF, who was then speaker.

20. Isaac Norris resigned because of illness.

1. Governor John Penn urgently asked the Assembly whether they would amend the present supply bill or write another. The House replied they had voted the troops demanded for the service of the Crown and had prepared a bill for their support, and requested the governor to give assent to it.

2. The letter, dated June 25, 1764, appealed for support in a petition to the British Government against the Sugar Act and similar “formidable Attacks upon … the inseparable Rights of British Subjects.”

3. See below under this date. BF was defeated for reelection in October 1764, thus ending his service as a member of the Assembly from Philadelphia.