4

|

|

|
00175026

|

|
1761

O
—
2
Oo
Cc
ie)
p=
w
1@)
>
e
Uy
c
Wu
>

i

3

7 7 :
Ss 7 : - 7 7
:
a 7
7 a
7 oe
*
- a
—
npammagratiet
7 ——
:
7
: 7
a :
7 :
f

a

7.

aie

AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE
ORIGIN AND FORMATION

OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCLETY

HELD AT PHILADELPHIA

FOR PROMOTING USEFUL KNOWLEDGE

BY

PETER STEPHEN DU PONCEAU
President of the Society

WITH THE

COMMUNICATION OF J. FRANCIS FISHER, Esq.
AND THE
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO WHICH

THESE PAPERS WERE REFERRED
READ OcToBER 15, 1841

AND
THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
ON THE
DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY

AccrepTep May 1, 1914
oO

i,
sl
PHILADELPHIA \ ap be

THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
1914

/

PRESS OF
THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY

LANCASTER, PA.

~~

CONTENTS.

Historical Account of the Origin of The American
Philosophical Society, By Peter Stephen Du-
ON 55s ic oes a a 6 nd dda dale ws

Communication of J. Francis Fisher ............
Report of the Committee to which was referred

the Communieations of Mr. DuPonceau and Mr.

eer Re ee ee ew a 4

Appendices:
B. Abstract from the Junto Minute Book....
U. Chronological Statement ..... 24... . s+

Letter from J. Francis. Fisher to Peter S. Du-
POneeen, June oh, 1ot0 2... ke kee tw oe

Letter from J. Francis Fisher to the Secretaries
of the American Philosophical Society, Novem-
Oe Ee Pea od eth e ies Meee eedevs Ua

Action of the Society, November 5, 1841.........
Additional Data collected in 1910 ...............

Report of the Committee appointed February 18,
1910 to investigate and determine the date of
the foundation of the Society. (Presented
a oy ok a tne beh vd es eve

Acceptance of the Report, May 1, 1914..........

iii

PAGE

5)
143

Oo

HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN

Or THE

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

It is generally known that the American Philosoph-
ical Society, as at present constituted, was formed at
the latter end of the year 1768, by the union of two
associations which existed at that time, one of which
was called ‘‘The American Society held at Philadel-
phia for promoting and propagating useful knowl-

> and the other ‘‘The American Philosophical

edge,
Society’’; but its history does not begin at that
period: in order to have a full view of it, we ought
to trace to their origin the two Societies by the
union of which it was formed, follow them in their
progress to the time of their junction, and what is not
less interesting, we should be informed of their dif-
ferent views, their different interests, and the means
by which their union was effected.

This is the more necessary, that although little more
than seventy years have elapsed since that union took
place, different opinions already prevail, as to the
origin of one of the two Societies which, sacrificing
their little jealousies to the honor of their country

and the advantage of Science, agreed to unite their
3

4 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

efforts for the advancement of knowledge; and like a
band of brothers to join in forming the Society which
I have now the honor of addressing. Some are of
opinion, that the ‘‘American’’ Society which I call
thus for shortness’ sake, and to distinguish it from
the other which [I shall eall the ‘*‘Philosophieal,’’ was
no other than the celebrated Junto, established by the
illustrious Franklin in 1727, and of which he gives
so interesting an account in his autobiography, while
others think that it was a different Association, of
uncertain origin, but more recent than that of the
other Society.

Among those who entertain the latter opinion, or
rather who have doubts upon the subject, are men
whose sentiments are entitled to the highest respect,
men of profound learning and established reputation,
justly deserved, to whom I should not have alluded,
if one of them had not expressed his doubts in a work
destined to go to posterity.’

It is not my intention to give to this sketch a polem-
ical character, but in treating this subject historically,
IT shall be obliged to give the reasons which have pro-
duced in my mind the fullest convictions that the
‘American’? Society was no other than the Junto es-
tablished by Franklin, which, when it was united to
the ‘*Plilosophical’’? Society, had only changed its
name, extended its views, and increased the number
of its members, without ceasing to be a continuation
of the original association.

*1 Sparks’ “ Franklin,” 578.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. D

The contrary opinion, or rather doubt, is of recent
date. Ever since I had the honor to be a member of
this Society,'* I felt a great interest in its history; I
had frequent conversations with men who took a part
in its formation, and particularly with the venerable
Bishop White, whose loss we still deplore, and who
was a member of the ‘‘American’’ Society. He loved
to talk upon the subject. He informed me of many
details respecting the union of the two Societies,
which are not to be found in their records, some of
which I have given in this sketch, that the memory
of them may be preserved; but neither he, nor any
body else at that time doubted of the ‘‘American”’
Society having been a continuation of the Junto,
which, extending its views and desirous of enlarging
its sphere of action, thought proper to modify its
rules and to adopt a new name; this fact, until a very
late period, was admitted by all.

To this traditional testimony we may add that of
Franklin himself, to show that the Junto continued
in existence until the time of its union with the
‘¢Philosophieal’’? Society. While absent in Iurope
on public business, he never lost sight of his favorite
Club, as he ealled it; in his letters to his friend Hugh
Roberts, which Mr. Sparks has preserved for us, he
never fails to mention it with affection, as will appear
from the following extracts:

On the 16th of July 1753, he writes: ‘‘My respects
to Mrs. Roberts, and all our old friends of the Junto.’

** Mr. Du Ponceau was elected a member July 15, 1791.
?4 Sparks’ “ Franklin,” 77.

6 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

On the 16th of September 1758—‘‘ I do not quite
like your absenting vourself from the good old Club,
the Junto. I exhort vou, therefore, to return to your
duty.’”*

On the 26th February 1761—‘‘You tell me you
sometimes visit the ancient Junto. I wish you would
do it oftener. Since we have held that Club till
we have grown gray together, let us hold it out to
the end.’’! |

On the 7th of July, 1765—‘‘I wish you would con-
tinue to meet the Junto, notwithstanding that some
effects of our political misunderstandings may some-
times appear there. It is now, perhaps, one of the
oldest Clubs, as I think it was formerly one of the
best, in the King’s dominions. It wants but about
two years of forty since it was established.’

And lastly, 27th Feb. 1766—‘‘Remember me affee-
tionately to the Junto.’’®

It may be asked, perhaps, whether the Society
which was joined to the ‘‘Philosophical,’’? and then
bore the name of the ‘‘American’’ Society, was really
the old Junto mentioned in the above extracts. This
objection can be easily answered. By the articles of
union agreed upon between the two Societies, on the
20th of December 1768, it is stipulated

Art. 7: ‘*That the books and all the curiosities, ete.
of the former Societies, be deposited in the Cabinet

* Ibid., 182, * Ibid.; 301,
‘Ibid., 223. *Ibid., 308.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 7

or elsewhere, as the United Society shall direct.’”
In consequence of this agreement, the Minutes of the
two Societies were deposited in the Cabinet of the
United Society, where they now are, and it appears
from the Minutes of the American Society, that on
the 2nd of September 1762, it was still called ‘‘The
Junto.’’> The Minutes from 1762 to 1766 are missing.
In 1766, the Society changed its name, but was still
in fact the Junto.

There was no other Association in Philadelphia,
that bore that name. In the year 1736 (as Franklin
relates in his autobiography) the Junto wanted to
increase the number of its members, which was
limited to twelve. Franklin dissuaded them from it,
by persuading them that it would be better for each
member to form a limited Club, unconnected with
them, but pursuing the same objects. ive or six of
those Clubs, he says, were completed. They were
called the Vine, the Union, the Band, etc., but none
of them assumed the name of the Junto.” What
became of them afterwards does not appear. It is
probable that they had not a long existence.

There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Society,
which in 1766 assumed the name of the ‘‘ American,’’
was Franklin’s old Junto of 1727, and no other. It
is hardly credible that while the old Junto existed,

7 Gee the minutes of the two societies.

> See the minutes.
°1 Sparks’ “Franklin,” 129.

8 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

another Society should have adopted the same name;
It would have been contrary to all the rules of
delicacy and mutual respect.

Dr. Smith in his Eulogium of Franklin says that
the Junto ‘‘became at last the foundation of the
American Philosophical Society, now assembled to
pay the last tribute to his memory.’’®* ,

If there would still be any doubt upon this point,
we have the testimony of Dr. William Smith, which
is conclusive. Dr. Smith was a member of the
‘Philosophical’? Society (not that which had before
been the Junto) and was the Secretary at the time
of the Union in the vear 1768. He was very active
in promoting the Union of the two associations, and
must have known their respective origin. In 1792, he
pronounced an Kulogium of Franklin before our So-
ciety, which was printed and is in our Library. In
that Eulogium he says: ‘‘For the purpose of aiding
and increasing the materials of information, one of
the first Societies formed by Franklin was in the
year 1728,” about the 22nd [vear] of his age, and was

*T do not know whether in my quotation I have added the part
underlined. It ought to be inserted. Nor do I remember whether I
have said that Smith, at the time of the Union, was Secretary to the
Society opposed to the Junto. That is material. [Note added by
Mr. Du Ponceau. |

* We are informed by Dr. Franklin, that the Junto was estab-
lished in the autumn of 1727, but many writers date its establish-
ment in the following year. Thus our Society is said to have

begun in 1769, though the two Societies were united in December .

preceding.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 9

ealled the Junto. It consisted of a select number of
his younger friends, who met weekly, for the discus-
sion of Questions in Morality, Politics, and Natural
Philosophy. The number was limited to twelve mem-
bers. After having existed forty vears, and having
contributed to the formation of some very great men,
besides Franklin himself, this Society became at last,
the foundation of the American Philosophical Society
now assembled to pay the last tribute to his memory.’’

We shall see in the sequel that the Junto of 1727,
and that of 1758 and 1766, of which alone the re-
corded proceedings have been preserved, were formed
on the same model, pursued the same objects by the
same means, and were governed by the same rules
(as far as can be ascertained) and I am forced to
conclude that the last was a continuation of the
original Club, until it thought proper to change its
name, with a view to the enlargement of its objects.

Having premised thus much, I shall now proceed
historically. I shall draw my facts from the minutes
of the two Societies that are deposited in our Ar-
chives, and from the information that I obtained from
Cotemporaries. About twelve or fifteen years ago, I
had formed the design, which I have since abandoned,
of writing the History of this Society, at least to a
certain period. With that view I made copious ex-
tracts from the Minutes above mentioned, which have
aided me in preparing this humble sketch, which will,
perhaps, facilitate the labours of our future historian.

10 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

I shall begin with the Junto.

The Records or Minutes of that institution during
the first thirty vears of its existence, are unfortu-
nately lost. Those that we possess begin only with
the 22nd of September 1758. This is not to be
wondered at; it is more astonishing that so much
should have been preserved. The Junto in its
origin was an Association of young men for mutual
improvement. It was, in fact, a Club, as Dr. Frank-
lin properly called it. His spirit kept it alive, and
raised it gradually to what it afterwards became.
They had no common repository; they met at taverns,
and their papers passed from hand to hand, and ulti-
mately disappeared. This is no more than what
might have been expected. |

We are not in possession of their original rules,
or Constitution. For all we know respecting it we
are indebted to Dr. Franklin, who fortunately has
supphed us in his autobiography with much informa-
tion on this subject. To that and some other Docu-
ments found among his papers, we must, therefore,
have recourse.

The great man informs us that in the autumn of
1727, he formed most of his ingenious acquaintances
into a Club, for mutual improvement, which they
called the Junto. They met on Friday evenings.
The rules that he drew up required that every mem-
ber in his turn, should produce one or more queries

on any point of morals, politics, or natural philos-

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. rl

ophy, to be discussed by the Company; and once in
three months, produce and read an essay of his own,
on any subject he pleased. Their debates were to
be under the direction of a President, and to be
conducted in the sincere spirit of enquiry after truth,
without fondness for dispute or desire of victory;
and to prevent warmth, all expressions of positive-
ness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after
sometime, made contraband, and prohibited under
small pecuniary penalties."

The number of the members was limited to twelve.”

The first members of the Society were himself,
Joseph Breintnall, Thomas Godfrey, Nicholas Seull,
Wm. Parsons, Wiliam Mangridge, Hugh Meredith,
Stephen Potts, George Webb, Robert Grace, and
William Coleman, who, with Franklin, were the only
survivors at the time of the union of the two Societies.

This is all that is found in Franklin’s autobiog-
raphy respecting the Junto, except the character of
its first members, which are too well known to need
to be repeated here. But in some loose sheets found
among his papers, and which have been preserved
by Mr. Sparks, some further light is thrown upon
the subject.

Among those seraps (if anything from Franklin
may be so called) we find a paper entitled: ‘‘ Rules
for a Club established for mutual improvement,’’

“1 Sparks’ “ Franklin,” 81.
* Tbid., 129.

12 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

which Mr. Sparks tells us in a note was drawn up for
the Junto in 1728.'*=) In that paper are forty questions
to be asked of each member at every meeting. I do
not think that they were adopted, or, if they were,
they cannot have remained long in use, as it would
have taken up the whole time of each meeting for
each member to answer them, and they would have
led to conversations and perhaps, discussions without
end. ‘They related chiefly to the gossip of the day,
what strangers had arrived in town, who had failed
in business, ete., which questions appear to have been
intended more for the worldly advantage than for the
mental improvement of the members.

Franklin candidly admits that the Junto was partly
established with a view to promote the success of the
members in business, and that he himself profited
by -ite*

But that was not thei principal object. In the
same papers there are four questions, distinct from
the forty above mentioned, which are of a very dif-
ferent character, and which truly bear the stamp of
the great mind of Franklin. I copy literally from
the paper as Mr. Sparks has recorded it.

‘*Any person to be qualified (as a member of the
Junto) to stand up, and lay his hand upon his breast,
and be asked these questions, viz:

‘¢1. Have you any particular disrespect to any
present members? Answer. I have not.

*2 Sparks’ “Franklin,” 9. “1 Sparks’ “ Franklin,” 83.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 13

‘9. Do you sincerely declare that you love man-
kind in general, of what profession or religion soever?
Answer. I do.

“3. Do you think any person ought to be harmed in
his body, name or goods, for mere speculative opin-
ions, or his external way of worship? Answer. No.

“4 Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will you
endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself,
and communicate it to others? Answer. Yes.’

It is very probable that this admirable test was
adopted by the Junto at its first establishment, and
made a part of its rules. In another part of the same
volume,’ there is another paper of Dr. Franklin, en-
titled: ‘‘Proposals and queries for the consideration
of the Junto,’’ and dated June 30th, 1732, between
four and five years after it was established. It does
not appear whether those proposals were adopted;
but one of them is: ‘‘That all new members be quali-
fied by the four qualifications, and all the old ones
take... (the sentence is not finished). This seems
to imply that the four qualifications, which can be no
others than those above cited, were already in use
among the Junto, and we shall see hereafter that
they were made part of the amended rules in 1766,
and afterwards, until the entirely new organization
of the Junto in 1768, which produced the union.

This is all the information which the works of

Franklin supply us with on the subject of the Junto.

7 Pe ool,

14 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

We may, however, gather something more from what
we possess of the records or minutes of their proceed-
ings, from 1758 to 1768 inclusive, a period of eleven
vears, in which unfortunately there is a chasm of
four vears, from 1762 to 1766, by the loss, as is be-
lieved, of a volume of those minutes, which there is
little hope of recovering.

I shall then by the aid of those manuscripts, follow
the Junto through their various labours, to the period
when the ‘‘Philosophical’’ Society which had been
asleep during more than twenty years, began to
revive, when, after a short history of that institution,
I shall follow the two Societies in their mutual
jealousies, and in their negotiations for an union,
which were happily terminated by the formation of
the American Philosophical Society, held at Phila-
delphia, for promoting useful Knowledge.

The minutes of the Junto, afterward called the
‘‘American’’ Society, that are now in our possession,
consist of two folio manuscript volumes, which, by
the care of our active and zealous Librarian,!* have
been handsomely bound up in one. One of these
manuscripts contains the proceedings of the Junto,
so-called, from the 22nd of September 1758 to the
24th of the same month in 1762, being a period of
four years. The other consists of the minutes of the
same body, first under its original name and after-
wards under that of the ‘‘American Society, held

* John Vaughan.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 15

at Philadelphia, for promoting and propagating use-
ful knowledge.’’ These minutes begin on the 25th of
April 1766 and end with the union of the two So-
cieties, on the 20th of December 1768, comprising a
period within a few days of two years and nine
months. _

I am strongly inclined to believe that there was an
intermediate volume, comprising the four years be-
tween 1762 and 1766, which has, unfortunately, been
lost. Dr. Smith, in his above cited Eulogium on
Franklin, tells us ‘‘that a book containing many of
the questions discussed by the Junto, was, on the
formation of the American Philosophical Society, put
into his hands for the purpose of being digested, and
in due time published among the transactions of that
body.’’ It was one of the stipulations at the time
of the union, that selections should be made from the
papers of the two Societies, should be published in
the transactions of the United Society, and that was
in fact done, as may be seen in the first Volume of
our Transactions.

The date of that book only remains to be ascer-
tained. Fortunately Dr. Smith in his oration men-
tions several of the questions which that volume con-
tained, and one of them fixes its date. The question
is: ‘‘How may the possession of the Lakes be im-
proved to our advantage?” Now this question can
only have been asked after the cession of Canada in
1763, and not long after it, as the subject was then

16 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

fresh, and attracted the general attention. I think
then I am founded in my conjecture that such a book
existed, and that it was the one that was put into the
hands of Dr. Smith, which he forgot to return, or if
he returned it, was otherwise lost.

This conjecture acquires strength when we consider
what little care was taken of those valuable docu-
ments. By the articles of union, on the 20th of
December 1768, it was agreed that the books ete. of
the two Societies should be placed at the disposal of
the United Society. But this stipulation was not
faithfully executed. I do not know how the first of the
two volumes above mentioned came into our posses-
sion, but the second and most important, as it con-
tains the proceedings of the new organization of the
Junto and the negotiations for the union of the two
Societies, remained eleven years after that union in
the hands of Mr. Robert Strettell Jones, a member
of the Society, who, on the 26th of June, 1781, sent
it to one of the Secretaries, with other documents be-
longing to us, and with the only apology that he had
‘‘found them among his papers.’’ See his letter to
Mr. [Timothy] Matlack, bound with the two volumes
of the proceedings of the Junto.

I proceed now to examine the contents of those
volumes:

In the first we recognize in every page the old
Junto, as established by Dr. Franklin. The minutes

that it contains are filled with questions to be dis-

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 17

cussed, discussions thereon, and with the decisions
given upon them and essays written by the members
and read at the meetings. It is useless to enter into
details upon this subject, the proceedings will speak
for themselves. I shall only take notice of what
appears the most worthy of remark.

At the date when the volume begins, the members
were: Francis Rawle, Charles Thomson, J. Woolley,
Peter Chevalier, William Franklin, (son of Benjamin,
and afterwards Governor of New Jersey), J. Mather,
Philp Syng, J. Paschall, Edmund Physick, J. Howell,
and W. Hopkins—(eleven members). Those absent
are noted. Thirty years had elapsed since the forma-
tion of the Club, and therefore it is not astonishing
that there should be a total change of its members.
William Coleman, one of the founders, was still alive,
[but] many causes might prevent him from continu-
ing his attendance.

Nor do we find among these names those of Ben-
jamin Franklin and of his friend Hugh Roberts. The
former was in England, and it was unknown when
he should return. He was probably more considered
at that time as the founder and patron of that Club
(for such, in fact, it was) than as one of its active
members.

The membership of a Club for mutual improvement
is not like that of a Society for the promotion of
knowledge; it does not look forward to perpetuity,
and it is not considered an honor to be on the list of

18 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

its members. It would, probably, have been dis-
solved, like so many others, if Franklin had not ex-
erted himself by his presence while here, and by his
correspondence when abroad, to keep it alive. As
his representative, as it were, we find his son Wilham
Franklin in this list of members, though he does not
appear to have been a very constant attendant. He
went often into the country, probably to New Jersey,
of which he was appointed Governor about the time
when this volume ends.

As to Hugh Roberts, he does not seem to have
shared in the enthusiasm of his illustrious friend.
He was advanced in years and did not probably lke
to associate with a younger race. He considered
himself as emeritus. In 1768, when the differences
were at their height between the two Societies, we
find him enlisted with that opposed to the old Junto.”®

In a Club like that we are speaking of, which lasted
during forty years, limited to twelve members, and
originally formed by young men for their mutual
improvement, we must not expect to find constantly
the same names; as the old ones retire, younger ones
take their places, but the Club still remains, notwith-
standing these successive mutations, the same as
originally formed.

Thus the Junto will be found to have been until
a short time before its union under another name

** He was elected a member of the Philosophical Society, on the
19th of January, 1768.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 19

with the Philosophical Society. The loss of the
missing volume is so much the more to be regretted,
as it included a period when Franklin was in this
country, and probably took an active part in the
Junto proceedings. During the two other periods
he was in Hngland.

At the time we are speaking of and afterward,
until the union of the two Societies, Charles Thomson,
in the absence of Franklin, appears to have been the
leader of the Junto. I need not say that he was the
same man who at the Revolution, and until the es-
tablishment of the present Federal Constitution, held
the high and important office of Secretary to the
Congress of the United States.

The meetings of the Junto, with few interruptions,
regularly took place on the Friday of every week,
and business was transacted in the usual manner,
until the latter end of the vear 1760, when their num-
ber was reduced to six, who were Charles Thomson,
KHdmund Physick, Francis Rawle, Joshua Howell,
Isaac Paschal, and William Hopkins. Two, one of
whom was William Franklin, had gone to Hngland,
two had died, the others did not attend, nor con-
tribute to the expenses, and were considered at most
as honorary members.

In that situation of things, the attending members
were at a loss what to do; several meetings took
' place, but no business was done; at last on the 6th
of February, 1761, the state of the Junto was taken

20 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

into consideration; it was proposed to dissolve the
Association, but that was objected to; it was thought
best to go on and to return to the first principles,
which, it would appear had been in some respects lost
sight of; but the original rules (drafted by Franklin)
had been lost or mislaid, and could not be found.
After much discussion, it was determined to appoint
a Committee to write them anew from the recollection
of the members; HEdmund Physick and Charles
Thomson were appointed that Committee, who it
seems, had the matter long under their consideration,
for they did not make their report until the 30th of
July following. The Rules which they reported, with
some amendments to make them more conformable
to the original Rules, were then adopted and ordered
to be entered on the Minutes, which was done."

These Rules are entitled ‘‘Rules of a Society meet-
ing weekly in the City of Philadelphia, for their
mutual improvement in useful knowledge.’’ They
do not appear to differ materially from those estab-
lished by I’ranklin, as far as he has made them known
to us; the object and the exercises are the same; they
appear to have been conscientiously drawn up from
the recollection of the members. The four famous
qualifications are not forgotten. They are made a
part of the Rules, nearly in the same words as they
were draughted by Franklin, and as they are given
above, p. 12, et seq.

‘’ Minutes, pp. 80-83.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. Pa

The number of the members does not appear to be
limited. Perhaps it was a thing understood, and not
made a part of the Rules.

The rules might be amended with the consent of
three-fourths of a Company, after a week’s previous
notice.

They are very particular for preserving decency in
the discussions between the members.

As to their internal organization they had a Chair-
man and Secretary elected for four weeks and a
Treasurer for six months. The Society in these
Rules is called the Junto. They are signed by Ed-
mund Physick, Isaae Paschall, Charles Thomson, Wil-
ham Hopkins, Joshua Howell, and George Roberts,
who seems to have succeeded Francis Rawle.

After this awakening, the Junto seems to have
gone on tolerably well, though still few in number,
until the 16th of October, when the Minutes suddenly
stop, and are not resumed until the 3rd of September
1762, on which day we find the following entry:

‘““The members of the Junto, desirous of continuing
the Society, met this evening, having agreed with Mr.
Carothers (the inn keeper) for the room on the same
terms on which we had it formerly. Mr. George
Roberts having been formerly approved, was now
introduced and qualified, as a member. KH. Physick
became Chairman this evening and Charles Thomson,
Secretary. Charles Thomson proposed Nathaniel
Evans to be a member of the Society.’’

22 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

A question to be discussed was proposed.

Afterwards a few meetings were held, thinly at-
tended, until the 22nd of October, when three mem-
bers only, Hopkins, Paschal, and Thomson, were
present. Physick and Roberts are noted as absent,
so that the Society was reduced to five members.
The only entry on the minutes of that days is ‘‘Con-
versation general.’? And here ends the first Volume.

The Junto never was (at least that we know of)
so near its dissolution as at that time. But fate had
decided it otherwise. Less than two months had
elapsed when Franklin arrived at Philadelphia from
Iingland, where he had resided five years.’** He
would not have suffered his favorite Junto, the
bantling of his youth and the Child of his affection to
be dissolved, and if it had ceased to exist, he would
not three and four vears afterward’? have urged so
warmly his friend Hugh Roberts to attend its
meetings.

This strengthens my conjectures that there existed
a book of minutes including the two years when its
founder was in this City. How interesting it would
be to read what passed at those meetings when
Franklin was present. But, perhaps the book is not
lost. It may yet be found in the hands of the de-
scendants of Dr. Smith, or of some other person. — It
is, at least, worth the enquiry.

“ TTe arrived the Ist of November, 1762. 1 Sparks’ “ Franklin,”
269,

"In 1765 and 1766. See above, p. 6.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. vas

I shall now pass on to the second, which ought to
be the third, and is the last volume, as it ends with
the Union of the two Societies.

I am now proceeding to the most interesting part
of this communication. Though a period of less
than three years is yet before me, it is replete with
matter of the highest interest. The humble Junto
by its association with another body, which a quarter
of a century before had tried the same experiment
and failed, is going to form a Society for the purpose
of promoting, extending, and disseminating knowl-
edge, and America, Colonial America, not yet freed
from her subjection to the power of Great Britain,
is going to take her place in the ereat Republic of
Literature and Science. We must follow her in this
progress.

There can be no doubt that Dr. Franklin, during
his stay in this city, did everything in his power to
revive and excite the zeal of his favorite Junto, and it
appears that he succeeded to a degree that he did not
expect or even foresee; for in his letters down to the
year 1766, he speaks only of the old Junto, and in-
vites his friends to attend more regularly to its meet-
ings, but at the time when he thus wrote the Junto
were meditating on the means of extending their
sphere of action, and their usefulness from them-
selves to the world at large.

Near forty years had elapsed since their first estab-
lishment in 1727; the country, in the meantime, had

24 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

increased in population and wealth, and the inhabi-
tants had made considerable progress in knowledge.
This change of circumstances could not but strike the
minds of the leaders of the Junto, particularly of
Charles Thomson, who possessed a liberal and en-
larged mind, and whom we find at this time acting
as the worthy successor of Franklin. He was a good
classical scholar, and possessed much general knowl-
edge. He saw that the time was come for establish-
ing a learned Society at Philadelphia, and that the
Junto might be its basis. We are going to see how
he labored for that purpose, and how, in the end, he
succeeded.

The minutes of the Junto, contained in the seeond
of the two volumes in our possession, begin with the
25oth of April 1766. The members at that time were
nine in number, to wit: Edmund Physick, Isaae
Bartram, Isaac Paschall, Moses Bartram, James
Pearson, Isaac Lane, Joseph Paschall, Owen Biddle,
and Charles Thomson. Only three of these were
members at the breaking up four years before, but
among these were Charles Thomson and Edmund
Physick, who appear to have been the most active
and most efficient in former times. The others had
come in by successive elections.

At the first opening of these minutes, it appears
that they are the continuation of former proceedings
of the old Junto.

Little was done at the meetings, until the 23rd of

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 25

May, when it appears that Owen Biddle and Isaac
Paschall had been appointed a Committee to revise
the Laws and make a few alterations in them.

On this day they made their report, and produced
the Laws as altered by them; it was agreed that they
should be taken into consideration at the next meet-
ing, which was on the 30th, when those Laws with a
few further alterations were adopted, and ordered
to be fairly copied in the Book of the Minutes.

They were in fact fairly copied on some pages,
which, it seems, were left blank for that purpose at
the beginning of the Book. They do not differ sub-
stantially from those adopted in 1761, said to be
the original Rules drafted by Franklin re-written
from the recollection of the members. They are en-
titled ‘‘Rules of a Society meeting weekly in the City
of Philadelphia, for their mutual improvement in
useful knowledge.’’ The objects of the Association,
its exercises, its internal organization are the same
as in the Rules proposed to be amended. [ven the
four qualifications are not forgotten, but are inserted
at full length; the only thing that is remarkable, is the
new name which the Junto assumed,—‘‘The Amer-
ican Society for promoting and propagating useful
knowledge held in Philadelphia,’’? which appears to
have been filled up after the rules had been copied in
the Minute Book as above mentioned and apparently
in a different hand, and that name was not agreed
upon until the 13th of December, more than six

26 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

months after the adoption of the amended rules. On
that day they adopted additional rules for the ad-
mission of Corresponding Members, defining their
duties and privileges. They also heard a paper read
on the mutual attraction of various substances, with
a number of experiments. The name of the author
is struck off.*°

It is remarkable that there does not appear to have
been any discussion as to the substitution of this new
name to that of the Junto. The thing was probably
settled in private conversations between the members.

It is impossible not to be struck with the great
difference that there is between the title of this So-
ciety as expressed in the heading of the rules and the
new name now given to it. The one contemplates
an association of students, as it were, for their mu-
tual improvement and the rules to which it is prefixed
correspond with that title, the other aims at much
ecreater objects, ‘‘the promotion,’’ and if that were
not enough, the ‘‘propagation’’ of knowledge. Here,
then, is a learned Society at once formed; the design
is manifest, the foundation is laid and a_ suitable
superstructure only is wanting. The Committee who
reported the rules did not dare to wander out of
the road traced by Franklin; but there was a man
of genius, Charles Thomson, whose views extended
further, who did not communicate them at once, in all

their extent, but gradually led his associates into the

” Minutes, 2d part, 29, 31.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. ral

path of which his clear mind perceived the honorable
end.

This memorable innovation took place in December
1766. The next step was to extend the list of the
associates. We see the names of thirty members
subscribed to the amended Rules, several of whom,
but we do not know how many, came in during the
following year. In the proceedings of that vear we
see much talk about enlarging the Society, that is to
say extending its views and its objects; but nothing
effectual was done until the year 1768, when things
were brought to a conclusion, which was, I believe,
very little expected, at least by those who were not in
the secret.

It is to be presumed, however, that the subject was
talked of abroad, and that the views of the old Junto
engaged the publie attention. The formation of a
learned Society in the City of Philadelphia could not
fail to be a subject of great interest. We shall now

see the consequences that it produced.

Dr. Franklin, as is well known, was much engaged
in the year 1743 in various projects, all tending to
the honor and advantage of his country. In some
of these he failed, because his mind was elevated
above the age that he lived in, in others he succeeded ;
but all produced good fruits in due time. Thus he
tells us in his autobiography, that he failed at that
time in procuring a College to be established at Phila-

28 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

delphia, for the education of vouth, a project which,
however, was carried afterwards into full execution
and became the foundation of our University, but that
he was more successful in the vear following, in pro-
posing and establishing a ‘Philosophical Society.’’*!
Ilis success at that time was only temporary, but the
tree that he planted, after languishing for more than
a quarter of a century and being apparently dead,
suddenly revived and, by its union with the old
Junto, became one of the columns of our edifice.
The first thing that Franklin did to effect that
noble purpose, was to issue a ‘‘ Proposal for promot-
ing useful knowledge among the British plantations
in America.’’ It was in the form of a circular letter,
which the author put to his different correspondents.
In that letter, after noticing the vast extent of the
country, its various productions, and the improve-
ments, manufactures, ete., of which it was susceptible,
he observes ‘‘that the first drudgery of settling new
colonies was then pretty well over, and there were
many in every province, in circumstances that set
them at ease, and afforded them license to cultivate
the finer arts, and improve the common stock of
knowledge. To such of those as were men of specu-
lation, he addressed his plan which was: ‘‘That one
Society should be formed of virtwosi or ingenious
men, residing in the several colonies, to be established

in the City of Philadelphia, as the most central place,

“1 Sparks’ “ Franklin,” 144.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 29

and to be ealled ‘‘The American Philosophical So-
ciety.’’ He offered to be its Secretary until, he
modestly said, a better one could be provided.

The members of that Society were to correspond
with each other, with the Royal Society of London,
and that of Dublin. No mention is made of a for-
eign Correspondence.

There should always be at Philadelphia at least
seven members, viz: a Physician, a Botanist, a Mathe-
matician, a Chemist, a Mechanician, a Geographer,
and a general Natural Philosopher, besides a Presi-
dent, Treasurer, and Secretary.”

It is evident that the Junto at that time could not
furnish these requisites; therefore it could not be
made the basis of the proposed Association, besides
he wanted the aid of the men of wealth and influence,
which that little obscure band could not have pro-
cured.

Franklin had probably in his eye when he wrote
those proposals the seven Philadelphia Members that
he speaks of, as well as the President, Treasurer, and
Secretary. He found, I presume, no difficulty im
collecting them and in obtaining their co-operation.
They had several meetings, but of what they did,
we have no information except from a letter of
Franklin to his friend Cadwallader Colden, which is

in these words:

” 6 Sparks’ “ Franklin,” 14.

a0 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

‘‘New YORK,
April 5th, 1744.
Siy:—Happening to be in this City about some
particular affairs, I have the pleasure of receiving
vours of the 28th past here, and can now acquaint
vou that the Society, as far as it relates to Philadel-
phia, is actually formed, and has had several meet-
ings to mutual satisfaction. As soon as I get home,
I shall send you an account of what has been done,
and proposed at these meetings.
The members are:
Dr. Thomas Bond, as Physician
Mr. John Bartram, as Botanist
Mr. Thomas Godfrey, as Mathematician
Mr. Samuel Rhoads, as Mechanician
Mr. William Parsons, as Geographer
Mr. Phineas Bond, as General Natural Philos-.
opher
Mr. Thomas Hopkinson, President?*
Mr. William Coleman, Treasurer
B. F
To whom the following members have since been
added, viz: Mr. Alexander, of New York, Mr. Morris,
Clief Justice of the Jerseys, Mr. Home, Secretary
of D°., Mr. John Coxe, of Trenton, and Mr. Martyn,
of the same place.

, secretary.

Mr. Nichols tell me of several other gentlemen of

“Thomas Hopkinson was the grandfather of our worthy Vice-

President [Joseph Hopkinson] of the same name.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. ol

this City that incline to encourage the thing, and
there are a number of others, in Virginia, Maryland,
and the New England Colonies who are expected to
join us, aS soon as they are acquainted that the
Society has begun to form itself. |
I am, Sir, with much respect,
Your most humble servant,

B. FRANKLIN.?’?’

The hopes of Dr. Franklin were not fulfilled. It
is probable that he was not seconded. No records
of that Society, if they had any, have been preserved
prior to 1768. In the list of their members, which
they gave to the American Society in December of
that year, under the head of ‘‘Old Members under
the Original Plan begun 1743,’’ we find only the
names of B. Franklin, William Coleman, John Bar-
tram, Thomas Bond, Phineas Bond, Samuel Rhoads
and Francis Alison, seven in all; and all, except the
last, who was the Vice-Provost of the College, part
of the nine mentioned in Franklin’s letter above
cited. Among the corresponding members, there is
only the name of Cadwallader Colden, elected in 1745,
all the rest in 1768.

Three new resident members, however, the two

Doctors Shippen and Mr. John Lukens, appear to
have been elected in November, 1767; another, Dr.

Cadwalader Evans, was also elected, but declined.
This is all we know of the ‘‘ Philosophical Society”’
prior to 1767. Let us now return to that year.

wy)
bo

HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

The Province of Pennsylvania was then divided
into two great parties. The one was the party of
the Proprietaries, who were struggling to preserve
their federal sovereignty, which they were in danger
of losing. They had governed with too high a hand,
and the King had been petitioned to make Pennsyl-
vania a Royal Government. The other was the
popular party, opposed to their Government and to
this the greatest number if not all the members of
the Junto, now called the ‘‘American Society’’ be-
longed. To the Proprietary’s party belonged the
wealthiest and most influential men, such as the
Allens, the Shippens, the Francises and all that were
considered as the aristocracy of the country. The
officers of the Government, of course, belonged to
it. At the head of this party was James Hamilton,
who had been twice Governor of the Province and
was the President of the Provincial Council. The
leader of the opposite party was Benjamin Franklin,
who was then in England, but had great influence
in the Province, whose agent he was at the British
Court.

These parties had been much exasperated against
each other; but the encroachments of the British
Parliament on the liberties of the country, had in a
degree softened those asperities and brought the
citizens nearer to each other for the purpose of
legal resistance. Yet the flame of party rancour was
not extinguished, particularly in the highest ranks
of Society. |

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. ae!

In that state of things, the high aristocratic party ©
could not see with unconcern that an obscure Club,
which till then had been unknown, should assume to
form themselves into a learned Society like those
which in Europe bore Royal titles and were under
the patronage of the King, the fountain of all honors,
and that they should be so independently of the Gov-
ernment which represented the King in the Province.
It was carrying the spirit of liberty too far, and they
determined to counteract it, as they had not the power
directly to forbid it. For that purpose, they could
think of nothing better than restoring to life the
Society which had been established in 1743, with the
participation of the men in power, and they took
immediate steps to effect it.

The few members that remained of that abortive
Association, were easily collected, and their design
was made known, but whether they thought that
would be sufficient to check their antagonists, or from
some other cause, they did nothing until the month
of November 1767, when they added to their list
three new members, and offered membership to a
fourth, who refused it.

The American Society, on their part, took no de-
cisive measure during that year, but went on in their
usual way; they talked of enlarging their Society,
as they expressed it, but did nothing to effect that
purpose, except electing a few members. The two
parties seemed to lie on their oars, watching each

34 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

other’s motions; it was not until the year 1768 that
the contest truly began and assumed a formidable
aspect.

On the first day of January in that year, the newly
formed, or rather newly named ‘‘ American Society,”’
consisted of thirteen members, who are named in the

heading of that day’s minutes, as follows:

Present Absent.
‘harles Thomson Edmund Physick
Owen Biddle William Biddle
Clement Biddle John Lukens
James Pearson Samuel Eldridge
Dr. John Morgan Nicholas Waln
Joseph Paschall Isaac Paschall

Benjamin Davis

“This evening’’ (say the minutes) the subject of
enlarging the Society was again resumed, and
Charles Thomson informed the Company, that he
had (as far as he was able) collected the sense of
the Company on the subject under consideration,
and committed his thoughts to writing as they had
occurred to himself, and on considering the matter,
he was desired to read them.’’

Mr. Thomson then produced and read a paper en-
titled: ‘‘Proposals for enlarging this Society, in
order that it may the better answer the end for

“The Junto always called themselves the Company, the members
now sometimes forgot that they had become a Society.

~

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 30

which it was instituted, namely the promoting and
propagating useful knowledge.’’

In this very able paper, though the author may not
appear to be profoundly learned in Natural History
or Philosophy, he shows himself, at least, a warm
patriot, and a zealous promoter of science for the
honor as well as for the advantage of his country.
He expatiates at great length on the vast extent, the
various climates, and the numerous productions of
the British American Continent, how all these might
be improved for the common benefit and points to
Science as the means of producing that improvement.
But the Society should not confine itself to benefiting
our citizens; it should aim at enlightening the world,
and acquire fame abroad by its scientifie discoveries,
of which Franklin had given the example. He,
therefore, concludes with proposing ‘‘to enlarge the
plan of the Society, to call to their assistance men
of learning and ingenuity from every quarter, and
unite in one generous noble attempt, not only to pro-
mote the interest of our Country, but to raise her
to eminence in the rank of polite and learned Na-
tions.’’*°

Why, said he, should we hesitate?

‘‘This proposal’’ say the minutes, ‘‘being read and
approved, C. Thomson was desired to draw up some

* The preface to the first volume of our Transactions [published in

1771] is almost entirely taken from that paper and was probably

written by Charles Thomson.

36 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

rules for enlarging our Society, and carrying his plan
into execution.”’

This was flying in the face of the newly revived
‘Philosophical Society.’’ It awakened them from
their slumber, and they set to work in earnest. On
the 19th of the same month, they associated to them-
selves seventeen new members, among whom were
Jolin Penn, the Governor and one of the Proprie-
taries, James Hamilton, the President of the Council,
John Dickinson, David Rittenhouse, Hugh Roberts,
Israel Pemberton, Joseph Galloway, Thomas Willing,
Benjamin Chew, and several other eminent men; at
their next meeting, on the 26th, they began to frame
their rules (for the word ‘‘Constitution’’ was not at
that time so generally applied to such associations
as it is at present) and that they did by discussing
successively their most important principles, which
they continued until the 8th of March, when the rules
were finally adopted.

The American Society were startled at these pro-
ceedings. They saw they had to do with powerful
adversaries and made proposals for an union of the
two Societies, of which the particulars have not come
down to us, but it appears that they were based on
the principles of perfect equality.

This was not, however, exactly what the Philosoph-
ical Society wanted, as will appear from the sequel.
At their meeting of the 2nd of February; the fol-

lowing paper was read: ‘‘A Society having subsisted

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. ot

for sometime in this city, under the name of ‘‘The
American Society held at Philadelphia for promoting
and propagating useful knowledge,’’ whose views
have been nearly the same with those which are
published in the American Philosophical Society, and
it being judged by [this Society] that the ends pro-
posed by both could be carried on with more advan-
tage to the public, if a union could take place between
them, it is proposed that such a union may take place.’’

To this paper was added a list of the members of
the American Society to the number of seventeen
resident and four corresponding members, to which
the American Society had been increased in the
intermediate time.

If the American were afraid of the Philosophical
Society, the latter could not but perceive that an union
was desirable, as two such learned Societies could
not exist in Philadelphia at that time by the side of
each other, but they were desirous of acting the prin-
cipal part in that union, and obtaining a kind of pre-
ponderance or superiority over their opponents, by
appearing to have admitted them into their bosom;
their numbers were about equal and, so far, there
was equality between them, but the others wanted an
union, not an admission. The Philosophical Society,
however, wishing to take that advantage over them,
immediately resolved to break through their rule
already adopted, which required that new members
should be proposed at the meeting preceding that of

38 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

their election, immediately elected the members of
the American Society by their names, and sent them
notice of their election. But the late Junto, now the
American Society, were not sensible of the honor
intended them, and declined it, alleging that ‘‘those
were not the terms which they had proposed.”’

This answer was received on the 9th of February,
and though the rules of the Philosophical Society
were not yet complete, and were not till the 8th of
March, they immediately proceeded to decide the
question ‘‘How many officers their Society should
consist of,’? and it was determined that there should
be one President, two Vice-Presidents, a Treasurer,
and three Secretaries to be chosen annually, and those
chosen that night to continue till the first of January
following and the ballots being taken, the following
officers were chosen:

President, James Hamilton.

Vice-Presidents, Wm. Shippen and Thomas Bond.

Treasurer, Philip Syng.

Secretaries, Rev. Wilham Smith, Rev. John Ewing,

and Dr. Thomas Moore.

This gave great offense to the American Society.
We find in their minutes, that on the 12th of the same
month (February) it was unanimously agreed that a
Committee should be appointed ‘‘to draw up a short
plain history of the origin of the Society, and of what
had passed between them and the Philosophical, and
to lay it before the Company at some further meet-

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 39°

ing.’’?’ Charles Thomson, Isaae Paschall, Dr. [John]
Morgan, and Dr. [Cadwalader] Evans were immedi-
ately appointed, but it does not appear that they per-
formed the duty.

At the following meeting (the 19th) Benjamin
Franklin was in the regular form, by ballot, and
having been proposed at a former meeting, unani-
mously elected a member of the Society. This was
probably done ex majore cautela, his son, Governor
Franklin having been admitted without an election,
at the preceding meeting, on merely signing the
amended rules, on the ground that he had been a
member of the ancient Society (the Junto), which
rule of admission, they said, was concluded on in
reviving the Society.” But Franklin was in England
and could not sign the amended articles, it was
thought best to elect him. The Society probably
contemplated to make him their President, and
wished to avoid all disputes, particularly if an union
should take place, which might not have been quite
despaired of.

Until that time the Philosophical Society had held
their meetings in public houses, but the Governor,
who as their Patron was present at this meeting,
gave them permission to hold them at the State
House; thus they were supported with the favor and
weight of the Government.

** Minutes A. S., 2d part, p. 82.
* Ibid.

40 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

The American Society did not proceed so fast.
They did nothing for six months, but elect new mem-
bers, among whom was Dr. Benjamin Rush, and
order Thomson’s proposals to be printed in the
Pennsylvania Chronicle. They postponed from time
to time the consideration of their new rules, which
were not agreed upon, until the 23rd of September,
as will be shown in its place.

I do not find, on examining their minutes, that
during the summer and autumn of 1768, the Amer-
ican Society did anything worthy of remark that may
properly be called Philosophical; while on the con-
trary, the Philosophical Society, (to their honor be
it spoken) was actively engaged in objects well
worthy of the name they had assumed.

The transit of the planet Venus over the disk of
the Sun, was expected to happen on the 3rd of June
in the following year. The Society employed itself
in preparatory measures for making astronomical
observations upon that phenomenon in due time.

One of their members, Mr. James Dickinson, made
a proposal to the Society for observing the transit
at James’ Bay (part of Hudson’s Bay) and for
reconnoitring and making a map of the Country
from the South end of Hudson’s Bay, extending
towards the head of the Mississippi. He offered at
the same time to undertake in person the conducting
of the observation of the transit and making the

other necessary observations on the country. The

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 4]

consideration of this offer, as to its possibility, use-
fulness, and probable expense, was referred to the
Committee on Natural Philosophy and Astronomy,
but we do not know what was the result. It is
probable that the expense was found too great.

The Society, however, at that time, had already
appointed two observations to be made, but instru-
ments were wanted, and they had no funds. They,
therefore, applied to the Legislature for aid and
that body, very liberally, by their resolution of the
15th of October, granted a sum not exceeding £100
sterling, for the purchase of a reflecting telescope
and a micrometer, wich, after being used by the
Society were to remain the property of the <As-
sembly.**

This Society, it must be owned, enjoyed the patron-
age of the Government, of which the other was de-
prived.

Various observations on the transit of Venus, were
made after the union of the two Societies, which were
published in the first volume of our Transactions,
and attracted the attention of the learned in Hurope.

I must give credit, however, to the American So-
ciety for a liberal act, which evinces their generous
spirit and their zeal for the improvement of their
Country. It shows also the progress that had been
made at that time in the culture of our native vine.

On the 25th of November, while the negotiations

* Votes, Vol. 6, p. 111.

42. HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

were pending, two specimens of wine were brought
to them, one a year old, the other of the then present
vintage, made by one Maurice Pound, of Red Lion
Hundred, in the County of New Castle, out of grapes
gathered from vines which he himself had planted.?°
By a certificate which he produced, it appeared that
in the course of four or five years, he had cleared
twelve acres of land, and planted therein 18000 vines,
that upwards of 8000 of them were then growing,
and about 2050 in a flourishing state. In the year
1767, about 25 years from his first planting the slips,
he pressed out about 150 gallons of wine, and in the
then present year expected to make a larger quantity.

The Society awarded him a premium of ten pounds,
which was immediately paid to him by their Treas-

urer.

We must now return to the unfortunate dissentions
between the two Societies, and hasten to their happy
termination. :

I have shown the exasperation of the American
Society in the month of February, when they refused
the offer of the Philosophical Society to admit them
as individuals into their body, and ordered an_his-
torical narrative of their differences to be written,
yet for more than six months they postponed from
time [to time], the consideration of the new Rules
which a Committee had been ordered to prepare, it

“It does not appear that they were foreign plants, which a Del-

aware farmer could hardly have imported at that time.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 43

was not until the 23rd of September that those rules
were adopted. It is unnecessary to enter here into
many details, it is sufficient to say, that those rules
were no longer those of a Club for mutual improve-
ment, but that they were well adapted to the object
for which they were designed. The internal organ-
ization of this Society, consisted of a President,
Vice-President, two Secretaries, three Curators of
Natural History, one for each Kingdom, and a Treas-
urer, all to be annually elected.

On the 4th of November, they elected the following
officers :

President, Benjamin Franklin

Vice-President, Samuel Powel

Secretaries, Charles Thomson, Thomas Mifflin

Curators, Dr. John Morgan, Lewis Nicola, and

Isaac Bartram

Treasurer, Clement Biddle.
~ On the same day, they incorporated the Philadel-
phia Medical Society into their body.

While these things were passing, it is probable
that negotiations were privately going on between
the patriotic members of the two Societies for effect-
ing the desired union, for in the minutes of the
Philosophical Society, under the date of the 15th of
the same month, we find the following entry:

‘This Society having been informed that there is
‘a disposition in the members of the American Society

for promoting useful knowledge to unite with us, and

44 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

that they would appoint a Committee to treat with a
Committeee of this Society upon the subject, and we,
being desirous to promote such a union, do appoint
Dr. Shippen, Dr. Bond, Mr. Syng, Mr. Rhoads, Dr.
Smith and Mr. Hwing to be a Committee to concert
measures and prepare the way for such union, and
to make report of their proceedings at the next
meeting.”’

On the 18th, the Secretary of the American So-
ciety, made known the above to that body, who
considering that the views of both Societies were the
same, and being persuaded that the ends proposed
by both might be better answered and with more
advantage to the public if a union should take place,
appointed their Vice President, the two Secretaries,
with Messrs. Morgan, Nicola, and Paschall to be
their Committee of Conference, to whom they gave
special instructions as to the terms to be agreed
upon.*°

* The instructions were:

1. To agree upon a new name for the United Society (if the
union can be accomplished) as near the names by which the So-
cieties are already known as can be accomplished.

2. To agree that a Committee of an equal number out of both,
be appointed to draw up a set of laws, for the government of the
Society.

3. To agree upon an indifferent place, distinct from those where

the two Societies usually meet, where both may convene the first
time.

4. To treat generally on the terms of union, but not to conclude
without laying them before the Society.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 45

The Committees went on very harmoniously. They
had several meetings, discussed various points, and
exchanged lists of the members of their respective
Societies. At last, on the 20th of December, the
following treaty was concluded between the contend-
ing parties:

‘‘Whereas two Societies subsist in this City, whose
views and ends are the same, viz; the advancement
of useful knowledge, and it being judged that their
union would be of public advantage, it was agreed
that such a union should take place, on terms of
perfect equality, and for that purpose it was thought
reasonable

1. That a new name, made out of the former names
of both, should be fixed for the united Society, and
The
American Philosophical Society, held at Philadelphia

the following was accordingly agreed to: viz,

for promoting useful knowledge,

2. That besides the members which stand proposed,
no new members be proposed or elected by either
Society till the Treaty is finished,

3. That the first meeting of the United Society, be
at the College on Monday, the 2nd of January next,
at six o’clock in the evening,

4. That there shall be one Patron, one President,

5. To endeavor to have a meeting with the other Committee as
early next week as they can, and if possible report the result of
their conference next Friday.

It will hereafter appear that the Society carried all their points.

46 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

three Vice-Presidents, one Treasurer, four Secre-
taries, and three Curators, and that all the said
officers be chosen by ballot, at the first meeting, viz.
the 2nd of January, (excepting only, instead of elect-
ing a Patron, a Committee of the United Society be
appointed at said meeting, to wait on the Governor
of the Province, and request him to be Patron) which
officers shall continue in their respective offices till
the first meeting of the United Society, which shall
be in January 1770, when, and at every first meeting
in January, which shall be in every year, there shall
be a new election of officers,

do. That after the union, a Committee be appointed
to form a new set of laws, taking in what may be
thought proper out of the former laws of both So-
cieties,

6. That each Society before the first of January
pay off their respective debts, and the Treasurers of
the former Societies shall account and settle with the
new ‘l'reasurer to be chosen and pay him the balances
in their hands,

7. That the books and all the curiosities, ete. of the
former Societies, be deposited in the cabinet or else-
where as the United Society shall direct,

8. That in the joint publication which it may be
thought proper to make of the transactions of the
former Societies, no preference shall be given to the
papers of either, but they shall be arranged and
digested according to their subjects and dates,

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 47

9. That there shall be a new book, of the future
transactions of the united Society, beginning with the
following preface or declaration, viz:

Whereas two Societies did heretofore subsist in
this City, whose views and ends were the same, viz:
the advancement of useful knowledge; and it having
been judged that their union would be of public ad-
vantage, they have agreed to unite accordingly on
terms of perfect equality, and for that purpose have
taken the following new name ‘‘The American Philo-
sophical Society, held at Philadelphia, for promoting
useful knowledge.”’

This book, therefore, is to contain only the trans-
actions of the United Society under the name afore-
said. What further relates to the terms of Union,
as well as to the former transactions of each Society,
being antecedent to the commencement of this book,
may be found in the old books deposited in the
Cabinet.

In pursuance of this agreement the first election
of the officers of the United Society was held at the
College in 4th Street on the 2nd of January 1769.
I have said that lists of the members of the respective
Societies had been exchanged. Those lsts are ex-
tant. From them it appears that at the time of the
Union, the Philosophical Society had 92 resident and
36 corresponding members, and the American had
78 resident members or Fellows and 67 Correspond-
ents. The two Societies had been actively employed

48 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

in enlisting recruits, during the period of their
dissentions.

I have been informed by the venerable Bishop—
White that the election for the President of the
United Society was very warmly contested. James
Hamilton was the candidate of the Governor and of
his party, and he had been elected to that office by
the Philosophical Society. Those of the popular
party were for Franklin, the President of the Amer-
ican Society. Although the Philosophical Society
had the greatest number of resident members, and
consequently of votes, Benjamin Franklin’ was
elected, by what majority does not appear. Thus
the Democratic spirit triumphed over the efforts of
the Government and of the aristocracy, a prelude,
as it would seem, to the scenes that soon afterwards
followed.

The Governor was greatly mortified and disap-
pointed by this result. When a Committee of the
United Society waited upon him to request his ac-
ceptance of the title of their patron, he fell into a
violent passion, and in an angry tone replied: ‘‘I
never shall be the patron of a Society that has for
its President such a —— as Franklin.’’ I have this
anecdote from Bishop White. The records only say
that the Governor declined.

Governor Penn had been the patron of the first
Philosophical Society, had attended their meetings
as such and had permitted them to meet in the State

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 49

House. We may judge of the excess of his mortifica-
tion, and it is probable that he had been opposed even
to the union, foreseeing its results. It may be easily
understood why the United Society did not get a
Charter of incorporation during the continuance of
the proprietary government.

Thus the two Societies which during two years
and more had been opposed to each other, and seemed
to aim at each other’s destruction, became firmly
united. Their union was sincere, and they laboured
harmoniously in promoting the cause of Science.
Laws were made according to the Treaty, taken from
those of the two Societies with great fairness. The
division of the Society into Committees was taken
from the Rules of the Philosophical Society, and the
oral communication and discussion which give so
much life to our proceedings, from those of the old
Junto, which the American Society had retained.
In 1771, they published the first volume of their
transactions, which gained them credit and reputa-
tion in America and Hurope.

From the facts above stated it appears to me to
result :

1. That our Society dates its origin as far back as
the year 1727 when the Junto was first established
by Dr. Franklin.

2. That having been the founder of the two So-
cieties which were united in 1768, that great man
may justly be considered as the founder and the

50 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE

father of our Society and as such will forever be
entitled to our veneration and grateful remembrance.
In a secondary degree, this Society is also indebted
to the talents and labours of Charles Thomson, with-
out whose exertions the Junto would not have been
placed in a situation to contend with the Philosoph-
ical Society, which probably would not have been
revived but for the jealousy which the Junto under
his direction excited, and this Society would not have
been formed and consequently would not now exist.

In writing this narrative, I have endeavored to
preserve the strictest impartiality. The passions of
those times have long since subsided, and it is far
from my wish to revive them.

If this essay should ever be published, some of the
most important documents might be added by way
of appendix.

It may not be out of place to mention here the
names of the officers of our Society for the years
1769 and 1770, as they are not in our printed Trans-
actions, which begin only with 1771.
For 1769.
President, Benjamin Franklin
Vice-Presidents, Dr. Thomas Cadwalader, Dr.
Thomas Bond, and Joseph Galloway
Secretaries, Charles Thomson, Rev. Wm. Smith,
Thomas Mifflin, and John Hwing
Curators, Dr. Adam Kuhn, Dr. John Morgan,
Lewis Nicola

Treasurer, Philip Syng.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. oI

For 1770.

President, B. Franklin

Vice-Presidents, Joseph Galloway, Dr. Thomas
Bond, Samuel Rhoads

Secretaries, Rev. Dr. Wm. Smith, Charles Thom-
son, Thomas Mifflin, Geo. Roberts:

Curators, Isaac Bartram, Dr. B. Rush, Owen
Biddle

Treasurer, Philip Syng.

[The views set forth in the above paper by Mr. Du
Ponceau were opposed in a communication made to
the Society on the same date by J. Francis Fisher,
Esq., of Philadelphia. These communications were
referred to a special committee whose report follows.
Unfortunately Mr. Fisher’s paper has not been found

in the Archives of the Society. ]

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

TO WHICH
MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY WAS
REFERRED

READ OcroBEeR loTH, 1841.

The Committee, to whom were referred, on the
26th of June 1840, the Communications of Mr. Du
Ponceau and Mr. Fisher, relating to the early history
of the Society, beg leave to present their report :—

The paper of Mr. Du Ponceau was presented on the
19th of June, 1840, but read at an adjourned meeting,
held a week afterwards, when the Committee was
appointed. It is universally admitted that the
present Society was formed by the union of two
Societies existing prior to 1769, which we shall
designate, as the author of the paper has done, by
the abridged titles of ‘‘Philosophical Society’’ and
‘¢American Society.’’ In the outset of his paper,
Mr. Du Ponceau states that a difference of opinion
exists whether the American Society was a continua-
tion of the Junto instituted by Franklin in 1727, or
a different association of more recent date. Among
those who hold the latter opinion, Mr. Du Ponceau
mentions Mr. Sparks, who expresses it, or at least his
‘doubts on the point, in the first volume of his life
of Franklin. As the author of the paper holds this

opinion to be erroneous, and as he believes the work
58

o4 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

of Mr. Sparks is destined to go to posterity, he ex-
presses his desire to correct it, and to give the rea-
sons for his ‘fullest convictions that the ‘‘ American
Society’? was no other than the Junto established by
Franklin.’

The opinion thus published by Mr. Sparks was
founded upon statements furnished, at his request,
by Mr. Fisher. The latter, conscious of this fact,
and being satisfied that the paper of Mr. Du Ponceau,
when read, would be found to. object to the account
given of the origin of the Society by Mr. Sparks, felt
himself called upon to mention that account, as alone
answerable for it. Accordingly, between the pres-
entation and reading of Mr. Du Ponceau’s paper,
Mr. Fisher prepared the Communication, which was
referred to this Committee at the same time with that
of Mr. Du Ponceau.

Since the reference of the Communications, the
Committee have received from the authors, the fol-
lowing papers, to which, though not formally re-
ferred to them, they have given attentive considera-
tion.

1. Mr. Du Ponceau to Mr. Kane, June 29th, 1840.
Note by Mr. Du Ponceau to his paper, June 30th.
3d. Mr. Fisher to Mr. Du Ponceau, June 30th.

4. Mr. Du Ponceau’s answer to Mr. Fisher, July 1st.
D. Mr. Fisher to the Committee, Nov. 13th.

The Committee, fully sensible of the interest felt

bo

‘These papers are not in the Archives of the Society,

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. BD

by the members in the early history of the Society,
have devoted considerable time to researches, in the
hope of shedding additional lght to that thrown by
the labours of Mr. Du Ponceau and Mr. Fisher, in
clearing up the doubtful points in our Annals. They
have had a number of meetings, appointed Sub-Com-
mittees to confer with surviving members of several
families, in the hope of obtaining valuable papers,
and examined the Franklin Manuscripts in the pos-
session of the Society. Though they have met with
disappointments in several quarters, still they trust
that their labours have not been without fruit, at
least in the acquisition of some facts and authorities,
not heretofore known, or made available.

In tracing the early history of the Society, the
point of great difficulty is to determine the origin
of the ‘‘American Society.’’ It is an undisputed
fact that this Society had been called ‘‘The Junto.”’
It was the recognized name of the association, as
appears from the Minutes in our possession, until
the 13th of Dec. 1766, when it was changed to ‘‘The
American Society for promoting and propagating
Useful Knowledge, held in Philadelphia.’? Now the
minutes of this body are not known to exist at an
earlier date than Sept. 22nd, 1758; and hence the
question arises,—is the Junto of which we have
minutes, and which was afterwards called the ‘‘ Amer-
ican Society,’’ a continuation of the Junto, estab-
lished by Franklin in 1727? In examining this ques-

56 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

tion, the Committee, to promote perspicuity, propose
to eall the Junto, which changed its name to the
‘*American Society,’’ the Society-Junto, and that es-
tablished by Franklin, the Franklin-Junto.

At first blush, nothing can be more natural than
to suppose that the Society-Junto was no other than
the Junto established by Franklin; and, indeed, the
organization of the two associations presents so
striking an agreement in one particular, that it seems
But

when the question is examined more narrowly, it is

to confirm the truth of the first impression.

remarkable to observe how numerous the facts are
which militate against the opinion that the two
Juntos were the same Association at different periods
of its existence.

The striking agreement, above referred to, con-
sists in the fact that both Juntos adopted four quali-
fications, in nearly the same words, upon the initia-
tion of members. In order to place this coincidence
in the fairest light, the Committee subjoin them in

parallel passages.

Pranklin-Junto.
‘““Any person to be
qualified, to stand up, and
lay lis hand upon_ his
breast, and be asked these

questions, viz:

Society-Junto.

The member — elected
shall be ‘‘qualified by the
Chairman after the fol-
lowing manner :—

‘Standing up, and lay-
ing his hand upon _ his

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 57

1. Have you any par-
ticular disrespect to any
present members? <An-
swer. I have not.

2. Do you sincerely de-
elare that you love man-
kind in general, of what
profession, or religion

I de.

any

soever? Answer.

a. Do you .think
person ought to be harmed
in his body, name or goods
for mere speculative opin-
ions, or his external way
of worship? Answer. No.

4. Do you love truth for
truth’s sake, and will you
endeavor impartially to
find and receive it your-
self, and communicate it
to others? Answer. Yes.”’

2 Sparks’ Franklin 12.

breast,- he shall be asked
the following questions:

1. Have you any objeec-
tion, or any personal dis-
hke to any member of this
Society?

?. Do you love mankind
in general, of what nation,
religion, or profession so-

ever they be?

3. Do you think any one
ought to be injured in his
estate, character, or per-
son for his mere specula-
tive opinion in matters of
religion?

4. Do you love truth for
truth’s sake, and will you
endeavor impartially to
find it out,

communicate it to others?

and freely

Junto Minutes, Part 1, 84.

Notwithstanding this striking coincidence in or-

ganization between the two Juntos, which, it is
admitted, could not have been the result of accident,

the Committee are of opinion that they were distinct

58 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

bodies. The reason for their opinion, they will
proceed to state as briefly as may be compatible with
the difficulty of the subject; and, afterwards, they
will throw out some conjectures, in explanation of
the fact, that the two Juntos, notwithstanding their
being distinct associations, had the same qualifica-
tions for the initiation of members.

The Committee will first proceed to consider what
light may be shed on the question by a comparison
of the list of members, known to have belonged
severally to the two Juntos. And here it may be
remarked that if the Society-Junto, so far as its
minutes have come down to us, does not embrace in
its list any of the surviving members of the Franklin
Junto, it is fatal to the supposition of the identity
of the two associations; unless it can be satisfactorily
explained why the survivors of the latter are not
recognized in the proceedings of the former.

The members of the Franklin-Junto, so far as their
names have come down to us, were Benjamin Frank-
lin, Joseph Brientnal, Thomas Godfrey, Nicholas
Scull, Wilham Parsons, Wilham Mangridge, Hugh
Meredith, Stephen Potts, George Webb, Robert Grace,
William Coleman, Hugh Roberts, Philip Syng, Enoch
Flower, Joseph Wharton, William Griffiths, Luke
Morris, Joseph Turner, Joseph Shippen, Joseph
Trotter, Samuel Jervis, and Samuel Rhoads, [and
Thomas Hopkinson. (See autobiography in Sparks,
Wol 1, p.tas.)]- In all 22 (23). 7 Sparks 61,-¢), seq ——

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 59

Roberts Vaux, 15 Hazard’s Register, 183. The ex-
isting members of the Society-Junto in September
1758, the date of the earhest extant minutes, were
Francis Rawle, Charles Thomson, Stephen Wooley,
Peter Chevalier, J. Mather, Philip Syng, Jun., Isaac
Paschall, &dmund Physick, William Franklin, Joshua
Howell, William Hopkins, and Paul Jackson; total
twelve. See Junto Minute book; as also Tabular
Statement marked A, of the attendance of the So-
clety-Junto members, appended to this Report.' By
this Statement, it will be found that these twelve
members continued to meet more or less regularly,
except William Franklin, who was always absent,
until the 20th of June, 1760, when Samuel Powel,
elected the previous March, took his seat for the
first time. Philip Syng is usually recorded without
the affix Junior; but in the minutes of three meetings ;
namely,—those of Jan. 19th, Nov. 30th, Dee. 14th,
1759, he is entered as Philip Syng, Jun. This mem-
ber, who died in November 1760, was the son of
Philip Syng, of the Franklin-Junto, who will, to pre-
vent confusion be hereafter designated, in this report,
as Philip Syng, Sen.

Of the members of the Franklin-Junto, Franklin,
[William] Coleman, Hugh Roberts, Philip Syng, Sen.
and Samuel Rhoads are known to have been still
living in Sep. 1758. The question here arises, why
are they not mentioned, as members, in the minutes
of the Society-Junto?

* Not reproduced.

60 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

The Committee will first inquire why Franklin is
not mentioned as a member. This objection to the
supposition that Franklin was a member of the
Society-Junto, is examined by Mr. Du Ponceau. He
says, p. 17, Franklin ‘‘was in England, and it was
unknown when he should return. He was probably
more considered at that time as the founder and
patron of that Club (for such in fact it was) than
as one of its active members.’’?’ Again, he remarks,
(page 18) ‘tas his representative as it were, we
find his son William Franklin in this list of members,
though he does not appear to have been a very con-
stant attendant. Ile went often to the country,—
probably to New Jersey, of which he was appointed
Governor about the time when this volume ends.”’

In judging of the probability of these explanations,
it must be borne in mind that Franklin arrived in
Iingland, accompanied by his son, in July 1757, and
returned with him on the Ist of Nov. 1762, after an
absence of more than five years. If the explanation
of Mr. Du Ponceau be admitted, it will go to show
that while Franklin, though a member, is omitted
to be mentioned on the minutes, because he was
absent in England, his son is at the same time
recognized as a member, and his absence from the
meetings, recorded twenty-one times. Is it con-
celvable that the father would not be noticed at all
on the minutes, and the son so frequently, under

circumstances so similar for both, if the father had

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 61

been a member? It is true that Mr. Du Ponceau
suggests that Franklin was considered rather as the
founder and patron of the Club, than as one of its
active members; but granting this, would not the
Society-Junto be anxious, nevertheless, to recognize
him as a member, if he were such, and record him
as absent in Iingland, as they did his son. Again,
Mr. Du Ponceau remarks in the same page (18), The
Club ‘‘would probably have been dissolved, like so
many others, if Franklin had not exerted himself
by his presence while here, and by his correspondence
while abroad, to keep it alive.’’ The Committee
would here inquire how far the above surmises tally
with the supposition, just before expressed by Mr.
Du Ponceau, that Franklin, inasmuch as he was
never mentioned on the minutes of the Society-Junto,
was considered rather as the founder and patron of
the Club than as an active member!

But, in tracing the progress of the Society-Junto,
a new objection arises to the supposition that Frank-
lin was one of its early members. This Junto, under
the changed name of ‘‘The American Society for
promoting and propagating Useful Knowledge, held
in Philadelphia,’’ which was adopted on the 13th of
Dec. 1766, elected Franklin one of its members, on
the 19th of February 1768. The name was again
changed in September 1768, the new title given be-
ing ‘‘The American Society held at Philadelphia for

promoting Useful Knowledge,’’? which name it con-

62 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

tinued to bear until its union with the Philosophical
Society on the 2nd of January 1769.

It is natural to ask, why was Franklin, if a member
of the Society-Junto, elected into a continuation of
the same association? The solution of this difficulty
is thus given by Mr. Du Ponceau. ‘‘This (his elec-
tion into the Society) was probably done, ex majore
cauteld, his son Governor Franklin, having been ad-
mitted without an election, at the preceding meeting,
on merely signing the amended rules, on the ground
that he had been a member of the ancient Society (the
Junto), which rule of admission, they said, was con-
cluded on, in reviving the Society. But Franklin
was in Kngland, and could not sign the amended
articles, it was thought best to elect him. The So-
ciety probably contemplated to make him their Presi-
dent, and wished to avoid all dispute, particularly if
a union should take place, which might not have been
quite despaired of.’’

The Committee deem it very unlikely that the mem-
bership of Franklin in the Society-Junto from its be-
ginning, if it really existed, should be nowhere no-
ticed on the Minutes. Such a membership would
have been a cherished fact, not to be disregarded in
making up the records. Nor will absence in Eng-
land explain the omission, since a contemporaneous
absence of William Franklin did not prevent them
from recording him, on numerous occasions, as

absent, and sometimes in the express words, ‘‘absent
4

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 63

in England.’’ Again, it does not appear how the
motive of greater caution should induce the Society
to introduce Franklin by a new election. If the
members were conscious of the fact of his fellowship,
they had nothing to do, in view of a probable union
with the Philosophical Society, but to insert his name
on their exchanged list, as an early member; as they
did the name of Charles Thomson, Isaae Paschall,
Edmund Physick, Wilham Franklin, Joshua Howell,
and William Hopkins, who, if elected at all, must
have been elected before the 22nd of September 1758,
the date of the earliest extant minutes. But, even
conceding that Franklin was a member from an early
period of the Society-Junto, though the minutes
show no trace of his name as such, would not his
renomination for membership be coupled with some
remark on the minutes, alluding to his early mem-
bership, in order to secure the credit of the fact to
the Association? The adoption of Mr. Du Ponceau’s
views that the election of Franklin was a re-election,
makes it necessary to suppose that the American
Society, the continuation of the Society-Junto, volun-
tarily gave a recent date to Franklin’s admission;
whereas, by omitting to re-elect, they would have
been entitled to place his name among the list of the
early members. In reference to a contemplated
union with the Philosophical Society, no dispute
could have arisen, as to who were or were not mem-
bers; as the latter body would not have the right to

64 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

eall in question the accuracy of the list which might
be communicated.

Mr. Du Ponceau is a little inaccurate in saying that
Governor Franklin was admitted at the meeting
preceding that at which Dr. Franklin was elected,
on merely signing the Amended Rules ete. The
fact is, he was offered an admission on these terms,
but he never availed himself of the offer, having
never attended or signed. The minute making the
offer is in these words :—

“This Iixcelleney Wilham Franklin, Esq., being
now the only member of the ancient Society who has
not signed the rules in this book, Dr. Evans is de-
sired to inform him, that, agreeable to what was
concluded on in reviving the Society, if he chooses
to sign our Rules and give us a meeting, he shall be
considered as a regular member.’’ Junto Minutes,
Part 2, 82,

3y this extract it appears that William Franklin
is deemed to be the only member of the ancient
Society who had not signed the Rules in the Second
Part of the Junto Minute book. Now, if Franklin
had been a member of the ancient Society here re-
ferred to, this would not have been true; for he had
never signed.

Of the twelve members with which the minutes of
the Society-Junto begin, Francis Rawle and Philip
Syng, Jun. are known to have been dead at the time
referred to (February 12, 1768); Chevalier had for-

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 65

feited membership; Wooley, Mather and Jackson had
long since moved away, and in 1768, were probably
dead, as they are not reported as members on the
exchanged list. Of the remaining six, Thomson,
Isaac Paschall, and Physick had signed. By this
statement it would seem that Joshua Howell and
Wilham Hopkins were also members of the ancient
Society who had not signed in the book referred to,
as well as William Franklin. The Committee cannot
explain why, in the extract above given from the
minutes, Howell and Hopkins are over-looked, unless
it is because they had signed in the first part of
the Junto minute book.

In pursuing the chain of evidence in relation to
the point under consideration, the Committee will
anticipate a little, by calling the attention of the So-
ciety to a letter from Charles Thomson to Dr. Frank-
lin, contained in Mr. Fisher’s communication. — It
has already been mentioned that Dr. Franklin was
elected a member of the American Society, the con-
tinuation of the Society-Junto, on the 19th of
February, 1768. On the 4th of November following,
he was elected its first President under a new or-
ganization of officers; namely,—a President, Vice-
President, ete. instead of the former one, of Chair-
man, Secretary, and Treasurer. At the same elec-
tion, Thomson was chosen one of the Secretaries, and
it became his duty, as such, to inform Franklin of
his election. The letter above referred to, dated

66 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

November 6th, 1768, was written on this occasion,
and contains the following remarkable passage:

‘“‘You remember the Society to which I belonged,
which was begun in 1750. By the death and removal
of some of the members, it dwindled for some time to
that degree that I was apprehensive of its dissolu-
tion.’’

After describing the revival of the Society, he
goes on, first to inform Franklin that he was elected
a member of it on the 19th of February 1768, and
subsequently its President.

Is it conceivable that Thomson did not know that
Franklin was an early member of this Association,
if he really were such? Or, if it be admitted that
he knew the fact, supposing for a moment that it
was a fact, and that his recent election was to secure
his fellowship beyond dispute, would he have written
as he did to Franklin? Instead of saying ‘‘You
remember the Society to which J belonged’’ he
would have said ‘‘to which we belonged.’? In
place of introducing the fact of his election without
comment, he would have alluded to his early mem-
bership as a known fact, and asked him not to be
surprised at his new election, as it was intended to
fix his membership beyond dispute.

It has already been mentioned that the earliest
known minutes of the Society-Junto, are dated
September 22nd, 1758. They begin abruptly, and
evidently relate to an Association which had existed

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 67

for some time. The internal evidence of the minute
book does not go farther back than the 18th of
December 1757, from which date room-rent and
‘‘necessaries’’ appear to have been paid for; and it
was not until the letter of Charles Thomson came to
light, that our Society has been enabled to fix 1750 as
the year in which the Society-Junto was established.

It is, indeed, true that Mr. Du Ponceau controverts
this position in the supplementary comments which
he furnished to the Committee since he had the
opportunity of examining Mr. Fisher’s communica-
tion. Our venerable President conceives that the
Society of 1750 is really the same as the Franklin-
Junto, though it may have had its interruptions,
breaking its continuity. He furthermore, conceives
that great weight must be given to the assertion of
the Rev. Dr. William Smith, in his KEulogium on
Franklin in 1792, that the Franklin-Junto ‘‘became
at last the foundation of the American Philosophical
Society.’’ If it became the foundation of our So-
ciety, it could only have become such through the
Society-Junto, which is thus proved, admitting Dr.
Smith’s accuracy, to be identical with it.: But
Thomson’s testimony is directly contradictory, that
the Society-Junto began in 1750. Now Mr. Du
Ponceau remarks, both Smith and Thomson were
men of veracity and endeavors to reconcile their
statements by supposing that Thomson did not
know that the Society, to which he referred in his

68 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

letter, was really the Franklin-Junto revived, after,
perhaps, an interruption; but mistook it for a new
Society. Now the Committee conceive that this is
not a question of veracity between two men, where
a contradiction must be explained away, in order to
avoid the imputation of untruth to one of the parties.
On the contrary, they view it only as a question of
the probable accuracy of two eentlemen, in relation
to a doubtful point. Under this aspect of the ques-
tion, they apprehend that Thomson is more likely
to be accurate, writing in 1768, than Smith in 1792.
Besides, Dr. Smith, preparing an [ulogium, and
not a formal history of the Society, might easily
have fallen into the natural error of supposing the
existence of but one Junto, an opinion which some
members of this Committee admit they entertained,
before they had investigated the subject.

If, however, weight is still to be given to the
assertion of Dr. Smith, which, it may be remarked,
is loosely expressed in not alluding to the Plulosoph-
ical Society as part of the foundation of our Society,
the Committee think it is completely neutralized by
the statement contained in the following extract from
Dr. Thomas Bond’s oration before our Society, de-
livered on the 21st of May 1782.

Franklin ‘‘gradually established many necessary
institutions, among which was this Philosophical
Society, so early as ’43, when the plan was formed

and published, the members chosen, and an invita-

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 69

tion given to all ingenious persons to co-operate and
correspond with them on the laudable occasion.’’

Here Dr. Bond distinctly recognizes the Philosoph-
ical Society as the elder parent of our institution,
and its earliest date to be 1743.

The Committee, having considered the assumption
that Franklin was a member of the Society-Junto,
because it was no other than the Franklin-Junto, and
examined all the suggestions thrown out by Mr.
Du Ponceau to explain why, being a member, he is
never mentioned as such on the minutes, as either
present or absent, will now proceed to give, as more
immediately connected with this part of the subject,
a connected view of what is known or probable in
relation to the Society-Junto.

Besides the minutes of this Junto in the possession
of the Society, the Committee have no other source
of information than the important letter of Charles
Thomson already referred to. These minutes were
originally in two volumes; one, commencing with
September 22nd, 1758, the other, with April 295th,
1766. At the end of the first volume, some irregular
minutes of the Society, after the union (namely
from 1774 to 1779) had been inserted. Mr. J.
Francis Fisher, at the time one of our Secretaries,
kindly undertook to arrange our early minutes, and
with that view took to pieces the first volume above
referred to, in order to separate the part relating
to the united Society, and had the Junto part of it

70 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

substantially bound, in one volume, with what was
originally called the second volume of the minutes
of the Junto. It is thus explained why there are
two sets of paging in the Junto minute book, which
makes it necessary to distinguish what were orig-
inally the first and second volumes, as the first and
second parts.

The Committee, relying on the statement in Charles
Thomson’s letter, date the beginning of the Society-
Junto in 1750. What happened between that year
and the 22nd of September, 1758, the date of the
earliest minutes, the Committee have no means of
determining. It is certain, however, that the So-
ciety had been meeting for sometime; for the book
opens abruptly with a minute of the above date,
without any indication of a commencement after an
interruption. It continued to meet with few inter-
ruptions, or omissions from the minutes, until
February 9th, 1761, when a hiatus occurs, until the
‘th of August succeeding; though a note is given
in the handwriting of Charles Thomson, that in the
interval ‘‘the meetings were usually kept up, but
so few attended, and so little was done, that no
minutes were made.’? Junto Minute Book, Part
1, 51. In this note, an intermediate meeting on the
30th of July, is incidentally mentioned, at which
the ‘Company’? agree to a set of Rules, prepared
by Edmund Physick and Charles Thomson, who had

heen appointed to recollect and draw them Ue ac

h

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. a

agreeable as possible to the ancient Rules and By-
Laws.’’ These Rules immediately follow this note,
and form the first record, occurring in the minutes,
of the Laws by which the Junto was governed.
Here the four remakable qualifications of members
are first given.

From the 7th of August, the Society-Junto con-
tinue to meet regularly until the 16th of October,
after which no minutes are recorded until September
ard, 1762. In this interval of eleven months, no
meetings took place, as is shown by a remark en-
tered on the minutes on the 10th of September,
1762, to the following effect:—‘‘As Charles Moore
was formerly ballotted for and approved, and E.
Physick, who was appointed to speak to him, informs
that the only reason for not introducing him, was
that Mr. Moore was about taking a journey to Mary-
land, soon after which the Society was discontinued ;
now we are met again and he is returned, EK. Physick
is desired to speak to him, and if he is willing to
become a member, to introduce him next evening.’’
Now Charles Moore was elected on the 2nd _ of
October 1761, and two meetings are recorded subse-
quently, before the suspension of the meetings above
referred to. The meetings having been thus resumed
on the 3rd of September, 1762, as above stated, six
meetings, and two attempts at meetings took place,
up to the 22nd of October following, being the only
meetings recorded this year. The minutes of the

72 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

22nd of October close the first part of the Junto
minute book.

After this time, no minutes are known to exist,
until the 25th of April 1766, an interval of three
and a half years, when the second part of the Junto
minutes begins. The question here arises, did the
Junto meet during the whole or a part of this in-
terval, the minutes having been lost; or was there a
suspension of the Society for the whole period?
It is not possible to answer this question positively ;
but there is good reason to believe that some meet-
ings took place in this interval. In the first place,
the minutes open without any allusion to a suspen-
sion of meetings; but, on the contrary, In a manner
to indicate continuity with meetings recently held.
The turns of members to act as Chairman, and to
propose queries are mentioned; and at a meeting
held shortly afterwards, (namely, on the 23rd of
May) Owen Biddle and Isaae Paschall are referred
to as having been appointed to revise the Laws; and
as their appointment is not recorded in the minutes
beginning with the 25th of April 1766, it is evident
that they must have been charged with that duty at
a meeting earher than that with which the second
part of the Junto minute book opens. Besides these
considerations, four members, Moses Bartram, Isaac
Zane, Joseph Paschall and Owen Biddle, are re-
corded as present in this second part, whose elections

are not contained in the minutes in the possession

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. to

of our Society; and two others, Isaac Bartram and
James Pearson, though elected at an early period,
are not known to have been introduced. It is rea-
sonable, therefore, to conclude that the first four
names were elected and introduced, and the last two
introduced within the long period for which we pos-
sess no minutes. Taking this view of the subject,
the chasm in the Junto minutes of three and a half
years, is not to be viewed as indicative necessarily
of a suspension of the Society, but to be attributed
rather to the loss of the records. This is also the
opinion of Mr. Du Ponceau, and the Committee is
happy to agree with him on this point.

The draught of revised Laws, prepared by Owen
Biddle and Isaae Paschall, was finally passed on the
30th of May 1766. They are the Junto Laws, but
slightly altered, already alluded to as adopted on
the 30th of July 1761. The four qualifications are
still retained, but the name Junto is omitted, and
the title of the Society, held under advisement un-
til the 13th of December 1766, when the name
‘“‘The American Society for promoting and propa-
gating Useful Knowledge, held in Philadelphia,”’
was adopted. Thus, though the Society changed
its name, its Junto organization was still preserved.

After this period, the Society underwent no change
in its name or organization, until the 23rd of Sep-
tember 1768, when it became ‘‘The American So-

ciety held at Philadelphia for promoting Useful

74 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

Knowledge,’’ which title it continued to bear until
its union with the Philosophical Society on the 2nd
of January 1769. On the occasion of this last
change of name, the Laws were much altered, the
Junto qualifications were dispensed with, and an
‘Obligation’? to be signed by members, substituted.
Instead of having merely a Chairman, Secretary, and
Treasurer, the Laws called for a President, Vice-
President, two Secretaries, three curators, and a
Treasurer. The election under this new organiza-
tion took place on the 4th of November, and Dr.
Franklin was chosen first President, as has been
already mentioned in a former part of this Report.
This sketch of the origin and progress of the Society-
Junto is sufficient for this Report. For the details,
the Society is referred to the tabular statement,
and to the Abstract from the Junto-Minute book,
marked B.

The Committee have already mentioned that they
agree with Mr. Du Ponceau in believing it probable
that meetings of the Society-Junto took place within
the long period for which we possess no minutes;
but they cannot go so far as to suppose with him,
that an intermediate volume of minutes did exist, but
was lost, comprising that period. Our President
rests his opinion mainly on the fact that Dr. Smith,
in his Eulogium on Franklin, tells us ‘‘that a book
containing many of the questions discussed by the

Junto, was, on the formation of the American Philo-

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 75

sophical Society, put into his hands for the purpose
of being digested, and in due time published among
the Transactions of that body.’? Mr. Du Ponceau
thinks it probable that this book was the intermediate
volume which he infers to have existed, and attempts
to fix its date by a question quoted from it by Dr.
Smith; namely,—‘How may the possession of the
Lakes be improved to our advantage,’’? which, he
says, Judging historically, could ‘‘only have been
asked after the cession of Canada in 1763.’’ But it
is not necessary to bring any ingenious reasoning to
bear upon this point; for the Committee find that the
identical question, above quoted, was proposed by
Isaac Paschall on the Sth of October 1759. See
Junto Minute book, under that date, Part 1, p. 39.
Thus the attempt to fix the date of an intermediate
volume of minutes fails; and the Committee may
add their strong conviction, that the book referred
to by Dr. Smith, was no other than the first part of
the present Junto Minute book, which was originally
the first volume of Junto Minutes. This book con-
tains ‘‘many of the questions discussed by the
Junto,’’ and is preceded by a lst of some of them.
So strongly, however, is Mr. Du Ponceau impressed
with the belief in the existence of an intermediate
volume, that he reasons upon it as a fact, and says,
‘The loss of the missing volume is so much the more
to be regretted, as it included a period when Frank-

lin was in this country, and probably took an active

76 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

part in the Junto proceedings.’’ p. 19. It 1s hardly
necessary to add, that the Committee, having given
a decided opinion that Franklin was not a member
of the Society-Junto until February 1768, are fully
convinced that he never took any part, active or
otherwise, in its proceedings.

Having considered the question, why Franklin, if
a member of the Society-Junto became the founder
of the Franklin-Junto, was never recognized as such
in the former until a late period, and then by election,
and answered the explanations given of the silence
of the Society-Junto minutes in relation to the point;
the question recurs, why were not William Coleman,
Hugh Roberts, Philip Syng, Sen., and Samuel Rhoads,
the other surviving members of the Franklin-Junto
during the existence of the Society-Junto, recognized
as members of the latter?

Mr. Du Ponceau, in his paper, recognizes Coleman
and Franklin as the only survivors of the Franklin-
Junto, at the time of the union which formed the
present Society, p. 11. Mr. Fisher mentions a third,
Hugh Roberts, and very naturally inquires, why is
he not mentioned, as either present or absent, on the
minutes of the Society-Junto, especially as Franklin,
in a letter to him, dated February 26th, 1761, says,
‘*You tell me you sometimes visit the ancient Junto.’’
The letter of Roberts, to which Franklin’s is an
answer, was probably written in the latter part of

1760, and for that year we possess the minutes of

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. mi

the Society-Junto for every month except October,
and it will be found that not only the names of mem-
bers present, but those of absentees are recorded.
Mr. Du Ponceau, in his letter to Mr. Kane, answers
this objection thus:—‘‘Mr. Roberts, at that time,
was advanced in age, and full of business. Ile was
not probably a regular member of that Club, subject
to fines, and contributing to their expenses. He was,
I suppose, welcome to their meetings as an old asso-
ciate, and in that sense, I presume, his friend Frank-
lin urged him to attend the meetings. In that case
his name would not necessarily appear in the list of
present and absent members at the head of the
minutes of each meeting.’’ In reply to this ex-
planation it may be urged that Mr. Roberts in 1760
was only 54 years of age, and that the usage of the
minutes being to note those present, the name even
of an honorary member, admitting that there were
such, would have been recorded. What makes this
more probable, is a passage in the minutes of Febru-
ary 9th, 1761, when the members met at supper at
Whitebread’s, at which George Bryan, a former
member, is recorded as present by invitation. Again,
if Roberts was a member, honorary or not, of the
Society-Junto, why does not his name appear in
the list of members furnished to the Philosophical
Society at the time of Union? The same remark
applies to William Coleman, on the assumption of

his membership in the Society-Junto. Surely these

78 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

names would not have been overlooked, in giving the
list of surviving members to a rival Society, with a
view to a union with it. The Philosophical Society
did not act thus; for this very William Coleman is
reported as an original member, dating from 1743,
though, so far as the minutes of this Society in our
possession show, he never attended the meetings. It
may be added that Hugh Roberts, who Mr. Du
Ponceau supposes was, in 1760, a member of the
Society-Junto, though not a regular one on account
of his advanced age and full business, was, in Janu-
ary 1768, elected a member of the Philosophical So-
ciety. It is true, however, that he never attended
so far as the minutes show.

There still remain to be considered the names of
two other individuals, namely, Philip Syng, Sen. and
Samuel Rhoads, who were surviving members of the
Franklin-Junto, during the existence of the Society-
Junto, and the question recurs, why were they not
present at the meetings or recorded in the list of
members? These persons are not mentioned as sur-
vivors of the Franklin-Junto by our President, and
the Committee will not undertake to conjecture what
would be the course of his argument in regard to
them. They will simply answer the question they
have put, themselves, and say that Syng and Rhoads
did not attend the meetings of the Society-Junto,
because they were not members. It is true that
Philip Syng, Sr. refers to a ‘‘Junto,”’ in a letter

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 79

addressed to Franklin, dated March Ist, 1766, and
which was found among the Franklin papers, in the
possession of the Society. His words are ‘‘The
Junto fainted last summer in the hot weather, and has
not yet revived. Your presence might reanimate it,
without which I apprehend it will never reecover”’
This suspension of ‘‘the Junto’’ is referred to the
summer of 1765, and the question arises, does Philip
Syng refer to the Society-Junto? Unfortunately,
the summer of 1765 is within the long period of
three and a half years, for which we have no minutes.
If it be said that the expression ‘‘fainted last sum-
mer,’’ implies that the Junto alluded to met im-
mediately before that period, the Committee are
willing to grant the inference; but the absence of
minutes of such meetings is not to be taken as proof
that the allusion cannot be to the Society-Junto; for
the Committee have admitted it as probable, that
some meetings took place within the period of the
great chasm in the minutes, for reasons already
given. <A passage in a letter of Hugh Roberts to
Franklin, dated May 20th, 1765, also found among
the Franklin papers, bears upon this point. ~He
says, ‘‘I sometimes visit the worthy remains of the
ancient Junto, for whom [f have a high esteem; but,
alas, the political, polemical divisions have, in some
measure, contributed to lessen that harmony we
there formerly enjoyed.’’ ‘Thus the ‘‘Junto’’ was
sometimes visited by Hugh Roberts in the spring of

SO REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

1765, just before the time when Syng said it fainted.
If the ‘‘Junto’’ here alluded to could be shown to
be the Society-Junto, then the identity of the two
would be proved. The absence of minutes for the
spring of 1765 would seem to be against the supposi-
tion of identity; but so long as it is conceded that
meetings may have taken place at some time within
the period embraced by the long chasm, and conse-
quently, that meetings may have been held in the
spring of 1765, the minutes of which have been lost,
the question cannot be decided by the mere absence
of minutes. But the question is decided by other
circumstances. Syng and Roberts, in the above
extracts, evidently speak of an association in which
they take a deep interest; and not of the Society-
Junto, in which, considering that their names are
never mentioned, although we possess the minutes
of it for several consecutive years, they could not be
plausibly alleged to take any interest at all. It 1s,
therefore, clear to the Committee that they alluded,
in their letters, to the Franklin-Junto, of which they
are known to have been members, and which, in the
absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, must
be held to have been an Association, distinct from
the Society-Junto, and existing contemporaneously
with it.

After the long interval for which we have no reec-
ords of the Society-Junto, the minutes recommence

on the 25th of April, 1766, a month and twenty-five

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 81

days after the date of Syng’s letter. Now it may
be alleged that the 25th of April 1766 was the date
of a revival of the Association which is referred to
by Syng, and which, he apprehends, ‘‘will never
recover.’’ The dates here give some _ plausibility
to this supposition. But, assuming it for a moment
to be well-founded, is it not reasonable to suppose
that Syng, rejoiced at its revival, would have given
to the Society-Junto the countenance of his presence;
or are we to believe that, contrary to the plan of
the minutes, he was sometimes present, without his
name being recorded?

While, therefore, the Committee think it a strained
inference that the survivors of the Franklin-Junto
were members of the Society-Junto, it 1s remarkable
to find that two of them, Syng and Rhoads, are active
members of the Philosophical Society before the union,
and of the United Society after it. Rhoads, indeed,
was an original member of the Philosophical Society,
dating from its establishment in 1743. Syng, how-
ever, was not elected until January 1768. Supposing
them to have been members of any kind, irregular
or honorary of the Society-Junto, afterwards the
American Society, and for that reason never men-
tioned on the minutes, would they not at least have
been included in the list of members handed to the
Philosophical Society? Again, if it be alleged as
probable that the Secretaries of the American So-

ciety forgot to insert the name of Syng and Rhoads

82 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

on their list of members, would not their names
occurring in the Philosophical Society’s lst, remind
them of their omission; or, finally, if the American
Society were not aware of their membership, would
not the individuals themselves remind them of it?
But the supposition that Syng and Rhoads were
members of the American Society becomes more
difficult to believe, when we find them on the Com-
mittee of conference, appointed by the Philosophical
Society, to treat with the American Society. This
conference would have brought them so decidedly
in contact with the American Society that their
membership in it could not be overlooked; unless it
be assumed that neither they themselves nor the
American Society knew that they were members!

The Committee have said that Syng and Rhoads
were active members of the Philosophical Society up
to the time of union, and, afterwards, of the United
Society. They were repeatedly present at the meet-
ings of the former in the year 1768, and also frequent
attendants of the United Society, of which Syng was
elected first Treasurer, and Rhoads repeatedly chosen
a Vice-President. Are these the kind of men that
would probably have been entirely unnoticed by the
American Society, if they had really been members
of it? |

The Committee beleve that all of the difficulties
connected with this subject will disappear upon the

supposition of the distinct, and for a part of the

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 83

time, contemporaneous existence of the Franklin and
Society-Juntos. From the autumn of 1727 until
1750, the Franklin-Junto can be traced, unembar-
rassed by the alleged existence of another Associa-
tion of the same name. From that year, being the
time of the establishment, according to Thomson,
of the Society-Junto, the difficulty begins. On the
16th of July, 17538, and the 16th of September 1758,
Franklin, in writing to Roberts, refers to the
‘‘Junto’’; but as these dates occur between 1750,
and September 22nd, 1758, for which interval we
possess no minutes of the Society-Junto, these refer-
ences throw no light on the question of the identity,
or non-identity of the two Juntos. The next letter
in which Franklin refers to ‘‘the Junto’’ is dated
February 26th, 1761; and the Committee have
already given their opinion that the allusion in it
eould not refer to the Society-Junto, as it mentions
the occasional attendance of Hugh Roberts, who is
not noticed as present or absent at any meeting pre-
ceding the date of the letter, though the minutes for
that period are extant. Franklin was in Philadel-
phia from November 1762, to November 1764, but,
unfortunately, these two years occur within the long
interval for which we possess no Junto Minutes.
The Committee have already given their reasons for
believing that the allusions to ‘‘the Junto’’ that
occur in the correspondence of Roberts & Syng with
Franklin, in 1765-66, could not have meant the

84 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

Society-Junto. After these years, the Committee
find no reference to ‘‘the Junto,’’ until June 24th
1785, under which date Roberts wrote to Franklin
as follows:—‘‘Philip Syng, the only other surviving
member here, of the old Junto, labours under in-
firmities, keeps much at home, where I can seldom
eo to visit him.’’ Hazard’s Register, XV, 184.

If the Franklin and Society-Juntos were the same,
would Roberts speak of Philp Syng as the only
other surviving member of the Junto in Philadelphia
besides himself? Would he not rather have said,
that besides himself, the surviving members of the
Junto were Charles Thomson, Hdmund_ Physick,
Moses Bartram, Joseph Paschall, Owen Biddle,
James Pearson, Samuel Powel, Nicholas Waln, Cle-
ment Biddle, Dr. John Morgan, not to mention others,
who were members of the Society-Junto, still living,
when Roberts wrote. Neither can it be contended
that Roberts meant to say that Synge was the only
other surviving original member; for neither Syng
nor Roberts were original members of the Franklin-
Junto. See Franklin’s list, 1, Sparks, 81. While it
is thus proved that the expression of Roberts, in this
letter, 1s inconsistent with the supposition that the
two Juntos were the same, it is perfectly accurate as
apphed to the Franklin-Junto, which evidently con-
tinued to meet a long time after it ceased to fill up
vacancies by new elections, and, at last, became ex-

tinct by the death of the last survivor, Franklin.

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 85

The Committee are aware that Franklin, in 1771,
fixes the duration of his Junto at about 40 years.
His words are, alluding to William Coleman ‘‘Our
friendship continued without interruption to his
death, upwards of forty vears; and the Club con-
tinued almost as long.’’ Again he says, in a letter
to Hugh Roberts, dated July 7th, 1765, ‘‘It wants
but about two years of forty since it was established.”’
Thus the Junto lasted almost as long as a friendship
that had continued upwards of forty years; and as
it began in 1727, it may be said, so far as this evi-
dence goes, to have ceased to exist about the year
1767. Now, if this reasoning be admitted, it is fatal
to the supposition that the Franklin-Junto was one
of the parents of our Society; for the union took
place on the 2nd of January, 1769. The Committee,
however, do not lay much stress upon this reasoning;
as Franklin, writing his Life in England in 1771,
may not have been entirely accurate in dates. They
rely more upon the fact that Franklin, in speaking
of the duration of the Junto, never refers to its
ceasing to exist, in consequence of its union with the
Philosophical Society, a statement he would hardly
have omitted to make in his Autobiography, if it had
been a fact.

Upon the whole, the Committee incline to the
opinion that the Franklin-Junto ceased to exist as
an organized club of twelve about the year 1767;
but continued to meet irregularly, without being kept

up in number, for many years afterwards.

86 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

The Committee now come to consider the difficulty
implied in the supposition of the existence of two
Juntos meeting in this city at the same time. This
difficulty is ably presented by Mr. Du Ponceau.
Speaking of the assumption of the existence of two
Juntos, one begun in 1727, the other in 1750, and sup-
posing both to have ended in 1768, or 69, he says, in
lis note to Mr. Kane :—

‘During these 18 or 19 vears, there would have
been two Societies in Philadelphia, same name, same
objects, same rules, same exercises, same qualifica-
tions, in short, a fac-simile of each other. This ap-
pears, 1f not impossible, at least quite improbable.

“There would have been at least some difference
in the name, as the New Junto, the Junto No. 2, or
the like. Courtesy would have required it. Shop
keepers do not take each others signs. It must have
been, if otherwise, in opposition to Franklin’s Junto,
and an insult. It is not pretended. It would have
produced confusion.’’

Two suppositions are admissible in explanation of
the existence of two Juntos without involving the
difficulties so forcibly urged by our President in the
above extract. One is that the Franklin-Junto,
through the suggestion of its members, caused the
second Junto to be established, without revealing its
own existence; the other, that it exercised its in-
fluence openly with its young friends, to induce them

to establish a Society on the model of their own.

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 87

The first supposition is rendered plausible by the
fact, that subordinate Clubs to the Junto were, at
one time, secretly formed by different members of
the original Club. This plan originated with Frank-
lin, as a substitute for one of increasing the number
of members of the original Junto beyond twelve, to
which he was opposed. He says, ‘‘I was one of
those who were against any addition to our numbers;
but, instead of it, made in writing a proposal, that
every member separately should endeavor to form
a subordinate Club, with the same rules respecting
queries, ete., and without informing them of the
connection with the Junto.’? Autobiography, 1,
Sparks, 129. Several of these subordinate Clubs
were completed under different names; as the vine,
the union, the band. In these Clubs it is true that
the name ‘‘Junto’’ is not employed; but might not
the idea of inducing their young friends to establish
a similar association to the Junto, and under the same
name, have been carried into effect in 1750, by the
influence of its members, not known as such; it bemg
a rule to keep the Institution secret? Under the
circumstances of the assumed secrecy of the original
Club, the members would feel no objection to suggest-
ing the same name for its copy.

On the other supposition, which the Committee con-
sider the more probable, the original Club may be
supposed to have relinquished, about the year 1750,
all intention of keeping up their original number of

88 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

twelve. To keep up this number, it would have been
necessary, in all probability, to elect much younger
men than those that remained of the original body.
Instead, therefore, of bringing in younger men, they
may have induced twelve, in whom they reposed con-
fidence, to form a similar association and with the
same name; for, if the original Club looked forward
to its extinction, and kept its existence to a certain
extent secret, it would rather desire than otherwise
that the new association should take its name. The
probability of the view here presented, is strength-
ened by the fact that several of the members of the
Society-Junto were sons of members of the Franklin-
Junto, as Wilham Franklin, Philip Syng, Jr., and
George Roberts.

Thus it 1s perceived that, adopting either of the
suppositions suggested, the two associations would
have had the same name and organization, and the
simultaneous existence of a second Junto would have
indicated neither opposition nor insult to the Frank-
lin- Junto.

Towards the close of his paper, Mr. Du Ponceau
speaks of the two parties, aristocratic and popular,
into which the inhabitants of Pennsylvania were
divided in 1768, and for some years previously, and
correctly remarks that the artistocratic party made
up the principal part of the Philosophical Society ;
while the American Society was composed of members

from the popular party. Setting out from this gen-

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 89

eral proposition, the author infers the existence of
a strong feeling of opposition between the two So-
cieties. Thus, in one place he says, ‘‘I shall follow
the two Societies in their mutual jealousies.’’ p. 14.
In another place he says, ‘‘In 1768, when the dif-
ferences were at their height between the two So-
cieties, we find him (Hugh Roberts) enlisted with
that opposed to the old Junto.’’ Again, he remarks,
‘“‘In this state of things, the high aristocratic party
could not see with unconcern, that an obscure Club,
which, till then, had been unknown, should assume
to form themselves into a learned Society, like those
which in Europe bore royal titles,’’ ete. p. 35.

Further on in his paper he says ‘‘The two parties
seemed to lie on their oars, watching each other’s
motions. It was not until the vear 1768, that the
contest truly began and assumed a formidable as-
pect.’’ pp. 33-34.

The Committee would here stop to inquire, are the
expressions contained in the above extracts listor-
ically just?

The Committee are prepared to admit that a
jealously existed between the two Societies, and that
warmth and activity were displayed by the members
of the respective bodies at the first election after
the union, in order to secure the choice of their own
President; but further than this they are not willing
to go. They have carefully examined the minutes

of the two Societies before the Union, and find, in

90 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

the manner in which the negotiation was conducted,
the evidence of calmness, mutual respect, and the
desire to avoid giving offense. It is, indeed, true
that the American Society declined an election of its
members, ‘‘en masse,’’ into the Philosophical Society.
At their meeting of the oth of February, 1768, the
American Society voted unanimously that the terms
of union implied by the election of their members
into the Philosophical Society by a general vote, were
not equally honorable to both parties. Immediately
after passing this vote, the following proposition
was unanimously carried in the affirmative :—

“As the Gentlemen of the American Philosophical
Society have conducted themselves politely towards
this Society; is it not proper to draw up an answer
to their proceedings, and deliver it to the Gentlemen
of said Society?”’

At the next meeting, the Committee appointed for
the purpose, submitted their draught of an answer
to the Philosophical Society. It is too long to be
inserted here, but the Committee will transcribe the
first paragraph, which is in these words :—

“That although the readiness of the American
Philosophical Society to dispense with their law in
order to ballot us into their Society, together with
their respectful conduct on that occasion, might be
deemed an honour to us as individuals; yet, as a
Society, we cannot consider it in that light for the
following reasons.’’

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 91

The answer, from which the above is an extract,
was never delivered; for the very next day the
American Society held a special meeting, which opens
with the following minute :—

‘Some of the members apprehending that the
minute of our last meeting, if delivered, might give
offence to some Gentlemen of the other Society, which
they would cautiously avoid if possible, therefore
proposed a meeting of the Society this day to con-
sider that minute,’’ ete. The result of the recon-
sideration is thus recorded :—

“The minute of the American Philosophical So-
ciety of the 2nd inst., which declares our election into
that Society, being considered, it was unanimously
determined that, as it was not on the terms proposed,
we are under the necessity of declining the Union.’’

In the above calm and deliberate proceedings, the
Committee can see nothing that has the appearance
of a ‘‘contest,’’? much less of a contest presenting ‘‘a
formidable aspect.”’

We have the evidence of Bishop White that warmth
and activity were displayed at the first election. The
minutes show that 89 members voted. The total
number of members at the time of the union was 201,
—26 common to the two parent Societies; 102 belong-
ing to the Philosophical Society, and 123 to the
American Society. Deducting the members that re-
sided out of the city and county, many of them in
distant states and countries, there remain about 14

92 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

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, pre-
sumed to be present in the city and county, were
active on the oceasion. 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. Krom these facts it is evident that
Franklin could not have been elected first President
of the United Society, unless he had received consid-
erable support from the members of the Philosophical
Society. If the election had turned upon party or
Society feeling solely, Ix-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, whieh was
known all over Kurope, would give greater weight
to the United Society than that of Hamilton. Actu-
ated, 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,

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 93

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.
Mr. Du Ponceau, in his paper, has given the fol-
lowing 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 re-
plied, ‘‘I never shall be the patron of a Society that
has for its President such a —— as Franklin.’”’ It
is understood that the blank represents an oppro-
brious 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 con-
sent to be the patron of a Society, whose first Presi-
dent 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

94 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

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 Frank-
lin. This may be inferred from the character of
the second meeting of the United Society, at which
40) members were present,—d) 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 dis-
cussed 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 communi-

cations, and possessed no library’’; for Franklin says

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 95

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. i, Sparks, 128, and 132-388.
He also speaks of the members having, at his sug-
gestion, clubbed their books in a common Library,
though afterwards they were separated. 7, Sparks,
96. See also Chronological Statement.

The suggestion thrown out by Mr. Fisher, that
Phihp 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 1t was by the
Philosophical Society ‘‘that the proposal was first
made for an incorporation with the American So-
ciety.’’ The first proposition came from the Amer-
ican Society, in the shape of a motion, passed unani-
mously 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.

co
on)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

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 de-
pended 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 his-
tory of our Society, and fixes the date of the estab-
lishment 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 unim-
portant 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

Fiditor says, ‘‘Forty years after its establishment, ’’

ON MR. DU PONCEAU’S HISTORY. 97

the Junto ‘‘became the basis of the American Philo-
sophical Society.’’

In view of all the facts that they have been able to
collect, the Committee have come to the following
conclusions :—

1. That the present Society was formed, on the 2nd
of January 1769, by the union of the ‘‘ American
Philosophical Society’? and the ‘‘American Society,
held at Philadelphia for promoting Useful: Knowl-
edge.’’

2. That the Philosophical Society was founded by
Franklin on the 14th of May 17438 [old style corre-
sponding to 25th of May new style], this being the
date of the publication of his ‘‘Proposal for promot-
ing Useful knowledge among the British Plantations
in Amerieca.’’

3. That the American Society was begun under the
name of the Junto, and bore this name from the year
1750, the earliest recorded date of its existence, until
the 13th of December 1766.

4. That the evidence before the Committee does
not establish the identity of the Junto which was
formed by Franklin in 1727, with that which after-
wards became the American Society; though they
appear to have been the same in many marked
particulars.

5. That dating from the establishment of the elder
parent-Society, our centennial anniversary should be
celebrated on the 14th [25th, new style] of May 1845.

98 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

6. That Franklin, having established one of our
parent-Societies, and furnished, in his Junto, the
model of the other, is justly entitled to be called our
founder.

In conclusion, the Committee congratulate the So-
ciety on the important accession to the knowledge
of our early history, which has resulted from the
labours of Mr. Du Ponceau and Mr. Fisher. Yet
it must be admitted that chasms still remain in our
early annals which require to be filled up, that doubts
exist on some points, and discrepancies of opinion
on others. The question here arises, shall we give
publicity to the Society’s early history in its present
imperfect state; or shall we delay, in the hope of
obtaining more facts? The Committee expresses
themselves decidedly in favor of the latter course.
They, therefore, recommend to the Society, the adop-
tion of the following resolution :—

Resolved, that the papers of Mr. Du Ponceau and
Mr. Fisher, which were read on the 26th of June
1840, together with the supplementary communica-
tions, be deposited in the Archives, as valuable con-

tributions to the early history of the Society.
FRANKLIN Bacug,
J. K. Kang,
A. D. BacHe,
October 15, 1841. Rosiey DuNGLISON.

OPEN DLA a.

A tabular statement of the attendance of members
at the meetings from 1758 to 1768 which it is not con-

sidered necessary to reproduce.

®

APPENDIX B.

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO Minute Book.
[Entries relating to purely scientific and philosophical
discussions have been omitted in this transeription |

1758. September 29. Absent, W. Franklin in Eng-
land. |

October 27th. The members evidently become Chair-
men and Secretaries in rotation.

November 3rd. Fines due from the 13th of Feb. to
the 25th of August 1758 inclusive. Therefore the
Club existed on the 13th of Feb. 1758.

November 10. ‘‘W. Franklin out of town.’’

December ist. ‘‘The company resolved that as
Peter Chevalier had been absent four nights succes-
sively, without sending an apology, that he is no
longer to be deemed a member.’’

Dec. 22nd. “Wm. Franklin abroad.’’

Dec. 29th. Paul Jackson present as a member; but
not previously mentioned either as present or absent.

1759. Jan. 5. C. Thomson proposed ‘‘Will it be
most advantageous to the company to continue or
discontinue keeping a minute book?”’

19th. Agreed to keep a minute book. It was ap-
99

100 APPENDIX B.

prehended that, if no minutes were kept, ‘‘fewer
queries would be discussed than otherwise would be,
and the Junto consequently less improved.”’

Turn as Seeretary came round not much sooner
than a vear.

Feb. 2. ‘If this want of zeal, this disinclination to
industry and due attendance should continue, is it
not evident that a dissolution of the Society must
speedily follow?’’? ‘‘As our anniversary will be held
next Monday, when it is customary for us to express
our good wishes for the Society’s prosperity’ ete.
the company proposing to celebrate their anniver-
sary, the Secretary is appointed to bespeak an enter-
tainment suitable to the occasion.

Feb, 5. (Monday) Minutes at the Widow Gray’s.
‘Wm. Franklin at sea.’’

“This mght, agreeable to a fundamental law of
this Society, the original laws were distinctly read,
and also the bye-laws.”’

February 23rd. Wdward Duffield ballotted for and
approved. ‘‘ldm*. Physick and Wm. Hopkins are
appointed to speak to him.’’

Sep. 27th. ‘“As several of the original laws have
been abrogated or changed, and several Bye-Laws
made now are in force, and which lie scattered upon
and down in the book, KE. Physick and Charles
Thomson, the Committee before appointed, are de-
sired to make a collection of such laws’? ete.

1/60. Mebruary 1st. Next Tuesday being our anni-

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. iO]

versary meeting, the Secretary was desired to be-
speak a supper for the company of the Widow Gray.

June 20th. Sam. Powel introduced as a member
and paid 20 shillings.

1761. Feb. 6th. ‘‘As there had not been proper
notice given by the Secretary for the members to
meet the 5th inst., the usual time of their anniver-
sary, they agreed to spend a meeting together, in
memory thereof, and desired Charles Thomson to be-
speak a supper at Whitebread’s.’’

Feb, 9th. ‘*The following members met at W.
Whitebread’s; viz., Charles Thomson, EH. Physick, I.
Paschall, IF. Rawle, W. Hopkins, and Joshua Howell,
together with Geo. Brvan (a former member), who
was invited by one of the company.’’

July 30th. ‘*By the death of two members, P. Syng
and EF’. Rawle, the absence of some who are abroad in
England, and the sickness and necessary avocations of
the few remaining, this Society has for some time, lan-
guished. The meetings were usually kept up. But
so few attended and so little was done, that no
minutes were made, and some thoughts were let in
of giving up the room, and dissolving the Society. But
as the Institution was, after long experience, found to
be good, and much improvement as well as pleasure
reaped from it; it was agreed first to try whether
any measures could be fallen upon to revive its
ancient spirit. The best way they judged to effect
this, was turning back to the first principles, and

102 APPENDIX B.

keeping close to the plan originally laid down. In
order to do this twas necessary to have recourse to
the original laws. The laws were lost or mislaid, so
that they could not be found. After several searches
to no purpose, it was at length agreed to appoint a
Committee to recollect and draw up a set of Rules,
as agreeable as possible to the ancient Rules and
Bye-Laws, heretofore established, and now in force.
Edmund Physick and Charles Thomson were nom1-
nated for this work, who, having drawn up the Rules,
submitted them to the examination of the company on
the 30th of July. As in some respects they seemed
to differ from the ancient rules, a question arose
whether the Company present had a right to enact
these into Laws, or whether, if enacted, they
could bind the whole Society. This led them into
a consideration of the state of the Society.
William Franklin and Samuel Powel are both in
England, who, having at their departure and _ tak-
ing leave, desired to be continued as members, and
promised an epistolary correspondence, ought, there-
fore, to be deemed such. But Paul Jackson, Stephen
Wooley, and Joseph Mather, who are settled each in
his profession, the first at a distance from this town,
the two latter in other Provinces, could by no means
have any right to interfere in making laws for the
government and regulation of this Society, more espe-
clally as they contributed nothing towards the stand-

ing charges of the Society, nor even attended when

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. 103

they chanced to be in town on the night of meeting.
At most they were only to be considered as honorary
members, who, upon removing to town, signing and
conforming to the Rules of the Society then in
force, should, without any ballot or new change, be
admitted as members. So that the whole is reduced
to Edmund Physick, Charles Thomson, Isaac Pa-
schall, Joshua Howell, and William Hopkins (if he
chooses to attend), and the two in England, whose
return, being uncertain, ought not to interrupt the
measures necessary to be taken for preserving the
Society in being. This difficulty being thus got over,
and the members present well satisfyed of their power,
the Laws were read over, and after some alterations
to make them more conformable to the original Rules
and Bye-Laws, they were ordered to be entered in
the book, and are as follow:—’’

(Here follow the Rules with this heading. ]

“Rules of a Society meeting weekly in the city of
Philadelphia for their Mutual Improvement wm Use-
ful Knowledge.’

‘1. That this Society, called The Junto, meet every
Friday evening ’’ ete.

6. The elections must be unanimous. The new mem-
ber introduced and qualified thus :—

‘Standing up and laying his right hand upon his
breast, he shall be asked the following questions :—

‘1. Have you any objection or any personal dislike
to any member of this Society?

104 APPENDIX B.

‘9. Do you love mankind in general, of what
nation, religion, or profession soever they be?

“3, Do vou think any one ought to be injured in
his estate, character, or person for his mere specula-
tive opinions in matters of religion?

“4. Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will
you endeavor impartially to find it out and freely
communicate it to others?’’ :

These questions being properly answered, and to
the satisfaction of the company, the Rules shall be
distinctly read by the Secretary, and subscribed by
the person to be admitted, who shall thereupon be
acknowledged a member, ete. ete. |

Aug. 7. A meeting. Only those present, Edmund
Physick, Isaac Paschall, and Charles Thomson, who
signed the rules above referred to.

Aug. 14. Wm. Hopkins signs the laws.

Aug. 28th. John Cooper, elected the 14th, declines
membership, because he belongs to a religious society
which disapproves of Clubs, and because a pain in his
head renders him incapable of close application.

Sep. 4th. Joshua Howell signed the laws.

Oct. 2nd. Charles Moore was ballotted for this
evening, and approved.

Oct. 16, 1761 to Sept. 3, 1762, no minutes known to
exist, and no meetings probably took place. See
below, remarks in relation to Charles Moore.

1762. Sep. 3. The members of the Junto, desirous

of continuing the Society, met this evening, having

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. 105

again agreed with Mr. Caruthers for the room on the
same terms on which we had it formerly, ete. ete.

Mr. George Roberts, having been formerly ap-
proved was now introduced and qualified as a mem-
ber. [Signed the Laws, being the sixth name. See
book. |

Sep. 10th. ‘‘As Charles Moore was formerly bal-
lotted for and approved [see date, Oct. 2, 1761] and
K. Physick, who was appointed to speak to him in-
forms that the only reason for not introducing him
was that Mr. Moore was about taking a journey to
Maryland, soon after which the Society was discon-
tinued. Now we are met again, and he is returned,
E. Physick is desired to speak to him, and, if he is
willing to become a member, to introduce him next
evening.’’

Sep. 22nd. Three members present. ‘‘Conversa-
tion general.’’

From Oct. 22, 1762, to April 25, 1766, no minutes
known to exist; but meetings probably took place, as
members were evidently elected in the interval, whose
names first appear on the minutes of April 25, 1766.

1766. May 23rd. ‘‘Owen Biddle and Isaac Paschall,
who had been appointed by the company to revise
their Laws, and to make a few alterations in them,
informed the members this evening that they were
finished, and desired the liberty of reading them,
which, being agreed to, they were accordingly read,
and received the approbation of those persons who

106 APPENDIX B.

were present; but as the Company was not full, it
was agreed they should be reconsidered the next
evening.”’

30th. ** The articles being read again this evening,
the Company made some further alterations and then
ordered them to be fairly copied in the book.”’

These articles immediately precede the Minutes of
April 25, 1766. They have the same heading as the
Rules mentioned at p. 102 of this Abstract :—viz,
‘Rules of a Society meeting weekly in the City of
Philadelphia for their mutual improvement in Use-
ful Knowledge.’? Comparing the two draughts, there
are to be found certain transpositions and verbal
alterations. Besides these, the following changes
appear in the new draught.

1. In the first article the name is changed from
“The Junto’? to ‘* The American Society for pro-
moting and propagating Useful Knowledge, held in
Philadelphia.’’ This change, however, was not made
until the 13th of December following, which date see
further on, p. 111.

2. The second article is the same in both draughts,
viz, ‘‘That no person be admitted into the Society
occasionally,”’

3. The third article of the new draught provides
for each member serving as Chairman and Secretary
for four weeks in alphabetical rotation, being part
of the third, and the whole of the fourth article of the
old draught.

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. 107

4. The fourth article defines the duties of the
Chairman and Secretary, being the remainder of the
third article of the old draught. The Secretary,
among other duties, is to provide necessary refresh-
ments. The only new provision appears to be that
the Secretary shall record ‘‘all new discoveries or
improvements in Arts and Sciences, made by or com-
municated to the Company.”’

do. The fifth article provides for a treasurer, to be
elected twice a vear. Same as the fifth article of the
old draught.

6. This article provides for unanimity in the elec-
tion of members, and for the same qualifications of
members elect as is Art. 6 of the old draught. The
four questions propounded are verbatim the same as
in the old draught. See p. 102 of this Abstract. The
new article omits the provision of a payment by a
new member of 20 shillings, which is contained in the
old.

7. This article relates to members presenting
queries for discussion, and is essentially the same as
the first paragraph of the old article.

8. This article relates to members presenting com-
positions to improve their ‘‘style and manner of
writing.’’ It is essentially the same as the second
paragraph of the old article.

9, This article relates to the mode of conducting
discussions. It is not materially altered from Art.
8 of the old draught.

108 APPENDIX B.

10. This article relates to the preservation of cour-

tesv and temper in debates, and is the same as Art.
9 old Rules, except that expulsion is provided for,

in case a member persists in rudeness, after repri-
mand by the chair. |

11. This article for the mode of appropriating
money. It is the same as Art. 10 of the old Rules.

12. This article relates to fines for absence, late-
ness, omission to furnish queries in turn, neglects of
duty by the Secretary, etc. and is nearly the same
as Art. 11 of the old Rules.

13. This article provides for the exclusion of mem-
bers, who absent themselves for three successive
nights, being in health and in town, and who do not
make sufficient apology. It is the same as Art. 12 of
the old Rules.

14. This article forbids, under the penalty of repri-
mand or expulsion, the revealing of the secrets of the
Society. It is the same as Art. 13 of the old Rules.

15. This article runs thus: ‘‘ This Society shall
dine or sup together once in every year, namely, on
the first day of May, the better to preserve that
friendship which is proposed by the members, at
which time these Rules shall be read.’’? Art. 14 of
the old Rules is the same, except that the anniversary
is fixed for the first Friday in February, instead of
the first of May, as above.

16. This article, which is the last, relates to the
mode of altering the Rules or Bye-Laws, and is the
same as Art. 15, or the last, of the old Rules.

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. 109

By death, forfeiture of membership, and removal
without expressing a wish to continue members, the
Junto on the 80th of July 1761, was reduced to seven
members, viz.

Edmund Physick, )

Isaac Paschall,

Charles Thomson, ¢ present in Philadelphia, and

Wiham Hopkins,

Joshua Howell = ¥

William Franklin,

Samuel Powel.

y absent in Iingland.

The old laws having been lost, Physiek and Thom-
son were appointed a Committee to draw them up
anew, ‘‘as agreeable as possible to the ancient Rules.”’
The new draught was submitted, adopted, copied in
the minute book, and signed by the first five mem-
bers mentioned above as being in Philadelphia.
Subsequently, namely, on the 3rd of Sep. 1762, George
Roberts was introduced, qualified as a member, and
signed the Laws. This is the sixth and last name
signed to these laws. He was subsequently dropped
from the lst, and then re-elected, Feb. 12, 1768.
Between Oct. 22, 1762 and Apr. 25, 1766, no minutes
are known to exist. At the meeting of April 25, 1766,
six members, whose names occur for the first time,
are noted as present: viz, Isaac Bartram, Moses
Bartram, Owen Biddle, James Pearson, Joseph
Paschall, and Isaac Zane, Jun. These members must
have been elected between Oct. 22, 1762 and April 25,

1766; and hence some, if not regular, meetings must

110 APPENDIX B.

have taken place in the interval. It is true that two
of the six, viz., Isaac Bartram and James Pearson
had been elected before, namely on the 9th of Feb.
1759; but, as they were never introduced and as their
names do not appear either as present or absent in
the minutes of any meeting up to Oct. 22, 1762, it is
probable that this election was not recognized.

At the meeting of May 23rd, 1766, Owen Biddle and
Isaac Paschall, previously appointed for the purpose
but not since the 25th of Apr. 1766, the date of the
resumption of the minutes, submitted a revised
draught of the laws which, at the next meeting
(May 30), was adopted with a blank left for the
name, and ordered to be copied in the Book. The
copy of these laws is to be found just preceding the
minutes of April 25, 1766. They are signed first by
Charles Thomson, Isaac Paschall, and Hdmund Phy-
sick,—the other three members, William Hopkins,
Joshua Howell, and George Roberts, who had signed
the previous copy of the Laws being dropped. After
these three names follow the six signatures of the
members, mentioned above as introduced between
Oct. 1762 and Apr. 1766. Subsequently to this period,
the minutes indicate who were elected and introduced ;
and the book shows that twenty-one additional mem-
bers signed the laws, in all thirty names. These
twenty-one members were Nicholas Waln, Benjamin
Davis, William Bettle, Clement Biddle, Samuel Eld-
ridge, John Lukens, John Morgan, Cadwalader

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. 111

Evans, Thomas Mifflin, David Evans, Samuel Powel,
John Morris, Jr., George Roberts, Jonathan Odell,
James Alexander, Richard Wells, Oswell Eve, Lewis
Nicola, Wiliam White, Thomas Fisher, and John
Foxcroft.

We shall proceed to make further extracts from
the minutes.

1766. Sep. 12th. ‘‘The Company met, proceeded to
consider the expediency of admitting more members
into our Society.’’

19th. The following were chosen members, viz.
Stephen Woolley, William Bettle, Samuel Eldridge,
Benjamin Davis, Merchant, and Nicholas Waln.

Oct. 3rd. Benjamin Davis and Nicholas Waln
admitted, and John Lukens and Clement Biddle duly
chosen:

Oct. 10th. ‘‘William Bettle, Clement Biddle, and
Samuel Eldridge were this evening introduced and
regularly qualified agreeable to the sixth rule.’’

Oct. 17th. John Lukens introduced and duly quali-
fied.

Nov. 21st. Isaac Zane excluded, for absence for
three successive nights, without sending a sufficient
apology.

Nov. 28th. ‘‘Isaac Bartram proposes to take into
consideration whether the admitting of foreign mem-
bers may not be of advantage, and promote the
design of the institution, under proper regulations?”’

Dec. 5th. ‘‘ Isaac Bartram’s scheme of admitting

LIZ APPENDIX B.

foreign members was unanimously approved by the
Company, and Owen Biddle, was appointed with him,
to draw up a set of rules for the admittance and
government of such members.’’

John Morgan, M.D., chosen. Employed the re-
mainder of the evening in inquiring for a proper
name for this Society.

Dec. 13th. Rules for admitting corresponding mem-
bers passed. These rules are curious. See Junto
Minute book, Part 2, p. 29. Also the name of the
Society was unanimously adopted as follows: ‘‘The
American Society for promoting and propagating
Useful Knowledge, held in Philadelphia.’’ This is
the same name that is inserted in a different hand-
writing in the copy of the Rules which were adopted
May 30, 1766, and for the insertion of which a blank
had evidently been left. This shows that when these
Rules were adopted, the name Junto was under
advisement for change, and was not replaced by an-
other until this date. Curious experiments, demon-
strating the attraction between iron and mercury, oil
and water, spirit and vinegar, entered on the minutes
of this meeting. The name of the author is erased,
but appears to be Owen Biddle, as well as it can be
made out.

Dec, 19th. John Morgan, M.D., introduced and
qualified.

1767. March 20th. i. Winnersley elected.

March 27th. Wiliam Henry, William Johnson,

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. 1138

David Rittenhouse, Mr. Mason, and Dr. Samuel Bard,
elected Corres. members. Charles Thomson chosen
corresponding secretary.

May 1. This being the anniversary of the Society,
the members dined on the banks of the Sehuylkill.

Aug. 28. Among others James Pearson and Isaac
Paschall noted as absent, with this note opposite to
their names ‘‘Iixeused their fines, on account of
[their intention of declaring] their intention of mar-
riage at meeting this day.’’

Sep. 18th. Charles Thomson read a sketch of a
general plan of business for the company. A sum-
mary of the plan is given and is interesting.

See Part 2, p. 56. Owen Biddle proposed to prolong
the time limited for the exclusion of members for
non-attendance. See Art. 13th of Rules.

Nov. 27th. This evening spent in conversation on
the present interesting state of the Colonies, and on
some proposals for augmenting the Company.

Dec. 17. ‘‘At this meeting a plan was proposed to
enlarge the Society.’’

1768. Jan. 1. ‘‘This evening the subject of enlarging
the Society was again resumed,’’ and Charles Thom-
son read his ‘‘Proposals for enlarging this Society,
in order that it may the better answer the end for
which it was instituted, namely, the promoting and
propagating useful knowledge.’’ Here follows this
paper, comprising about nine pages of the Minute
book. See p. 61 et seq. The ‘‘proposal’’ was ap-

114 APPENDIX B.

proved, and ‘‘C, Thomson was desired to draw up
some Rules for enlarging the Society, and carrying
the Plan into execution.”’

Jan. 19th. Doctor Adam [Kkuhn, John Dickinson,
George Bryan, Dr. Cadwalader Evans, Thomas
Pryor, David Evans, and Thomas Mifflin elected.
An invitation sent to Samuel Powel to come and take
his place, as being a member of the Society before
he went to England.

Jan. 22nd. Ordered ‘‘that the proposals for en-
larging the Society ete. be revised and corrected for
publication ‘‘in a neat quarto edition.”’

Jan. 26th. Voted unanimously that a union with the
American Philosophical Society on an equal footing,
and on terms equally honorable to both, was desir-
able. Part 2, p. 74.

Jan. 29th. An informal conference took place be-
tween the members of the two Societies. The Amer-
ican Society passed a Resolution, proposing a union
with the American Plnlosophical Society.

Feb. 2nd. About 9 o’clock Dr. Thomas Bond, the
Rev. Dr. Smith, and Samuel Rhoads came from the
Philosophical Society to inform the American So-
ciety that the former Society had elected all the
members of the American Society into theirs. A
minute of this election was requested, to be con-
sidered at the the next meeting.

“The members of the American Philosophical So-
ciety were proposed to be ballotted for into this

Society.”’

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. 115

Feb. 5th. The Society declines the general vote of
election of its members into the Philosophical So-
ciety, because the terms of union implied in that
election are not equally honorable to both Societies.
‘As the gentlemen of the American Philosophical
Society have conducted themselves politely towards
this Society,’’ it was agreed to draw up an answer to
their proceedings. Dr. Morgan, Dr. Evans, Mr.
Mifflin, and Mr. Owen Biddle were appointed a Com-
mittee for this purpose.

Sth. Answer to the American Philosophical Society
submitted, adopted, and entered on the Minutes. It
states that ‘‘we have existed for some years as a
Society for the promotion of natural knowledge, and
made some progress therein, useful at least to our-
selves, and kept minutes of our proceedings.’’ The
answer does not recognize the American Philosophi-
eal Society, as a continuation of that begun in 1745;
because it has not met for 15 or 20 years past, has
not chosen officers, and is not, as we have good cause
to believe, possessed of the books, papers, ete. of the
former Society. That, therefore, the American Philo-
sophieal Society could not claim that appellation till
sometime in last month, [Jan. 1768], ‘‘and, therefore,
is junior compared with the American Society.”’
[This shows that the American Society considered
the American Philosophical Society a junior, because
it virtually began in Jan. 1768. Qr? if the American

Society were conscious that they dated from 1728,

116 APPENDIX B.

would they not say that the American Philosophical
Society 1s Junior, even conceding that the latter
Society dates from 1743? ]

Feb. 9th. Some members apprehending that the
answer agreed on at the last meeting, ‘‘if de-
livered might give offence,’’? held this meeting to
reconsider it. The following was substituted and
ordered to be delivered by the Secretary to a mem-
ber of the American Philosophical Society.

“The Minute of the American Philosophical So-
ciety of the 2nd instant, which declares our election
into that Society being considered, it was unani-
mously determined that, as it was not on the terms
proposed, we are under the necessity of declining
the union.’’

12th, The minutes of this meeting contain the cor-
respondence with the American Philosophical Society
in extenso; having been ordered to be copied ‘‘into
the book, as of this evening.’’

A motion was adopted that C. Thomson, Isaae
Paschall, Dr. Morgan, and Dr. Evans ‘‘be appointed
to draw up a short plain history of the origin of
this Society, and of what has passed between this
and the American Philosophical Society, and lay it
before the Company at some future meeting.’’ [This
‘history’? does not appear to have been ever drawn
up. |

“Tis Exeell. William Franklin, Esq. being the only
member of the ancient Society, who has not signed

the rules in this book, Dr. vans is desired to inform

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. 117

him, that, agreeable to what was coneluded on in
reviving the Society, if he chooses to sign our rules
and give us a meeting, he shall be considered as a
regular member.’’ See Part 1. p. 82, and p. 102 of
this Abstract, for the explanation of ‘‘what was con-
cluded on, in reviving the Society.”’

George Roberts elected.

John Morris elected.

C. Thomson, Dr. Morgan, and O. Biddle, appointed
to revise and correct the ‘‘Proposals,’’ entered on
the Minutes of Jan. 1, 1768, and prepare them for
the press.

Here follows the correspondence with the Ameri-
ean Plilosophical Society, already alluded to; viz.

Dr. Thomas Bond’s letter to Dr. Morgan, dated
Jan. 28, 1768, in answer to the first overture of union,
made by the American Society, in conformity to their
minute of the 26th of Jan. 1768.

Dr. Thomas Bond and the Rev. Dr. William
Smith’s letter, dated Feb. 5, 1768, giving a copy of
the minute of the American Philosophical Society of
Feb. 2, 1768, electing all the members of the Ameri-
ean Society into the Philosophical Society.

Feb. 19th. John Morris introduced.

Dr. Evans reported an Extract from a letter from
Gov. Franklin as follows:— ‘‘When I come to town,
I shall do myself the pleasure of meeting you as an
old member and, if I like your new Rules as I prob-
ably shall, will sign them, and make it my business
to attend as often as I possibly can.’’

118 APPENDIX B.

Benjamin Franklin elected.

John Bartram elected.

William Bartram and Dr. John Chapman elected
corresponding members. |

Feb. 22nd. First meeting noted as assembling in
the ‘‘Union Library Room.’’

George Roberts introduced and qualified.

*? read, and ordered to be immedi-

The ‘‘ Proposals
ately published in the Pennsylvania Chronicle, and
other papers, ‘‘and that five copies be printed in a
neat quarto edition.”’

26th. Isaac Jamineau, Rey. Jon". Odell, Richard
Wells, Dr. Hugh Mercer, and Samuel Elhot of Bos-
ton, elected corresponding members ;—Benjamin Rush
and Oswell Eve, members.

Dr. Bard accepts his election of Mar. 27, 1767, in
a letter from New York.

Mar, 4th. Rey. Mr. Jon®. Odell, happening to be in
town, was introduced, qualified, and presented with a
certificate. James Alexander elected.

1ith. James Alexander, introduced, qualified, and
signed the rules.

‘“C. Thomson, the Corres. See. informed the Com-
pany, that, at his instance and request, S. Powel,
isq., and Dr. J. Morgan had suffered their names
to go with his at the end of the Proposals, as persons
to whom letters should be directed.’’

18th. Richard Wells, introduced, qualified, and fur-

nished with a certificate of membership.

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. 119

Ordered the publication in the newspapers, signed
by the Corres. See., of thanks for certain presents of
natural objects made to the Society.

April 1st. Capt. Oswell Eve, introduced and quali-
fied. Sam. Robinson, elected a resident member;
and Gov. Hopkins, Jos. Harrison, Peter Harrison,
Dr. Bensell, John Sellers, John P. Simitiere, Andrew
Oliver, Jonathan Belcher, John Kidel, and Jeremiah
Dixon, Corresponding members.

Sth. Abel James, Rev. Jacob Duché, Dr. Charles
Moore, John Foxcroft, Francis Hopkinson, Michael
Hillegas, Stephen Watts, George Morgan, Thomas
Fisher, Lewis Nicola, and William White, elected
resident members; and Hdward Antill, Peter Miller,
Humphrey Marshail, Benjamin Jacobs, James Webb,
Frederick Post, John Okely, and James Wright, Cor-
responding members.

15th. Lewis Nicola, and William White were qual-
ified, and subscribed the Rules.

C. Thomson and Dr. Morgan are appointed to
agree with the printer for 200 copies of Moses
Bartram’s paper on silk worms.

Sir Geo. Saville, Mr. Famitz, Thomas Warner, Sir
Alex. Dick, Martin Butt, Sidney George, Dr. Alex.
Garden, Rev. Samuel Stillman, Dr. Warner, Sam.
Warner, Dr. William Cullen, Paul Bedford, John I’.
Oberlin, Dr. Lionel Chalmers, elected Corresponding
Members. |

22nd. Thomas Fish qualified. R. Izard, Rev. Mr.

120 APPENDIX B.

Elliot of Boston, and David Jamison, elected Cor-
responding Members.

The Corresponding Secretary is desired to provide
a blank book for recording useful projects, inventions,
discoveries, ete. made by or communicated to the
Society.

29th. J. Foxcroft introduced. Stephen Paschall
elected a member, and John Gill, of Kinsale, Ire., a
Corresponding Member.

May 13th. A rough draught of Rules for the So-
ciety, read, considered, and deferred. Messrs.
Thomas Warner, Ashton Warner, and Samuel War-
ner, of Antigua, returned thanks for Corresponding
Membership.

June 3rd. John Smith, Charles Reed, and Dr. John
Paschall elected Corresponding Members.

June 10th. Messrs. Robert Smith and Benjamin
Loxley, proposed at last meeting, being members of
the American Philosophical Society, were not elected.
Benj. West, elected a Corresponding Member; and
Samuel Miles, a resident member.

21st. Benjamin Jacobs accepts Corresponding Mem-
bership.

July 1st. Dr. John Tweedy and Rowland Evans
elected Corresponding Members.

15th. Stephen Paschall introduced and qualified.
Wm. White produced a fair copy of the Rules, which
were read and considered, and the determination

deferred to another meeting.

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. 121

Aug. 13th. John P. Simitiere (Corresponding Mem-
ber) introduced. Thomas Coomb, Sen. elected a resi-
dent member, and Dr. Benj. Gale and Pool, Corre-@
sponding Members.

Sept. 23rd. Jos. Bringhurst elected. At this meet-
ing the laws, revised once more, are ratified, and, in
their new form, copied on the minutes. The Society
now took the name of ‘‘The American Society, held at
Philadelphia for promoting Useful Knowledge.’

[The Rules are much changed. The four qualifi-
cations are dispensed with, and an ‘‘Obligation’’ is
substituted, which must be signed by the member on
his introduction. The members are divided into Fel-
lows, and Corresponding Members, and the officers
changed to a President, Vice-President, Secretary,
and Corresponding Secretary, three Curators, and a
Treasurer, to be elected annually at the last meeting
in April. The anniversary is continued (the first of
May) on which to dine or sup together, ‘‘the better
to preserve that friendship which is proposed by the
members. ’’ |

Oct. 7th. ‘“C. Thomson is desired to get a book with
the Obligation copied therein, where the members
may sign.’’

14th. ‘‘The Medical Society, subsisting in this
place,’’ proposed to be incorporated with this Society.

Jos. Bringhurst elected a fellow, and Arbo, Wm.
Scull, Joseph Hutchins, Himili, and Day, Correspond-
ing Members.

122 APPENDIX B.

Oct. 21st. Thomas Foxcroft elected a fellow.

28th. Agreed that the ‘‘Officers be chosen next Fri-
day, and that written notices be sent to each Fellow.’’

‘Charles Thomson is desired to bring with him the
eopy of the Laws which he has made, and the Obliga-
tion transeribed in a book for the Fellows to sign.”’

John Benezet elected a Fellow.

Nov. 4th. The Society elected Benjamin Franklin
President; Samuel Powel, Vice-President; Charles
Thomson and Thomas Mifflin, Secretaries; Dr. Mor-
evan, Lewis Nicola, and Isaac Bartram, Curators; and
Clement Biddle, Treasurer. ‘‘Charles Thomson, hav-
ing brought with him a book wherein the Laws were
fairly copied, the same were read.’’

“The Obligation being also copied in another part
of the same book, the fellows present subscribed the
same, and each paid the sum of ten shillings as admis-
sion money.’’

The Philadelphia Medical Society, instituted the
14th of February, 1765, was, by unanimous agree-
ment, united and incorported with this Society.

Isaac Smith and John Walker, elected Correspond-
ing Members.

Nov. 11th. Four members of the Medical Society,
Sonmans, Glentworth, Bayard, and Clarkson, signed
the Obligation. John Benezet also signed. Lambert
Cadwalader chosen a Fellow.

18th. Samuel Miles subscribed the Obligation. The

Corresponding Secretary informed the meeting that

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. LZ

the American Philosophical Society, desirous of a
union, had, at their last meeting, appointed a Commit-
tee, composed of their two Vice-Presidents, two See-
retaries, and Messrs. Rhoads and Syng, to confer with
a Committee of this Society, and consider of the
terms of union. The American Society, appointed as
their Committee, 8S. Powel, Vice-President, Charles
Thomson, and Thomas Mifflin, Secretaries, Messrs. J.
Morgan and L. Nicola, two of the Curators, and Mr.
Isaac Paschall.

The Society next instructed their Committee under
five heads, relating to the name, Laws, first place of
meeting, ete. of the United Society. Nothing to be
eoncluded on by the Committee but everything to be
laid before the Society for their sanction.

John Cadwalader and John Murgatroyd chosen
fellows. James Wilson, William Hewson, and Ed-
ward Biddle, chosen Corresponding members.

Nov. 25th. Jacob Duché and Kdward Penington
elected Fellows; and Capt. Gardner and Dr. Mien,
Corresponding Members.

Dec. 2nd. The Committee of Conference reported
the minutes of a meeting had with the Committee of
the American Philosophical Society, which minutes
are copied on the Society Minutes. The Society pro-
ceeded to consider and amend the conference minutes.

They agree to unite on terms of perfect equality
under the name of ‘‘The American Philosophical So-
ciety, held at Philadelphia for promoting Useful

i234 APPENDIX B.

Knowledge;’’ being a name, comprehending as near
as possible, the designation of the original Societies;
to meet at an indifferent place, not previously used
by either Society; to elect officers at the first meeting;
and to digest the Laws of both Societies into one
Code after the union. They also proposed to have
a new Minute book for the United Society, with a
certain preamble, followed by seven articles of union.

See part 2, p. 148, for the preamble and articles.
Henry Drinker, Matthew Clarkson, Joseph Stiles,

Joseph Galloway, Thomas Levezly, and Samuel
Wharton, elected fellows.

oth. The Committee of Conference reported nine
articles as agreed upon by both Committees, as the
terms of the union. Here the officers are settled to
be, one patron, one president, three vice-presidents,
one treasurer, four secretaries, and three curators;
all, except the patron, to be elected at the first meet-
ing in Jan. next. The Governor of the Province to
be waited on by a Committee of the United Society, to
request him to be the patron.

Dec. 16th. This evening, Dr. Cadwalader, Dr. Red-
man, Jacob Duché, Rev. Mr. Duché, Mr. Penington,
Mr. Hopkinson, Mr. Lambert Cadwalader, and Mr.
Murgatroyd, signed the Obligation, agreeably to
the Rules.

Dec. 20th. Benjamin Wynkoop, John Drinker,
Thomas Gilpin, Thomas Clifford, Levi Hollingsworth,

James Worrell, and Isaac Wharton, elected fellows.

ABSTRACT FROM THE JUNTO MINUTE BOOK. 125

Some explanations of the Articles of Union of the
joint Committee asked for, and amplifications made,
by the American Philosophical Society, to prevent
any misunderstanding. The latter agreed to by the
American Society unanimously. The Societies then
exchanged thei lists of members.

On the minutes of the American Society are inserted
at length, their lst of members, as well as the list
of the American Philosophical Society, furnished to
them by the latter.

The Committee of the American Society reported
that the Philosophical Society had voted the union on
the terms reported by the joint Committee, and as
explained this evening. Whereupon, the American
Society resolved unanimously to unite with the Philo-
sophical Society on these terms.

Dec. 30th. The treasurer presented his account,
from which it appeared that there was not money
in his hands sufficient to defray the debts of the
Society; whereupon a Committee was appointed to
settle finally with the Treasurer; and in case the
outstanding admission money is not sufficient to pay
the debts of the Society, the Committee, with the
Treasurer, was empowered to lay an assessment on
the Fellows to discharge them.

The members were desired to meet at the College
on the sueceeding Monday (Jan. 2, 1769) to elect offi-

cers of the United Society.

APPENDIX C.

(CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT.

1727. Autumn. Formed the Junto. Met on Friday
evenings. [very member in turn to produce one or
more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Nat-
ural Philosophy, to be discussed, and once in three
months on any subject he pleased. Our debates were
to be under the direction of a president, and to be
conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth,
without fondness for dispute or desire of victory.

The first members besides Franklin, were Joseph
Breintnal, Thomas Godfrey, (‘‘He soon left us’’)
Nicholas Seull, Wilham Parsons, William Mangridge,
Hugh Meredith, Stephen Potts, George Webb, Robert
Grace, and William Coleman. My friendship for
Wilham Coleman ‘‘continued without interruption
to his death, upwards of forty years; and the club
continued almost as long, and was the best school of
philosophy, morality, and polities that then existed in
the provinee.’? Franklin’s Autobiography. 1 Sparks,
81 et seq. Written by Franklin mm 1771. 1 Sparks 1.
Note.

last of members given by Roberts Vaux, derived
from the papers of his grandfather, Hugh Roberts :—
“RB. Franklin, Hugh Roberts, William Coleman,
Philip Syng, noch Flower, Joseph Wharton, William
Griffiths, Luke Morris, Joseph Turner, Joseph Ship-

126

CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT. 137

pen, Joseph Trotter, Samuel Jervis, Samuel Rhoads,
Joseph Brientnall.’’ Hazard’s Register, XV, 183.

1728. ‘* Rules for a Club established for mutual
Improvement.’’ These rules were drawn up in 1728.
‘“Our debates were to be under the direction of a pres-
ident,’’ etc. 2 Sparks 9. Twenty-four queries to be
read over by each member on the morning of each
meeting. Ibid.

1729. Discussion in Junto about paper money.
1 Sparks, 90.

1730. About Sep. 1. Junto met, not at a tavern,
but at a little room of Mr. Grace’s, and they clubbed
their books. By help of friends of the Junto, got
fifty subscribers to a subseription library. 71 Sparks
96, 97.

1731. Left the ale house where they first met, and
hired a room to hold their Club in. 1 Sparks, 99.

1732. June 30. ‘* That all new members be qual-
ified by the four qualifications, and all the old ones
take.’’ 2 Sparks 551 et seq.

1733. ‘‘I ever forbid myself, agreeably to the old
laws of our Junto, the use of every word and ex-
pression in the language that imparted a fixed opin-
ion.’? 1 Sparks, 116.

1735. Published pieces in his newspaper which he
had read before the Junto. (Socratic Dialogue—Vic-
ious man not a man of sense). 1 Sparks, 123.

1736. Junto useful, and some members wished to
introduce their friends, and increase the number of

128 APPENDIX C.

members above twelve, the original number. Instead
of this Franklin proposed that each member should
form a subordinate Club, with the same rules, con-
cealing the existence of the original Club. Five or
six were formed. The Vine, the Union, the Band.
1 Sparks, 129,

1737. Wrote a paper, to be read at the Junto, about
the irregularities of the Watch, and proposing the
liring of proper men. Approved of by the Junto,
and communicated to the other Clubs, as if origi-
nating with them. This led to a law being passed,
earrying out the plan. 1 Sparks, 132-33.

Read to Junto, a paper about fires, which led to
the establishment of the first fire company. 1 Sparks,
5338;

1743. May 14. ‘‘A proposal for promoting useful
knowledge among the British Plantations in America.”’
This proposal, printed as a circular letter, dated
Philadelphia, contains this paragraph. ‘‘That one
Society be formed of Virtuosi or ingenious men, re-
siding in the several colonies, to be ealled ‘‘ The
American Philosophical Society, who are to maintain
a constant correspondence.’’ 6 Sparks 14-15. .

Nov. 4. My long absence from home put my busi-
ness so far behindhand that I had no leisure to
forward the scheme of the Society. Franklin to C.
Colden, 6 Sparks, 25.

1744. March 27. John Bartram to Colden, referring
to the A. P. 8. 6 Sparks, 14 (note).

CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT, le

Apri 5. Franklin to Colden about the A. P. S.,
giving a list of members, and division of sciences
among them. 6 Sparks, 28.

Proposed and established a Philosophical Society.
1 Sparks, 144.

1749. Associated in the design of an academy, a
number of active friends, of whom the Junto fur-
nished a good part. 1 Sparks, 158.

1750. Beginning of the Society-Junto in this year,
as per following extract from C. Thomson’s Ms.
letter to Franklin, dated Nov. 6, 1768.

‘“‘You remember the Society to which I belonged,
which was begun in the year 1750. By the death and
removal of some of its members, it dwindled for
some time to that degree, that I was apprehensive of
its dissolution.’? Mr. Fisher’s paper, p. 153.

1753. July 16. ‘‘. . . My respects to Mrs. Roberts
and to all our old friends of the Junto, Hospital, and
Insurance.’’ Franklin to Hugh Roberts. 7 Sparks,
77. (Note)

1797. July 27. Franklin and his son William Frank-
lin arrive in London. 1 Sparks, 226.

December 18. Room and necessaries appear to be
paid for by the Society-Junto from this date to Sam.
Carruthers, as per receipt. See front page of Junto
Minute book. |

1758. February 18. Fines due in Society-Junto |
from this date. See Minutes Nov. 3, 1758.

September 16. ‘‘Two of the former members of the

130 APPENDIX C.

Junto you tell me are departed this life, Potts and
Parsons.’’? ... ‘I do not quite like your absenting
vourself from the good old Club, the Junto.’’ Frank-
lin to Hugh Roberts. 7 Sparks, 181.

September 22. Date of the first Society-Junto
Minutes extant.

1759. I. Paschall proposes ‘‘Ilow may the posses-
sion of the Lakes be best improved to the advantage
of the Hnglish?’?? See Minutes under this date.

1760. Philip Syng, Jun. was buried in’ Christ
Chureh burial ground, Nov. 14, 1760. Certif. of Robt.
R. Bringhurst, Clerk.

1761. February 26. **You tell me you sometimes
visit the ancient Junto. I wish you would do it
oftener. I know they all love and respect you, and
regret your absenting yourself so much. People
are apt to grow strange and not understand one
another so well, when they meet but seldom. Since
we have held that Club till we are grown grey to-
gether, let us hold it out to the End. For my own
Part, I find I love Company, Chat, a glass, and even
a song, as well as ever; and at the same Time relish
better than I us’d to do, the grave observations and
wise sentences of old men’s Conversation; So that I
am sure the Junto will be still as agreeable to me
as it ever has been: I therefore hope it will not be
discontinu’d as long as we are able to crawl together.”’
Franklin to H. Roberts. 7 Sparks, 223. [Original

in the possession of Charles Morton Smith, Esq. |

CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT. tol

July 30. A narrative in Society-Junto minute book,
explaining a revival. Rules copied. ‘‘1. That this
Society, called the Junto, meet every Friday evening”’
ete. Four qualifications given. Substantially the
same as those of the Franklin-Junto. Junto Minutes,
Part 1. pp. 81, 83, 84.

1761. Oct. 16, to Sep. 3, 1762. For this interval of
nearly eleven months, no minutes known to exist of
the Society-Junto. For this period it is probable
that no meetings took place. See further on, date,
Sept. 10, 1762.

1762. Knd of August. Franklin sailed from Tineg-
land with his son, and arrived in Philadelphia on the
Ist of Nov., after an absence of more than five vears.
A few days before he sailed, his son was appointed
Governor of New Jersey. 1 Sparks, 268, 269.

Sep. 3. ‘The members of the Junto, desirous of
continuing the Society, met this evening, having
again agreed with Mr. Carruthers for the room on
the same terms, on which they had it formerly,’’ ete.
See Junto Minutes of this date.

Sept. 10. Ii. Physick excuses himself for not having
introduced Ch. Moore, a member elect, because he
went on a journey, ‘‘soon after which the Society
was discontinued. Now we are met again’’ ete. C.
Moore was elected Oct. 2, 1761. Only two meetings
are recorded afterwards in the minute book, after
which a hiatus exists until Sep. 3, 1762. See Junto
Minutes under date of Sep. 10, 1762.

132 APPENDIX C.

Oct. 22, to Apr. 25, 1766. For this interval, em-
bracing 34 years, no minutes are known to exist;
but six members were elected in the interval, whose
names first appear as present on the minutes of Apr.
25, 1766. Between Sep. 3 and Oct. 22, 1762, both
dates inclusive, there were six meetings and two
attempts at meetings. With the exception of these,
no meetings are recorded from Oct. 16, 1761, to April
25, 1766, a period of 4) years.

1762. November 1. Franklin arrived in Philadel-
phia.

1764. November 7. Franklin left Philadelphia on his
second mission to Hngland. 1 Sparks, 287. Arrived
Dee. 9. 7 Sparks, 281. Te was consequently back
two years.

1765. May 20. ‘‘T sometimes visit the worthy re-
mains of the ancient Junto, for whom I have a high
esteem, but alas the political, polemical divisions
have in some measure contributed to lessen that har-
mony we there formerly enjoyed.’’?’ Hugh Roberts to
Franklin. Franklin papers, in the possession of the
Society. |

July 7. ‘I wish you would continue to meet the
Junto, notwithstanding that some effects of our pub-
lie political misunderstandings may sometimes appear
there. It is now perhaps one of the oldest clubs, as
I think it was formerly one of the best, in the King’s
dominions. It wants but about two years of forty
since it was established. We loved and still love one

CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT. ise

another; we are grown gray together, and vet it is
too early to part. Let us sit till the evening of life is
spent. The last hours are always the most joyous.
When we can stay no longer, it is time enough then
to bid each other good night, separate, and go quietly
to bed.’’ 7 Sparks, 300.

1766. Feb, 27. ‘* Remember me affectionately to the
Junto.’’ Lranklin to H. Roberts, 7 Sparks, 308.

March 1. ‘‘The Junto fainted last summer in the
hot weather, and has not yet revived; your presence
might reanimate it without which L apprehend it will
never recover.’’ P. Syng to Franklin. Franklin’s
paners in the possession of the Society.

April 25. This 1s the date of the first meeting re-
corded, after the long chasm in the minutes. The
minutes of this date are preceded by a new draught
of the Laws, which were adopted, (except the name
‘‘Junto,’’ which was under advisement for alteration)
on the 380th of May 1766. The new name ‘The
American Society for promoting and propagating
Useful Knowledge, held in Philadelphia,’ was not
adopted until the 13th of December following. The
new draught of the Laws was evidently at first writ-
ten out with a blank, to receive the new name when
decided on, which will be found inserted in a different
hand-writing in the draught.

1768. January 1. C. Thomson read his Proposal for
enlarging the Society, about nine pages in the minute

book. In the proposal is this sentence :— ‘‘ By some

134 APPENDIX C.

happy genius magnetism may be reduced to certain
laws, in the same manner as electricity now is by the
unwearied diligence and sagacity of the ingenious
Doctor Franklin.”’

February 8 ‘*We have existed for some years as
a Society for the promotion of natural knowledge’’
ete. Iixtract from the answer of the American
Society to the American Philosophical Society, in re-
lation to a union. Junto Minute book, Part 2, p. 79.
This answer was never sent. See p. 81.

February 12. ‘**His Excellency William Franklin,
Tusq., being now the only member of the ancient Society
who has not signed the rules in this book’’ ete.
Junto Minute Book, Part 2, p. 82.

February 19, Franklin elected a member of the
American Society. p. 87.

November 4 Franklin Elected President of the
American Society. p. 132.

November 6. Date of C. Thomson’s letter to Frank-
lin, stating that the American Society was begun in
1750, and informing him of his election as President
Oi it.

1769. January 11th. William Coleman died. Hua-
tract from the family register, furnished by Coleman
Fisher, E'sq.

June 7th. “TI long Meditated a Revival of our Amer-
ican Philosophical Society, and at length I thought
I saw my way clear in doing it, but the old party

le[aJven split us for a Time. We are now united,

CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT. 135

and, with your Presence, may make a Figure, but,
till that happy Event, I fear much will not be done.’’
Dr. Thomas Bond to Franklin. 1 Sparks, 578. [Also
Franklin Papers in A.P.S. IT. 179.]

1773. January 22. ‘‘Nor ean we entertain a doubt
of the like encouragement on all necessary occasions,
when we have the happiness to behold the first person
in the administration of this government now sitting
as our patron.’’* Extract from the Rev. Dr. Wm.
Smith’s Oration before the A. P. S. delivered on the
above date, page 11.

1775. May 5. Franklin arrived in Philadelphia after
his second mission to Hngland. Absent more than 10
vears. 1 Sparks, 391.

1776. October 26. Sailed for France, and arrived in
30 days in Quiberon Bay. 1 Sparks, 417.

1782. May 21. ‘And gradually established many
necessary institutions, among which was this Philo-
sophical Society, so early as in 748, when the plan
was formed and published, the members chosen, and
an invitation given to all ingenious persons to co-
operate and correspond with them on the laudable
oceasion.’? LHatract from Dr. Thomas Bond’s Ora-
tion before the A. P. S. delivered on the above date,
page 2.

1785. June 24. ‘‘Philip Syng, the only other surviv-
ing member here, of the old Junto, labours under in-
firmities, keeps much at home, where I can seldom go

*<¢The Honorable Richard Penn, Esq., Governor of the Province.’’

136 APPENDIX C.

to visit him.’’ H. Roberts to Franklin. Hazard’s
Register, XV, 184:

September 14. Franklin arrived in Philadelphia, :
after an absence in France of nearly nine years.
1 Sparks, 591.

1791. March 1. The Franklin Junto, ‘‘after having
subsisted forty vears, ... became at last the foun-
dation of the American Philosophical Society, now
assembled to pay the debt of gratitude to his memory.
A book containing many of the questions, discussed
by the Junto, was, on the formation of the American
Philosophical Society, delivered into my hands, for
the purpose of being digested, and in due time pub-
lished among the transactions of that body.’ Rev.
Dr. William Smith’s Eulogium on Franklin, delivered
on the above date, page 13.

[The foregoing Report was received by the Society
and its consideration deferred to the Stated Meeting
of November 5th 1841, when the resolution appended
to the Report was adopted

Mr. Du Ponceau stated that it was his wish to re-
vise lis Paper on the early history of the Society,
and to withdraw it for that purpose.

Dr. Isaac Hays offered the following resolution :—

Resolved, That Mr. Du Ponceau be permitted to
withdraw his papers from the Archives of the So-
clety for the purpose of revision. Adopted.

From the Minutes].

ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTED IN 1910.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN TO CADWALLADER COLDEN.
Puinapevputa, August 15, 1745.

.. The members of our Society here are very
idle gentlemen. They will take no pains. I must, I
believe, alter the scheme and proceed with the papers
I have, and may receive, in the manner you advise in
one of vour former letters.’? . ..—Smyth’s Franklin,
115 200.

Cartes THomson to WILLIAM FRANKLIN.
1757 [2]

.. “Our Society goes on well. We have agreed to
purchase an electrical apparatus, and a Martin’s opti-
eal apparatus. JI beheve we shall trouble you to
assisting in choosing the latter for us. But of this
more hereafter.’’ .. —Franklin Papers in A.P.S.,
XLVIIL, 120.

Hucu Roperts to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.
PuiuapELPHIA, May 15, 1760.
‘‘Pursuant to thy order, I have 2 or 3 times re-
visited the ancient Junto (gentlemen for whom I have
a great esteem) and I found some relaxation from the
anxiety which attends business, vet I cannot say that
the variety of trivial chat (to which I am also in-
clined) affords satisfaction when under restraint, so

that in some respects there must be an union of
137

138 ADDITIONAL DATA.

thought and affection to make company altogether
agreeable, and the Hours glide with ease and pleas-
ure.”’

Draft of letter in the possession of Charles Morton

Smith, [dsq.

Huai Roserts to BengamMin FRANKLIN.
Purapeuputa, October 12, 1765.

..‘*The remaining members of the good old
Junto adjourned during the warm and short even-
ings and are now endeavoring to find a House for
their and thy reception where we may sit with more
satisfaction than of late.’’

Draft of letter in possession of Charles Morton
Smith, Idsq.

CapWALADER Eivans To WILLIAM FRANKLIN.
PHILADELPHIA, January 25, 1768.

... ‘Dr. Bond, then, strenuously endeavored to
revive the old Society, begun by your Father 25 years
ago & to w he had offered to be Secretary [he
broached the scheme to several and a plan was fixed
and they held a meeting] at Byrnes’s to elect a Presi-
dent, Vice-President, Secretary &e. I was told your
Father was to be President and Smith or Ewing See-
retary. Whether they chose the officers that Night or
not, | cannot say, but they Ballotted in Gov’. Penn &
between 20 & 30 others as you will see by the proposals
accompanying this.... You may have heard that

some Members of the young Junto, together with

ADDITIONAL DATA. 139

others associated, have met every Friday night for
two or three years past, to improve themselves in nat-
ural knowledge, and make collections of the different
kinds of fossils... . This voung Junto ever since last
September had been fabricating a plan from that of
the Royal Society and the Society for Arts, Com-
merce &e and proposed taking in a considerable num-
ber of ingenious & publick spirited Gentlemen to aid
and forward their design. . . . Several of our friends
are disposed to favor it and with myself are ballotted
in; but Hd: Physick, a proprietary officer, and some
others of the Company are rather for a Junction and
puzzle their schemes. The affair stands thus. and I
have been warmly solicited to state it to vou, to sus-
pend, at least, your joining Gov" Penn, Smith &e. I
told them I thought there was not much danger and
promised to do it because it is said you are to be
chosen by them. Ch. Thomson is extremely zealous
for supporting their institution.”’

Franklin Papers, A. P. S., Vol. 58, Folio 2.

Wittram FRANKLIN TO CADWALADER IiVANS.
January 29, 1768.
‘¢T am much obliged to you for your Account of the
two new Philosophical Societies; but the printed pro-
posals to which you refer me, were not sent, owing I
suppose to your Hurry. I am at a Loss to know with
what Propriety they can talk of reviving the old So-
ciety began by my Father; for they are not I believe in

140 ADDITIONAL DATA.

possession of any of the papers &e. which belong to it.
I think I saw them all some years ago in my Father’s
possession and have no doubt but that they are so still.
I question whether any of the persons who met to
revive it were ever Members, except Dr. Bond and 8.
Rhoads; & I think before they attempted to revive it
they should have summoned a Meeting of all the old
Members, & consulted them on the occasion. If they
refus’d to join in the Measure then the others might
have endeavored to form a new Society either upon
the old plan or some other. But I faney their scheme
in calling this a Revival of the old Society—is to induce
my Father to countenance it, or by making use of his
Name to engage his Friends & Connections. How-
ever, vou may rely that the Bait won’t take with me,
& Tam very happy to find that it has not with you.”’
Franklin Papers in A. P. 8., Vol. 47, page 43.

CapWALADER Evans to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.
PuitapEeLpHia, Nov. 27, 1769.

.. ‘TL have not attended the meetings of our So-
ciety for ten months past because I must have been a
solemn witness to transactions inconsistent with my
Judgment or perpetually engaged in party disputa-
tions; both of which were irksome to me. ... When
Dr. Bond proposed to me the plan of the last Society,
with Smith and Ewing for Secretaries, I told him
I could not join them, because I considered ye objects

or purposes of the institution were inquiries after

ADDITIONAL DATA. 14i

things as they really are, with the uses they are capa-
ble of being applhed to for general benefit, but that
such real facts or truths could not possibly pass thro’
such tainted conduits without contracting a tange that
would so disguise them as to deceive the world and
eventually do discredit to every member of the
Society.’’ . . —Franklin Papers in A.P.S., IL., Folio
201.

WILLIAM SMITH IN H}uLoGIuM on BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.

‘““HWor the purpose of aiding his and increasing the
materials of information, one of the first societies
formed by Dr. Franklin, was in the vear 1728, about
the 22d of his age, and was called the Junto. It con-
sisted of a select number of his vounger friends, who
met weekly for the ‘‘Discussion of Questions in
Morality, Politics and Natural Philosophy.’’ The
Number was limited to twelve members, who were
bound together in all the ties of friendship, not only
in mutual communication of knowledge, but in all their
worldly undertakings. This Society, after having sub-
sisted forty vears, and having contributed to the for-
mation of some very great men, besides Dr. Franklin
himself, became at last the foundation of the American
Philosophical Society, now assembled to pay the debt
of gratitude to his memory. A book containing many
of the questions discussed by the Junto was, on the
formation of the American Philosophical Society, de-
livered into my hands, for the purpose of being

142 ADDITIONAL DATA.

digested, and in due time published among transac-
tions of that body.’’

Eulogium on Benjamin Franklin delivered March 1*
1791 before the American Philosophical Society, and,
agreeably to their appointment, by Wilham Smith,
D.D. one of the Vice-Presidents of the said society,
and Provost of the College and Academy of Phila-

delphia. Philadelphia: 1792, page 13.

DEFINITION OF DaTE or FOUNDING.

“By Date of Founding, is meant the vear in which the
institution was established out of which the present
college or university has developed. Thus the vear
1780 is the date of the foundation of an academy at
Washington, Pennsylvania, from which Washington
and Jefferson College grew.’’

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach-
ing, 2d Annual Report of President and Treasurer,
1907, page 18.

ADDENDUM

COMMUNICATION OF
J. Francis Fisupr, Hsa.!
Reap JUNE 267n, 1840.

At the stated Meeting of the Society on the 19" of
June, I heard for the first time that our learned and
venerable President had prepared a History of our
Society, or at least of its formation; and that he had
been induced to undertake it at this moment by

* This communication shon!d have followed that of Mr. Du Ponceau,
but it had been misplaced in the Archives of the Society and was not
found until after the foregoing papers had been printed. It was
transmitted to the Society with the following letter:

To Joun Kk. Kane, Esqu.
SECRETARY OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.
Dear Sir,
I beg you to present the following sheets as soon as possible this

Evening—FEither to be read immediately after Mr. DuPonceau’s
Paper on the History of the Society, or to be referred unread to the
Committee appointed on it.

Had not Mr. DuPoneeau’s Paper already been presented to the
Society, and an adjourned meeting called to hear it read, before I
knew the subject of it, I should not trouble the Society with my
Communication, but have spoken or written privately to the Presi-
dent, giving him my authorities on which M? Sparks relied in pre-
paring his sketch of the Society’s History published in the Appendix
to the first volume of Franklin’s Works,

This would have been the most proper course, but it 1s now too
late, and I have only to hope that my venerated friend will not think
it ill done by me that I place in your hands a short recapitulation of
my reasons for doubting that the old Junto Club was the founda-
tion of the American Philosophical Society, & that he will appreciate

143

144 ADDENDUM.

reading in the Appendix to the first Volume of M’*
Sparks’ Collection of D* Franklin’s Works an ac-
eount of the two Societies by the union of which our
Association was formed in 1769, and finding in it
several errors of sufficient Importance to correct in a
formal communication to our Fellow Members.

Every paper from our excellent & learned friend
must be of great interest, and I am delighted to find
that he is again induced to take his pen to give us
the result of his research, the collections of tradi-
tion, and his own recollections of the early history of
our Society, to whieh his learning has added so much
lustre, and which I trust will long be honoured by his
name as President.

IT have not seen this manuseript which is to be read
at an adjourned meeting of the Society; and it may
appear unnecessary for me to add any thing to a
Communication which may well be supposed to con-

tain all the facts extant upon the subject—and even

my motives in presenting them at once rather than give them the
appearance of any contradiction or criticism of his account of our
Karly History. |

As my communication embraces sketches of three Associations
existing before 1769 when an union of two of them formed our

present Society—and as I must necessarily run over the same ground
described by our learned President, you may think it best and have
my permission to omit any part of my paper in reading it to our

fellow members.

With the highest Esteem
I am truly yr. friend
J. FRANCIS FISHER.
June 26 1840.

COMMUNICATION OF J. FRANCIS FISHER. 145

presumptuous in me, to differ on any point from our
learned President before hearing all he has to say :—
But, it is precisely because I wish to avoid all collision
with him, because I do not wish to appear to correct
his statements or inferences that I now submit the
folowing pages which contain my own notions as
to the origin of our Society, not thinking that my view
& inferences from the same facts ought for a moment
to be considered with those of M" DuPonceau, but
expecting to adduce some authority new to hin,
which if the history of the American Philosophical
Society is to be printed ought not to be disregarded.

I have however a still stronger reason for trespass-
ing on your attention. It is to do justice to my
friend M* Sparks, and his very valuable publication
—If there are errors in his account of our Society, /
am answerable for them, as it is in great measure
made up from extracts taken by myself from the old
Minute Books. He requested me to examine them for
him, send him such excerpts as I thought important,
and give him my own view of the origin of our
Society. I did so at large, and it is from my notes
that he abridged his account of the two original
Associations. |

I have not a copy of my letter to him, but I will
endeavour to recollect and as briefly as_ possible
repeat the important facts in it. It is a matter of no
moment to myself whether I be found right or in
-error—but it may be thought of some importance that

146 ADDENDUM.

this Society should not have it’s history handed down
erroneously in a work of such authority.

IT believe I am aware of the principal point in M’
Sparks’ aecount which will be objected to by M'
DuPonceau having had some months ago a conversa-
tion with the latter as to the antiquity of our Society,
and I shall be very brief upon all the others.

Mr. Sparks speaking of one of the original Soci-
eties, that instituted in 1748 under the name of the
American Philosophical Society of which Thomas
Hopkinson was first President, says ‘‘This Society
had no connexion with the Junto which is often men-
tioned in ‘Franklin’s Autobiography, & which had
been established many years before’? and again
‘“‘In the mean time’’ (after the establishment of the
former) ‘‘another Society sprang up in Philadelphia
which was called the Junto or Society for the Promo-
tion of Useful Knowledge. The date of the origin of
this Society 1s unknown that portion of the Records
which has been preserved begins September 22, 1758”’

&e. &e.

The Junto was instituted in 1727. It was a Club at
first entirely private, limited to twelve in number,
meeting for philosophical & literary conversation
and social enjoyment. It is probable they kept no
regular Minutes, had no written communications,
possessed no hbrary or collections, and had few
accounts but those settled weekly with the respectable

COMMUNICATION OF J. FRANCIS FISHER. 147

Innkeeper around whose fire side they assembled;
which, if a tradition I have heard be correct, was at
the Old Indian King in Market Street below Third.
The first members according to D" Franklin were
Joseph Breintnall, Thomas Godfrey, Nicholas Seull,
William Parsons, William Manegridge, Hugh Mere-
dith, Stephen Potts, George Webb, Robert Grace, and
Wilham Coleman—ten besides Benjamin Franklin,
at later periods others were elected to supply the
place of those dead or retired and, if we may rely on
a list found [I believe by Roberts Vaux among the
papers of lis Grandfather, these were the following
—Huegh Roberts, Philip Svng, noch Flower, Joseph
Wharton, William Griffitts, Luke Morris, Joseph
Turner, Joseph Shippen, Joseph Trotter, Samuel
Jarvis, and Samuel Rhoads making eleven more. The
Club was kept up till most of these were dead, having
lasted according to D' Franklin nearly forty years.
About ten years after its institution (1736) an
attempt was made to enlarge the Club—Franklin was
opposed to it, but suggested that each of the twelve
members should form a subordinate Club of similar
character to report to the Junto. This plan after
partial success seems to have fallen through, but the
Old Club survived.
In a Letter to Hugh Roberts from Boston dated
* Vide Autobiography page 82. Sparks Ed.: If it did not last quite
40 years it could not be the Society for Promoting useful Knowledge

which was united to the American Philosophical Society forty-two
years after the foundation of the Junto.

148 ADDENDUM.

July 16. 1753. Franklin sends his ‘‘respects to all our
old friends of the Junto’’

In one to the same from London dated September
16. 1758, he gives the characters of Potts and Parsons
two of the old members lately dead.

Writing to the same from London—Heb*. 26. 1761
he says ‘‘You tell me vou some times visit the ancient
Junto—I wish vou would do it oftener. I know they
all love & respect you, & regret your absenting your-
self so much * * * Since we have held that Club till
we are grown gray together let us hold it out to the
end’’ &e

Again, July 7. 1765 he writes ‘‘I wish vou would
continue to meet the Junto, notwithstanding some
effects of our public political misunderstandings may
sometimes appear there. It is now perhaps one of the
oldest Clubs, as I think it was formerly one of the
best in the King’s dominions. It wants but about two
vears of being forty since it was established’’—

*And finally Feb’ 27, 1766—He says ‘‘ Remember
me affectionately to the Junto’’

This is the last mention I find of the Old Club—It is
possible it subsisted a few years longer—that it may
have welcomed to its meetings its Founder on his
return from Hnegland, & enjoyed with him before its
extinction, a few more of those agreeable evenings to

“The letters from which the above extracts are taken are very

interesting—I had the good fortune to procure most of them for Mr
Sparks.

COMMUNICATION OF J. FRANCIS FISHER. 149

which he so fondly refers. For the present I leave
it, only hereafter referring to it to show that it did
not terminate by a union with the American Philo-

sophical Society.

I believe there is no difference of opinion as to the
origin of the Society of 1748—of which Benjamin
Franklin was certainly the projector as may be seen
by his Proposals dated May 14, 1743.

This was to be not merely a Club like the Junto,
but truly a Philosophical Society on as extensive a
scale as the state of the Country would admit of, to
consist only of men who had some pretention to
scientific attainments, & to embrace as many as pos-
sible of such in all parts of America. Mach mem-
ber, as may be seen in the lst given by Franklin in
his letter to D™ Colden, selected his own department
or committee. Their meetings were to be monthly, or
oftener, for the sake of receiving letters & communi-
cations, witnessing experiments &e. They were to
publish a Quarterly Bulletin of Proceedings, and at
the end of the year collections of such experiments,
discoveries and improvements as may be thought of
public advantage. In fact, this is really the Model
and Germ of our Society. To it we must look back as
to our earliest progenitor and, when May 1843 arrives,
ean properly celebrate our Centennial Anniversary.

The first President of this Society was Thomas
Hopkinson, Franklin being Secretary. How long it

150 ADDENDUM.

was kept up I have not been able to discover: prob-
ably not more than four years, as I find at the time
of the Treaty for a union with the Society for Pro-
moting Useful Knowledge, among other objections
made by the latter Society to be merged in the other
by a simple election of all its members by the Philo-
sophical Society, that the latter had not held any
meetings for twenty years—and this was probably
true.

It was however still thought to exist by its surviv-
ing members, who met in November 1767, elected a
large number of new members chiefly of the friends of
the Proprietaries & richest men of the Province, as
well as some few from other parts of America, chose
Governor James Hamilton their President, and recom-
menced their regular Meetings after the old plan.
The letter read last Friday Hvening addressed by
the Rev" Provost Smith, one of the Secretaries to
Governor Hamilton, with the thin Minute Book in our
possession shew that their attention was directed to
Science and that they had already taken measures for
observing the Transit of Venus.

It was, I believe, by this Society that the proposal
was first made for an incorporation with the Ameri-
ean Society for promoting Useful Knowledge. In
February, 1768 they elected all its Members into the
Philosophical Society, but it was not until the 2° of
June, 1769 that the Union was effected under the joint

name we at present bear.

COMMUNICATION OF J. FRANCIS FISHER. 151

The American Society for promoting Useful Knowl-
edge was instituted in 1750*—Its original name was
thet Junto or Society for the promotion of Useful
Knowledge. The earliest of it’s records which we
possess begin September 22%. 1758. It seems to have
been an Association rather for the mutual improve-
ment of the Members by discussing a great variety
of subjects than for enlarged philosophical enquiry.
It is needless to recapitulate the History of this So-
ciety through its various declines, revivals and reor-
ganizations till its reunion with the Philosophical
Society

Tho’ somewhat similar in its plan and objects to
the Old Junto and consisting in 1758 of the same
number of Members (12), it could at most have been
only a copy or a Junior Society. It consisted then
of young men, the majority of whom were at least
twenty vears vounger than D" Franklin. The Names
eiven are Francis Rawle, Charles Thomson, S.
Wooley, P. Chevalier, I. Mather, Philip Syng, I.
Paschall, Ed: Physiek, William Franklin, I. Howell,
W. Hopkins, P. Jackson. That these were all, is
proved by the Minutes in our possession where at
most of the meetings the absent are named as well

“This fact I have only ascertained within a few days—tho’ my
previous opinions had nearly fixed the year of its establishment.

*This name Junto which was dropped by the Society a few years

afterwards has been the chief souree of confusion & mistake as to the
origin of the association.

152 ADDENDUM.

as the present, with the cause or excuse, as ‘‘apolo-
eized,’’ ‘‘unwell,’’ ‘‘out of town,’’ ‘‘absent in Eng-
land’? (as Willam Franklin was at the second
Meeting).

Dr Franklin, then could not have been a member, as
absence in England did not suspend membership,
nor Hugh Roberts, nor any of the other survivors of
the Old Junto and these were several at that time.
In a letter above quoted, dated February, 1761, D"
Franklin speaks of Hugh Roberts’ occasional attend-
ance at the meetings of the Old Club—now had it
been the same as this Society its Minutes, which for
three previous vears are regularly kept, would have
mentioned his presence which they do not nor does
the name of any of Franklin’s associates of the Junto
oceur but that of Philip Syng, who was perhaps son
of the member of the old Club of the same name.

But this is not all, D™ Franklin, tho’ still in Eng-
land, was elected into this Society the 19" of Feb-
ruary 1768, and chosen it’s President the 4" of No-
vember following just previous to its union with the
American Philosophical Society. Into his own Club,
the old Junto, he surely would not need a re-election.

So far, I had already satisfied myself, when I heard
of a letter from Charles Thomson to D* Franklin
in the possession of William B. Reed Esq" in which
one of the Societies was spoken of. In it I have found
unexpected and entire confirmation of my opinion.

The following is a copy.

COMMUNICATION OF J. FRANCIS FISHER. 153

PutILavEL’, Nov 6, 1768.
Dear Sir,

It is with pain I recollect that the agreeable corre-
spondence with which you were pleased to honour me
has been so long broken off. Conscious of the purity
of my intentions and uprightness of my conduct, I
waited for the pleasure of seeing you, and rested fully
satisfved that, in whatever light I may have been
represented by some who of late have taken it into
their heads to be dissatisfyed with me, I should be
found to have acted not unworthy the notice or friend-
ship with which you have honoured me.

I longed for your arrival on another account, that
I might have your advice and assistance in the execu-
tion of a plan which I flattered myself might be useful
to our Country.

You remember the Society to which I belonged,
which was begun in the year 1750. By the death and
removal of some of it’s members, it dwindled for some
time to that degree that I was apprehensive of its
dissolution.

From some conversation I had with you, some few of
us exerted ourselves to revive it again. New members
were elected and our meetings became more regular.
As our views were enlarged with our years,’ we be-
came desirous of altering and enlarging the plan of
our Society, and if possible, rendering it useful to the
Publick. For this end the enclosed Proposals were

*One might infer from this the members were young men.

154 ADDENDUM.

drawn up and laid before the Society; who approved
the same and ordered them to be published, and imme-
diately proceeded to draw up some rules for carrying
the same into execution. At first, we met with some
discouragements and experienced some difficulties,
which by perseverance are at last in a great measure
overcome; and I have now the pleasure to inform you
we have brought the Society to some degree of per-
fection.

We have established a correspondence in most of
the Colonies, on the Continent and in some of the
Islands, and have formed a set of Rules or Laws for
our Government which I shall transmit to vou by the
next opportunity.

We did ourselves the honour early (Feb’y 19, 1768)
to elect you a Member and requested the favour of
your Son and D" Evans to inform you.

And now having resolved to elect standing Officers,
we have presumed to elect you our President, and
hope for your Patronage and Assistance. Mr. Samuel
Powel is our Vice-President; D" Morgan, Major
Nicola, and J. Bartram our Curators; M’ Biddle our
Treasurer and M" Thomas Mifflin and myself Secre-
taries.

We are yet in an infant state, and dare not
promise any great matters; however the Discoveries
already made and communicated to us, some of which
we have laid before the public, encourage us to hope

that our undertaking will not be in vaine.

~

COMMUNICATION OF J. FRANCIS FISHER. 155

I am with the greatest esteem and affection
your sincere friend
| CHarLes THOMSON.
(Endorsed) letter to Dt Franklin. Nov. 6. 1768

Here is a Sketch of the Rise and Progress of the
American Society for the Promotion of Useful Knowl-
edge. It is clear that Franklin was not it’s Founder,
that he took no part in it except by advice to his
voung friends who formed it, that he never attended
its meetings, nor indeed was a member till the eve of
its union with the American Philosophical Society.

Of this last Society he was really the Projector. I
have already referred to his excellent paper of Pro-
posals, which embraces all the objects of a Scientific
association, and suggests the best plans for it’s organ-
ization and proceedings. Most of his suggestions are
embodied in the Constitution and By-Laws of our
Society and are not to be improved on.

Altho’ not the President of this Society he was
certainly it’s most active member and moving spirit;
and the suspension of it’s meetings was doubtless
owing to his public Duties at home and long absence
in England.

That he was not elected President on its revival,
was probably owimeg to political feeling. The few
surviving members who reorganized it in 1768 were
of the Aristocratic or Proprietary Party, and a
majority of the newly elected Members were of simi-

lar connexion. Governor Hamilton was chosen, a

156 ADDENDUM.

sensible and well educated man but an old one who
took little interest in the Society or it’s objects, and
there is little doubt the Society would have soon ex-
pired after a short languishing had not the great
American Philosopher been soon placed at it’s head,
and an Union been effected with the more active and
practical men of the other Society. |

It would be pleasing to believe our Sociaie the
lineal Descendant of the Old Junto, the oldest literary
Club in America—The favourite resort of Franklin :—
It would be honourable to our History to associate
his name more intimately with the first Philosophical
Enquiries of our Predecessors. We must however be
satisfied that his Junto gave the Hxample:—His
Proposals in 1743 the first Plan: That He himself
was the first head of our United Societies—the first
of a series of distinguished Presidents of whose
names and works our Country, as well as our City
and Society, are truly proud.

J. Francis FIsHer,
June 24 1840.

In the preceding sketch there may be several trifling
errors, as I have depended on M’ Sparks Account of
the Society & my own recollections, but there cannot
be any material mistake. I refer the Committee to
the Minute Books & Spark’s Collection of Franklin’s
Works.

COMMUNICATION OF J. FRANCIS FISHER. 157

J. Franotis FisHer to Peter S. DuPoncrav.
June 30, 1840
My dear Sir,

There are one or two observations which I would
make on the apparent discrepancies between your
Account of the American Society and the letter of
Charles Thomson.

Is it not very extraordinary that he should write
“You remember the Society to which J belonged’? if
Franklin had ever been a Member of it himself?

Again, he says ‘‘from some conversation I had with
you, some few of us exerted ourselves to revive it
again.’’ Now, this must refer to the time Franklin
was in Pennsylvania, in the interval between the two
Minute Books—which deficiency you think was filled
with a third record book now lost, which would have
shewn the part taken by Franklin in the Society
while here. But I ask would Charles Thomson have
written thus to D' Franklin if the latter had attended
any of their meetings? Would he not have alluded
to his presence and the part he took in the concerns
of the Society? I certainly do infer from the letter
that the only interest shewn by Franklin in it was by
his advice. It seems to me, he was too elevated in
Science to take part in such enquiries as occupied the
American Society in its early days.

My Opinion is that the old Junto still survived but
in a different form—Consisting now of perhaps only

a few survivors of Franklin’s personal & early

158 ADDENDUM.

friends.—No longer so sollicitous about mutual im-
provement, but meeting cluefly for such social & intel-
lectual enjoyment as suited a small number of old
friends. Considering their education at an end, they
had hereafter no appointed discussion, nor prepared
essays, but indulged in more congenial chat, and did
not dispute the chess or supper table as part of the
Iivening’s Pastime. This is the tradition of the
Roberts Family.

Now, if vou suppose that ceasing to be a debating
Society it had sunk into a Social Club, like the Gov-
ernor’s Club and several others in the Province, we
can account for another Society consisting of differ-
ent and vounger men taking the name of the Junto,
and even with the knowledge and approbation of D*
Franklin, who would perhaps willingly consent to the
transfer of the old name to a new Association with
the original objects ‘‘ Mutual Improvement’? &

This also accounts for his always writing about our
‘fold friends of the Junto’’ ‘‘the Ancient Junto’’ &.
Now the members of the American Society, Thomson,
Physick, S. Powel & were not old—and the Junto
could be more properly called ‘‘tue Ancient’? when
contrasted with a new Society of the same name,
than of it’s own right, if there existed no other of
more recent creation. Thus, too, in one sense the old
Junto could be called the origin of the American
Society, as it was the model imitated by the young

friends of D" Franklin who may have suggested to

COMMUNICATION OF J. FRANCIS FISHER. 1b

them the example and name of the old Society which
had already been found so useful to complete the
deficient Education of a cirele of intelligent and
ambitious tradesmen.

His set had derived all the expected advantage
from it, and tho’ they still met together they could
hardly have the same objects but rather desired to
enjoy convivially at their meetings the result of their
early thrift and reading—to talk of old times and
friends, or of favourite books, or the politicks of
the day, but no longer to task their minds in subtle
disputes or ingenious essays. And in confirmation of
this view, see what D® Franklin says ‘‘Since we have
held that Club till we are grown gray together, let
us hold it out to the end. For my own part, I find I
love company, chat, a laugh, a glass, and even a
song, as well as ever; and at the same time relish
better than I used to do the grave observations and
wise sentences of old men’s conversation; so that I
am sure the Junto will be still as agreeable to me
as it ever has been. I therefore hope it will not be
discontinued as long as we are able to crawl together”’
This is nothing like Charles Thomson’s Society. One
would not infer that there had been any attempt to
revive the club by the election of younger and more
active members. It seems many of his old associates
had dropped off into the grave, that the survivors
were infirm but still able to enjoy a temperately
jovial evening. The chat—the laugh—the glass—the

160 ADDENDUM.

song are not heard of in Chas. Thomson’s Society
except at their Annual Supper. Again Franklin
speaks of it’s age. Now forty years existence is not
remarkable for a literary society but for a Club of
friends. Hence his sollicitude to maintain it—hence
his affectionate fondness for it. A mere debating
Club which had passed into the hands of a younger
set of men could hardly have been an object of much
interest to him.

D". Smith might very well be in error. He came into
the Province in 1755, was not a member of the Amer-
ican Society and had little or no social connexion with
it’s members. He wrote his Eulogy on Franklin in |
1790—and, if he consulted the reeords of the Society,
we have no reason to think he saw’any Minutes earlier
than 1758, from which he might have risen with as
little certainty as we have. But Charles Thomson
could not have been mistaken in 1768—himself the
most active member of the American Society, he
would not, I think, have failed to remind Franklin
that he had been an old member—the founder of the
Club, when he sollicited his countenance and patronage

I write this to you that you may answer my objec-
tions and submit your reply with my letter to the
Committee. If I have any interest in the matter it
is to give all the importance of Franklin’s name to
the American Society of which my Grandfather,
Thomas Fisher, was a member; but after the exami-
nation of the Records I made at Mr. Spark’s request

COMMUNICATION OF J. FRANCIS FISHER. 161

I came to the decided conclusion that it was not the
continuation of the old Junto, and of that opinion IJ
admit I am still.

I shall be happy if I can see reason to return to
your view of the subject which was mine originally—
My new impressions are confirmed by the letters te
Hugh Roberts which I procured for Mr. Sparks.

Iixcuse my differing from you. The point is of no
great importance, but when your very interesting
history of the Society is printed, I wish it to be as
accurate as it is elegant, and therefore I submit my
views to you. If [am right, a few alterations in your .
Memoir will only be necessary—If I am wrong (and in
submitting to your candour & that of the Committee, I
shall be sure I am so, if you disagree with me) I shall
only be sorry that I have occupied so much of the
Society’s time & yours.

Beheve me with the highest respect & sincerest
regard

Your ob. Serv'

J. Francois FIsHEer
June 30. 1840

To
Peter 8. DuPonceau Esq? LL.D:
Pres‘. of the American Philosophical Society
& & &°

162 ADDENDUM.

J. Francis FISHER TO THE SECRETARIES OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.
(Read in Committee, November 13. 1840.)

To tHe SECRETARIES OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL
SocrEry.
Gentlemen,

Before you make a report on M* DuPonceau’s
communication & mine relative to the early History
of our Society, I would wish merely to state, that in
giving the year 1744 as the earliest to which it could
earry back its history, and naming the Am. Phil. Soc’
then instituted as the eldest of its two parents, I had
no other object than to give D" Franklin all the hon-
our possible as our Founder. There is little doubt that
he was the Projector of that Society. Of the Society
for promoting Useful Iknowledge he clearly was not
the founder & could hardly be considered a member
as he never was present at a meeting nor seems to
have been in any communication with it & was only
elected first a member & then its President a short
time before its union with the Am. Phil. Soe” after
that union was projected & probably with a view to it.
It does not appear to me that he took any part in
the negociations for the union & tho’ elected the first
President of the united Society can in no way be con-
sidered its parent unless we go back to the year 1744
& take the Society of that year as our oldest ances-
tress. Tho’ it became dormant for more than twenty
years he was still considered a member on its revival;

COMMUNICATION OF J. FRANCIS FISHER. 168

it was carried on after the plan probably drawn up
by him, which was certainly a more enlarged one &
more resembling that adopted by our Society than
the form of the Soc’ for Prom® Useful Knowledge.
I lately received a letter from Mr. Sparks, which I
have unfortunately mislaid or I would send it to you.
The purport of it was this—He had learnt that
M* DuPonceau had written a History of the Society
giving an account essentially at variance with the
brief sketch in one of his Notes. He calls upon me to
answer it—and at the same time states that after my
having given him my sketeh, which he abridged into
that note, he examined the Minutes of the two old
Societies himself, and came precisely to the same con-
clusion as I had done. Neither he nor myself need, I
hope, disavow any wish to detract from the fame of
D* Franklin.

I am very glad I have anticipated the wish of my
friend M* Sparks without the necessity of review-
ing or answering M* DuPonceau’s communication—of
which I hope to avoid the appearance as well as the
reality

With the greatest regard
I am Gent”. yr. ob. Serv’t

J. Francis FIsHEerR

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

ON THE

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE
SOCIETY |

APppPomInteD, Fepruary 18, 1910

READ MAY Ist, 1914

Your committee appointed on Iebruary 18, 1910, to
investigate and determine the date of the foundation of

the Society has the honor to report:

In the appendix to the first volume of the Works of
Franklin edited by Jared Sparks, which were pub-
lished in 1840, appeared a sketch of the history of the
American Philosophical Society. The material was
prepared by Mr. J. Francis Fisher, who had become _
a member of the Society in 1833. It seems to have been
the general belief up to this time that the Society was
descended from Franklin’s famous Junto of 1727; but
the doubts expressed by Mr. Sparks and the denial 1m-
plied in the facts alleged by Mr. Fisher gave rise to
differences of opinion as to the exact date of its founda-
tion. The venerable President of the Society, Mr. Du-
Ponceau, who had become a member in 1791, was im-
pelled by his position and his knowledge of the history
and origins of the association, derived from conversa-

164

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 165

tions with many of its early members, to refute the
statements and arguments advanced by Mr. Fisher
against the prevailing belief. He prepared an elabo-
rate ‘‘ Historical Account’’ of the origin of the Society,
in which he gave his reasons for his conviction ‘‘that
the ‘American Society’ was no other than the Junto
established by Franklin, which, when it was united to
the ‘Philosophical’ Society, had only changed its name,
extended its views, and increased the number of its
members, without ceasing to be a continuation of the
original association.’’ (See Historical Account, p. 4.)
Presented on the 19th of June, 1840, this paper was
read at an adjourned meeting held a week afterward;
and at the same time Mr. Fisher’s communication was
read in defence of the new views set forth by Mr.
Sparks and himself.

These papers were referred to a special committee,
which, on October 15, 1841, made an elaborate report
based upon the papers in question and upon certain
supplementary letters and other material. After re-
viewing all the available evidence, the Committee ar-
rived at two conclusions, one theoretical and not quite
final, the other practical and explicit. They found that
the account given by Mr. Sparks of the origin of the
Society is ‘‘substantially correct,’’ and concluded, after
reciting the admitted facts that the present Society
was formed in 1769 by the union of the American So-
ciety, which was known as the Junto as early as 1750
and down to 1767, and the American Philosophical So-

166 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE

ciety, which was founded in 1743,—‘‘that the evidence
before the Committee does not establish the identity
of the Junto which was formed by Franklin in 1727,
with that which afterwards became the American So-
ciety, though they appear to have been the same m
many marked particulars’’; and that ‘‘dating from the
establishment of the elder parent-society, our centen-
nial anniversary should be celebrated on the 14th (25th,
new style) of May 1843.”’

This report of the older committee, apart from their
recommendation in regard to the centennial anniver-
sary, was designedly inconclusive. ‘‘It must be ad-
mitted,’’ they say, ‘‘that chasms still remain in our
early annals which require to be filled up, that doubts
exist upon some points and discrepancies of opinion on
others.’’? Inthe hope that more facts might be obtained
to fill these gaps they recommended that neither Mr.
DuPonceau’s paper nor Mr. Fisher’s be published,
and that ‘‘both be deposited in the archives as valuable
contributions to the early history of the Society.’’ It
is clear that the committee did not regard the year 1743
as absolutely fixed for the official date of the founda-
tion of the Society; they simply recommended it as the
terminus from which to reckon their centenary, as the
date of ‘‘the establishment of the elder parent-society.’’
There was no question in regard to that date; and, as
1827 was long passed, the approaching year 18438
seemed to the committee to be clearly indicated for the

celebration. Their action, therefore, did not finally

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 167

dispose of the question whether or not the origin of the
American Society is to be traced to the Junto founded
by Franklin in 1727; and it is this question which your
present Committee has considered. We have carefully
reviewed the evidence presented to the Committee of
1840, which is now printed and accompanies this re-
port; we have given due attention to such new evidence
as could be found; and we have been guided by the
same principle that was in the minds, though perhaps
not quite enough in the view, of the older Committee,
which has been formulated in the ruling of the Car-
negie Foundation for the case of educational institu-
tions, to wit, that ‘‘liy date of founding is meant the
year in which the institution was established, out of
which the present college or university has developed.”’

The American Philosophical Society as at present
constituted, was formed in 1769 by the union of the
society originally of the same name, founded by Frank-
lin in 1743, with a body known as the American Society
for Promoting and Propagating Useful Knowledge,
which was the new name formally adopted by the Junto
in December 1766. Was this Junto, later known as the
American Society, the Junto founded by Franklin in
1727, or, as the older Committee’s report contends, was
it a society established about 1750 in close imitation of
Franklin’s Junto, conceivably by sons or friends of the
members of the older society, with the result that two
societies under the same name of ‘‘The Junto’’ existed

for some time side by side?

168 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE

Of Franklin’s Junto little is known beyond what he
tells in his autobiography. It seems to have gone
through the usual phases of activity, somnolence, or
even suspended animation, and revival. Its member-
ship was limited to twelve, its proceedings were secret.
It still existed in 1765, when Hugh Roberts writes to
Franklin, ‘‘I sometimes visit the worthy remains of
the ancient Junto.’’

The minutes of the Junto in the Society’s possession,
—the organization which your present Committee be-
heve to be Franklin’s old club, but which the older
Committee claimed to be of separate origin,—begin on
September 22, 1758, and extend to October 22, 1762.
From October 16, 1761, until September 3, 1762, there
had been no meetings. On the date last named the fol-
lowing minute is made: ‘‘ The members of the Junto
desirous of continuing the Society, met this evening,
having again agreed with Mr. Caruthers for the room
on the same terms on which we had it formerly.’’ Only
a few more meetings were held until October 22, 1762,
when three members were present and two members
were noted as absent. Here ends the first volume of
minutes. The next volume of minutes begins April 25,
1766, showing nine members of the Junto, three of
whom were members at the supposed suspension four
years before. The minutes now continue regularly until
the union of the two societies.

In 1760, it is interesting to note, absence and other
causes had reduced the membership to six; and on Feb-

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 169

ruary 6, 1761, there was talk of dissolution. It was
finally decided, however, to return to the original plan
of organization; and as the original rules could not be
found, it was decided to write them anew from the recol-
lection of the members. As set down, these rules do not
differ materially from those which Franklin records
of his Junto. On December 13, 1766, the name of the
Junto was changed to the American Society for Pro-
moting and Propagating Useful Knowledge Held in
Philadelphia, and its membership was increased.

The gap from October 22, 1762, to April 25, 1766,
seems to be in part explained by the letter of Philip
Syng to Dr. Franklin under date of March 1, 1766, in
which he says: ‘‘The Junto fainted last summer in the
hot weather, and has not yet revived; your presence
might reanimate it, without which, I apprehend, it will
never recover.’’ This statement clearly refers to the
same Junto which Dr. Franklin mentions in his letter
of July 7, 1765, to Hugh Roberts, in which he says: ‘‘I
wish you would continue to meet the Junto, notwith-
standing that some effects of our public political mis-
understanding appear there. It is now perhaps one of
the oldest clubs, as I think it was formerly one of the
best, in the King’s dominions. It wants but about two
years of forty since it was established.’’ Franklin’s
language here is significant, and it is carefully chosen.
He speaks of ‘‘the Junto’’ and does not attempt to dif-
ferentiate it, which he surely would have done had
there existed at this time any other Junto in Phila-

170 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE

delphia. He speaks of it as a ‘‘club.’’ It was, as we
know from its rules, a secret debating club limited to a
membership of twelve, and not a society such as the
American Philosophical Society, which he had founded
in 1743. He probably refers to the lack of interest in
the Junto as shown by its periods of somnolence and
revival, by speaking of it as ‘‘one of the oldest clubs,
as I think it was formerly one of the best, in the King’s
dominions.’’? The ‘‘formerly’’ refers, doubtless, to
those flourishing early years when Franklin took an
active part in its proceedings. It is therefore reason-
able to believe that the club fell into a state of sus-
pended animation in the early forties, and remained
so until a revival of its activities took place in 1750.
It is also reasonable to believe that Franklin had
dropped out of membership; and his election many
years later can give no firm ground for the inference
that there were two societies, each called the Junto,
existing side by side in Philadelphia.

In what year Franklin dropped out of the Junto we
do not know. As the membership was limited to twelve,
it is easy to believe that when a member became so
busy and so absorbed in important affairs as Franklin
was in the latter part of the decade succeeding 1730,
he would retire from the club; for the Junto was really
a young men’s debating club, organized for mental and
material improvement, which required its members,
under penalty of fine, to attend its weekly meetings at

six 0’clock in winter, and seven in summer, and to pre-

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. pra

pare questions and papers for discussion. It was pro-
vided that any member who absented himself three sue-
cessive nights without apology should be dropped. In
1754 Franklin was Grand Master of the Masons in
Pennsylvania; two years later he was Clerk of the
Assembly; in the next year he was postmaster at Phil-
adelplia; so busy a man may well have outgrown the
Junto. In May, 1743, he issued his proposals for the
formation of the American Philosophical Society, which
was a Society with plan and aims very different from
those of his Junto; but so busy was he at this time, that
in the November following he wrote to Cadwalader
Colden: ‘‘My long absence from home put my business
so far behindhand that I had no leisure to forward the
scheme of the Society.’’? At this time he was perfect-
ing his Pennsylvania fire-place and making his experi-
ments in electricity. In 1748 he entered the City Coun-
ceils. In 1749 he became a commissioner of the Peace,
and at the same time he issued his ‘‘ Proposals relating
to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania.’’ Ile was
chosen President of the Board of Trustees of the Col-
lege which resulted from this effort. In 1750 he was
elected to the Assembly of Pennsylvania, and was made
a commissioner to arrange a treaty with the Indians.
It would seem, then, that for a considerable number of
years before this date he was much too absorbed in
affairs of great importance, and far too busy in his
regular round of duties, to have remained one of the
twelve active members of the Junto, or, at its revival in

iz? REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE

that vear, to have reassociated himself with it, although
we have ample evidence that he always maintained his
interest in it.

If, then, it be remembered that the members of the
early Junto, as they found themselves unable to per-
form their allotted shares in the proceedings of the
club, retired to make way for younger and efficient
members, many of the difficulties which confronted the
older Committee in regard to the membership of the
Junto will disappear. These retired members, how-
ever, it may be supposed, retained the privilege of
attending the meetings of the club. Thus in 1760
Hugh Roberts writes to Franklin: ‘‘Pursuant to thy
order, I have two or three times revisited the ancient
Junto’’; and in the following year Franklin writes
to him: ‘‘You tell me you sometimes visit the ancient
Junto.’’ The word ‘‘visit’’ was evidently used ad-
visedly, and would hardly have been used in refer-
ence to an active member attending the weekly meeting
of his Society. Again in 1765, May 20, Roberts writes
to Franklin ‘‘I sometimes visit the worthy remains of
the Ancient Junto,’? which could well be the ‘‘new’?
Junto; and on October 12, 1765, he writes: ‘‘the re-
maining members of the good old Junto adjourned
during the warm and short evenings, and are now en-
deavoring to find a House for their and thy reception,
where we may sit with more satisfaction than of late.”’
In the following year Franklin replies to Roberts and
says ‘‘Remember me affectionately to the J unto,’’ not

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 173

calling it the ancient or the new, but ‘‘the Junto,’’ from
which, too, we are justified in concluding that it was the
one and only Junto to which he referred.

There is no unequivoeal evidence whatever for the
existence of the two Juntos as separate contempora-
neous societies in Philadelphia. The seventy years
which have elapsed since the report of the old Commit-
tee have witnessed a great revival of interest in our
colonial history. Most of the older diaries and corre-
spondance now extant have been carefully read and
many of them have been printed. In all these diaries
and letters, as well as in the newspapers of the day,
your present Committee has been unable to find a single
reference which can justify the hypothesis of the old
Committee. The references in the correspondence of
the day to the Ancient Junto or the old Junto, to the
new Junto or the Young Junto, may all pass as facile
expressions to differentiate the revived Junto from its
preceding organization. This view is confirmed by the
newly discovered fragments of letters found among
some unbound, dilapidated sheets of the Franklin
papers. One letter from Cadwalader Evans to William
Franklin, under date of January 25, 1768, speaks of
‘¢some members of the young Junto,’’ and says, ‘‘this
young Junto ever since last September has been fabri-
eating a plan....’’ And another letter from William
Franklin to Cadwalader Evans, under date of January
29, 1768 (p. 139), says, ‘‘I am much obliged to you for
your Account of the two new Philosophical Societies.’’

174 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE

These letters admit of no doubt as to the identity of the
Societies referred to and clearly indicate the habit of
the day of referring to the revived society as a new
society. It was this habit which led Charles Thomson
to write of the revived Junto as the Society ‘‘begun in
the year 1750,’’ and so puzzled the older Committee
that they were fain to invent the hypothesis of the two
Juntos. ‘‘You remember the Society to which I be-
longed, which was begun in the year 1750,’’ so Mr.
Thomson writes to Franklin November 6, 1768. ‘‘From
some conversation I had with you,! some few of us
exerted ourselves to revive it again.’’

A careful reading of this letter suggests that the or-
ganization of 1750, to which Thomson refers, was a
revival of the Junto whose name it bore and whose
laws and rules it adopted. He would hardly have writ-
ten to Franklin ‘‘You remember the Society to which
I belonged,’’ were it not the Junto of which Franklin
had been the founder, and in which he continued his
interest, even though he had passed from its member-
ship. In 1750 Thomson was but twenty-one years of
age, and had just been brought to Philadelphia to teach
Greek and Latin in the new Academy. Franklin was
more than double his age, and therefore not likely to
have been on terms of such intimate friendship with

him as to have known with what societies he had allied

1 This conversation occurred probably before the end of 1764, when
Franklin returned to Europe, and when the Society was in a state of
somnolence from October, 1762, to April, 1766, as is shown by the ab-

sence of minutes.

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 17s

himself, had it not been that this was one in which
Franklin himself took a deep interest. It need not be
assumed that Thomson was guilty of tautology when
he refers to the efforts in 1766 to revive the Society
‘‘begun in the year 1750,’’ and says ‘‘some few of us
exerted ourselves to revive it again.’’ He was a student
and teacher of languages, distinguished as a careful
and precise writer; and mainly for that reason he was
selected as Secretary of the Continental Congress. It
was the same fidelity to the meaning of words that led
him in later life to make a new translation of the Bible.
He may well mean that both the efforts of 1750 and the
more successful attempt of 1766 were revivals of the
old Junto.

In 1767 there still existed the law for the exclusion
of members for non-attendance; but in January, 1768,
Thomson presented his ‘‘Proposals for enlarging this
Society, in order that it may better answer the end for
which it was instituted.’’ These rules did away with
the limited membership, the obligation of each member
in turn to perform specific duties, the system of fines
for neglect of duty and for absence, as well as the ex-
clusion of members for continued absence without satis-
factory excuse. Moreover, as Cadwalader Evans tells
us, these new rules were based on the rules of the Royal
Society and the Society of Arts.

After the adoption of the ‘‘Rules’’ resulting from
Thomson’s ‘‘Proposals’’ in January, 1768, there ap-
pears on the Minutes of February 12, 1768, this entry:

176 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE

‘His Exeell. William Franklin, Esq. being the only
member of the ancient Society,! who has not signed the
rules of this book, Dr. Evans is desired to inform him,
that, agreeable to what was concluded on in reviving
the Society, if he chooses to sign our rules and give us
a meeting, he shall be considered as a regular mem-
ber.’’ On February 19, Dr. Evans reported that Gov.
Franklin wrote: ‘‘When I come to town, I shall do my-
self the pleasure of meeting you as an old member, and,
if I like your new Rules, as I probably shall, will sign
them, and make it my business to attend as often as I
possibly ean.’’? Other minutes show how the old mem-
bers were continued, or dropped out, as the case might
be, in the revival of the Society. Dr. Franklin, no
longer an active member of the Junto of twelve mem-
bers, and now abroad, is recorded in the minutes of
February 19, 1768, as having been ‘‘elected’’; and on
November 4 following, although still in Europe, at the
first election of officers he was chosen ‘‘President,”’
there having been no permanent officers prior to that
time, each member acting in turn as Chairman and as
Secretary.

As further evidence of the identity of this Society
with the original Junto, it may be stated that Franklin
throughout his correspondence only referred to it in
the years between 1753 and 1766, the years in which the
preserved minutes prove it to have been in existence,
and he does not refer to it by that name after the date

1The Junto, limited to twelve members.

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 177

of its change of name to the ‘‘American Society.”’
Philip Syng, writing to Franklin on March 1, 1766, says
(p. 183): “The Junto fainted last summer in the hot
weather, and has not yet revived; your presence might
reanimate it, without which I apprehend it will never
recover.’’ But it did recover without Franklin’s pres-
ence, and the recorded minutes begin again on April
25, 1766, after a lapse from October 22, 1762; the para-
graph quoted ean refer to no other than Iranklin’s
Junto. This is confirmed by Hugh Roberts’s letter to
Benjamin Franklin of October 12, 1765 (see p. 138),
found among the data collected in 1910: ‘‘The remain-
ing members of the good old Junto adjourned during
the warm and short evenings and are now endeavoring
to find a House for their and thy reception where we
may sit with more satisfaction than of late’’; and he
writes this, too, notwithstanding that Franklin was not
formally elected to membership until 1768.

The identity of the Junto and the so-called ‘‘Society
Junto’’ is confirmed by Dr. Franklin in his Autobiog-
raphy in which, writing of the Junto and speaking of
William Coleman as one of its members, he says of
him,—‘‘our friendship continued without interruption
to his death, upwards of forty years; and the club con-
tinued almost as long, and was the best school of pli-
losophy, morality, and polities that then existed in the
provinee.’’ The records show that William Coleman
died in January, 1769, making the duration of his mem-
bership in the Junto agree with the statement of Dr.

178 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE

Franklin as ‘‘upwards of forty years.’’ In 1766 the
club was converted by the new laws into a Society; and
on December 13 its name was formally changed to ‘‘ The
American Society for Promoting and Propagating Use-
ful Knowledge, held in Philadelphia.’’? This was two
years before the death of Coleman, so that the facts
agree with Dr. Franklin’s statement that the ‘‘club con-
tinued almost as long’’ and seem to confirm our as-
sumption of the identity of his Junto with the club
which now became the American Society. On January
2, 1769, the American Society was united, after pro-
longed and formal negotiations, with the American
Philosophical Society.

This other ‘‘parent’’ society had been founded by
Franklin in 1748, pursuant to a circular letter issued by
him and entitled a ‘‘Proposal for promoting useful
knowledge among the British Plantations in America.’’
Ilis proposal was ‘‘that one Society should be formed
of virtuosi or ingenious men residing in the several
colonies, to be established in the city of Philadelphia
as the most central place, and to be called the American
Philosophical Society.’’? No record of the proceedings
of this Society at this period are preserved, and it is
probable that its activities ceased within a very few
years of its origin. In August, 1745, Benjamin Frank-
lin writes: ‘‘the members of our Society here are very
idle gentlemen. They will take no pains. I must, I be-
lieve, alter the scheme.’’? This Society, then, ceased to
exist from some time in the latter forties until 1767,

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 179

when political feeling ran high, and the Proprietary
Party of the Province, regarding with disfavor the
existence of a learned Society in America [the Ameri-
ean Society], made up mainly of members of the oppos-
ing Popular Party, determined to counteract its in-
fluences by reviving the American Philosophical So-
ciety of 1748 and electing into it their friends of the
Proprietary Party. The minutes of the revived So-
elety begin with January 19, 1768, and continue until
the union with the American Society in 1769.

We have now reviewed the most important evidence
to be gleaned from the minutes of club and society, and
from correspondence of the day. It is in order to make
a general summary of the case and determine where
hes the real weight of all the testimony to be obtained.
Itither the American Society was a continuation of
Franklin’s Junto of 1727, or else there were two so-
cieties called the Junto, very similar in character and
aim, existing side by side. For the claims of the former
conclusion several considerations may be urged. First,
the general drift and implication of the minutes, which
were cited above, must certainly be regarded as making
for the assumption that this Junto was a continuation
of Franklin’s club. The fact that Franklin himself was
elected a member in 1768, which seems at first to con-
travene this assumption, is a perfectly natural matter
in view of what has been heretofore stated.

Secondly, heavy stress must be laid on the tradition
among the older members of our Society that its origin

180 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE

was in Franklin’s Junto, a tradition strongly urged
and supported in the Historical Account of Mr. Du
Ponceau, who had known the founders themselves, and
on the definite statement, to the same effect, by Dr.
Wilham Smith. |
Thirdly, it is highly unlikely that two contemporary
societies should exist in the City of Philadelphia, each
entitled, without any limiting terms, The Junto, and
should leave no indisputable trace of their existence.
On the other side, in favor of the coexistence of two
Juntos must be considered the statement of Charles
Thomson in a letter written to Franklin November 6,
1768, quoted at length in Mr. Fisher’s communication
in reply to Mr. Du Ponceau (p. 153), and already
noticed in the present report. One sentence in Mr.
Thomson’s letter constituted the main support of the
contention for the coexistence of the two Juntos: ‘‘ You
remember the Society to which I belonged, which was
begun in the year 1750,’’ that is, of course, the Junto,
afterwards the American Society.. The older Commit-
tee oppose this testimony to the tradition and general
feeling of the early members as expressed generally by
Mr. Du Ponceau, and specifically in Dr. William
Smith’s Hulogium on Franklin in 1791, where he says
that Franklin’s Junto became at last the foundation of
the American Society. If we regarded these two state-
ments, Mr. Thomson’s and Dr. Smith’s, each for itself,
and without further examination of the origin and im-

port of each, the whole question would seem to be one

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 181

of veracity. The Committee, however, with consider-
able tact, conclude (p. 67) that it is a question not of
veracity between the two men but of accuracy, and that
Thomson was more likely to be accurate, writing in
1768, than Smith in 1791. But each of these statements
must be further examined; and careful consideration
may show that the two are not in conflict.

It may be remarked that neither at the time of
Dr. Smith’s address, nor at any time during thirty-
two years of Thomson’s subsequent life, did Thomson,
or any other person, question the accuracy of Dr.
Smith’s statement about the origin of the Society.
What the Committee goes on to quote from Dr. Thomas
Bond (p. 68) as confirmatory of Thomson’s statement,
has no real bearing on the present question. Nobody
disputes that Franklin founded the American Plilo-
sophieal Society in 1748, on a most extensive plan, for
scientific investigation and research; the American So-
ciety, dropping the character as well as the name of the
Junto, was reaching out upon the same lines; and
origins of the sort with which the old and new Commit-
tee have been concerned, which connected a learned
society with a social club, had no part in Dr. Bond’s
idea.

Your present Committee would point out, however,
that it was not simply a case of accuracy between the
memory of Mr. Thomson in 1768 and the memory of
Dr. William Smith in 1791. The ‘‘tradition’’ referred
to by Dr. Smith was not his alone; and it becomes a

182 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE

most formidable piece of evidence in our eyes so soon
as we perceive that the farther we go into the past the
surer and sounder this tradition is disclosed to be. It
was practically unchallenged. On page 5 of Mr. Du
Ponceau’s ‘*Account,’’ the President tells how great
had always been his interest in the Society and in the
history of its founding. ‘‘I had frequent conversa-
tions with men who took a part in its formation, and
particularly with the venerable Bishop White ... who
was a member of the ‘American Society.’ He loved to
talk upon the subject. Ile informed me of many de-
tails respecting the union of the two societies which are
not to be found in their records. ... Neither he nor
anybody else at that tine doubted of the ‘American’
Society having been a continuation of the Junto. ...
This fact until a very late period was admitted by all.’”’

This is not doubtful testimony; it surely confirms the
‘accuracy’? of Dr. William Smith; and your Commit-
tee lays great stress upon its significance. It is true
that Thomson’s words are very explicit, and, so far as
they go, would seem at first to make for the older Com-
mittee’s conclusion, ‘*You remember the Society to
which I belonged’? written to Franklin would seem to
exclude him as its founder. ‘*We did ouselves the
honor... to elect you a member’’ seems confirmatory
of such an inference; but the Society of 1768 had such
different plans, scope, methods, Franklin at many times
was so remote and at all times was so busy that his re-
election in 1768 might be taken not only as proof of his

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 183

lapse from earher membership, but also as a solicita-
tion of his approval of the new plans, especially as they
ran on the line of the other Society, the American Phi-
osophical Society, which Franklin had founded, without
much success, in 1743.

It was quite fitting that Franklin should be consulted
about the revival of the Junto in the sixties. ‘Thomson
writes to him ‘From some conversation I had with you,
some few of us exerted ourselves to revive it again.’
This is in allusion to the new plans for the American
Society; but, as has been pointed out, reviving again
should be taken as indicating a previous revival of the
Junto in 1750, whieh was a secret club with rules and
aims very different from those of the later ‘‘ American
Society.’’ There is evidence that the revival of an old
Society passed sometimes in those days for the begin-
ning of anew. On page 113 will be found an account
of the dispute in 1768 when the two societies were ar-
ranging for their union; interesting is the contention
of the American Society that it is senior over the
American Philosophical Society, which is not recog-
nized even as a continuation of the society actually be-
gun in 1743. The reason offered for this assumption
is the inactivity of the latter body for fifteen or twenty
years. Again, there is considerable political and parti-
san hostility to be inferred from the minutes of these
societies and the correspondence of the times. ‘‘I
sometimes visit the worthy remains of the ancient

Junto, for whom I have a great esteem, but alas, the

184 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE

political, polemical divisions have in some measure
contributed to lessen the harmony we there formerly
enjoyed,’’? writes Hugh Roberts to Franklin in 1765;
and this passage has been combined by the older Com-
mittee with Thomson’s letter of 1768 to prove the co-
existence of two Juntos. There is no reason, however,
why the ‘‘worthy remains of the ancient Junto’’ should
not be the Junto which was so soon to be reorganized
as the American Society, and which had been so changed
and had undergone so many vicissitudes as to present
scarcely the appearance of a continued organization.
Against the assumption of the two Juntos, on which
rests the whole case of the older Committee, as far as
they come to a decision, the argument from silence
must be strongly emphasized. It is highly improbable,
as Mr. Du Ponceau pointed out, that two Juntos should
exist side by side. It is amazing to find no explicit
mention of them if they did so exist. More than this.
Bishop White was a member of the ‘‘American’’ So-
ciety; how could he fail to know, and note, the facts to
which Thomson’s statement is supposed to testify?
Ilow could he fail to see that these facts directly con-
travened his own repeated statements about the found-
ing of his, that is, the ‘‘American,’’? Junto by Franklin?
The Minutes of the American Society to which Bishop
White belonged tend to confirm his statements; and
nowhere in the literature and letters of that time is
there reference to the existence of two Juntos. But

these two contemporary Juntos must absolutely be

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 185

assumed in order to give the basis for Mr. Fisher’s
contention; and the arguments of the older Committee
(p. 85f) against Mr. Du Ponceau’s statement of this
‘Gmprobability if not impossibility’? are not convine-
ing. Your Committee believe that these negative con-
siderations of improbability, of silence, of the elastic
nature of such a word as ‘‘begun’”’ or ‘‘founded,’’ and
the positive evidence, not explicit, but cumulative and
persistent, of the minutes of the Junto, afterwards the
American Society, quite offset the seanty affirmative
evidence, mainly that of Charles Thomson, brought out
by our predecessors in their report.

There remain, then, the clear testimony of Mr. Du
Ponceau, the positive declarations of Bishop White and
Dr. Smith, and that generally accepted belief of the
early members, to which Mr. Du Ponceau testified, but
to which the older Committee, fascinated by the docu-
ments discovered and produced by Mr. Fisher, refused
to give areally attentive ear. Nothing had been alleged
or discovered which seems adequate to offset that tes-
timony and that tradition. There is now no centennial
celebration to be justified; the zeal, the partisan sharp-
ness of controversy, which was controlled, it is true, by
the fine courtesy of those gentlemen whom we are proud

to call our predecessors, but which, nevertheless, can

1 The old Committee does not appear to have given sufficient considera-
tion to the fact that Franklin’s letter to Hugh Roberts (p. 132f) was
written by him within eight months after leaving Philadelphia, where he
had been, off and on, for two years. If there had then been two Juntos
it would have been impossible for him not to know it. Whatever shape

the one Junto had assumed, it was regarded by Franklin as his Junto.

186 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE

be read between the lines of their report, is now stilled ;
and your Committee is constrained to the opinion that
1v27 was the date of the foundation of this Society;

and it is so reported.

Charlemagne Tower,
Mayer Sulzberger,
Hampton L. Carson,
Francis B. Gummere,
Samuel Dickson,

W. W. Keen,

I. Minis Hays.

SEPARATE REPORT ON THE DATE OF THE
FOUNDATION OF THE ‘SOCIETY

I am in entire agreement with the main conclusion
of the committee’s report, that the origin of the Ameri-
ean Philosophical Society should be earried back to the
Junto founded by Franklin in 1727; but I am unable to
agree with one section of the reasoning by which that
result has been reached. We have had before us much
material for the solution of our problem,—varying in
character from vague reminiscences to contemporary
written records. Much of this is so late, so doubtful, or
so elusive as to be relatively valueless. On the other
- hand there are three documents or groups of documents
which are both contemporary and definite, and on the
interpretation of these, I am convineed, the decision of
the question referred to us must be mainly based.
These are, first, the written minutes in the Society’s
possession; second, a series of ten letters exchanged
between Franklin on one side and Hugh Roberts and
Philip Syng on the other, between 1753 and 1785; and
third, a letter of the year 1768, from Charles Thomson
to Benjamin Franklin.

From the first of these, the two minute books in the
possession of our Society, it is evident that there ex-
isted for the twelve years from 1757 to 1769, though

187

1SS SEPARATE REPORT ON THE

with several intermissions, a society consisting of 12
members, meeting on Friday evenings, discussing mat-
ters of scientific or other serious interest, making use
of a well established entrance ceremony and by-laws,
and referred to from time to time in its records as the
Junto.t. The name, organization, objects, number of
members, time of meeting and other practices of this
society immediately suggest the Junto organized by
Franklin in 1727 and deseribed by him in his autobiog-
raphy and some early papers;? and seem to indicate
that this body is nothing more nor less than a continua-
tion of that Society. A shght misgiving is perhaps
aroused by the fact that in the minute book no one of
the members of Franklin’s Society is mentioned as a
member or visitor, although at least five were still living
through most of this period; that they speak of them-
selves in 1768 only as having ‘‘existed for some years,’”*
and nowhere make a claim of very early origin; and
that in 1768 Benjamin Franklin himself was elected to
membership. Nevertheless these somewhat discon-
certing facts can perhaps be explained away, and if we
had no source of information except these minute books,
I have little doubt they would be looked upon as frag-
mentary records of the club which Franklin founded in
iat.

When, however, we take up the ten letters between
Franklin, Roberts, and Syng, which I have spoken of

1 Abstract from Junto Minute book, Report, pp. 99, 101, 103-106, ete.
2 Report, p. 126.
3 Report, p. 115.
4 Report, p. 118.

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 189

as the second group of evidences, we are immediately
faced with the fact that the writers of these letters,
during the same period of time as that covered by the
minutes, use expressions about the Junto which are
difficult if not impossible to conciliate with the minutes.
The body which is referred to in this correspondence
is repeatedly spoken of as ‘‘the ancient Junto,’’ ‘‘the
old Junto,’’ ‘‘the good old Junto,’’ ‘‘the good old elub,
the Junto.’’ Its members are described as ‘‘the re-
maining members of the good old Junto,’’ ‘‘the worthy
remains of the ancient Junto,’’ ‘Sour old friends of the
Junto, Hospital and Insurance.’’ Its members are
spoken of by Franklin as having ‘‘grown gray to-
eether’’; it is described in 1765 as ‘‘wanting but about
two years of 40 since it was established.’’ Roberts
speaks of the ‘‘trivial chat’’ that went on at its meet-
ings, and Franklin says, ‘‘I love company... and relish
even better than I used to do the grave observations
and wise sentences of old men’s conversation, so that I
am sure the Junto will be still agreeable to me as it
ever has been. I therefore hope it will not be discon-
tinued as long as we are able to crawl together.’’? One
obtains from these letters an impression of a very dif-
ferent body from that described in the minutes.

The body described in the correspondence seems to
be a group of elderly men, bound together by old asso-

5 Report, pp. 129, 130, 1382-3, 135, 137-8. Franklin to Roberts, July
16, 1753, Sept. 15, 1758, Feb. 16, 1761, July 7, 1765, Feb. 27, 1766.

Roberts to Franklin, May 15, 1760, May 20, 1765, Oct. 12, 1765, June

24, 1785.
Syng to Franklin, May 1, 1766.

190 SEPARATE REPORT ON THE

ciations, meeting for informal talk, dropping off one by
one, but the survivors still holding together, as Frank-
lin savs, ‘‘till the eve of life is spent.’’ The body de-
scribed in the minutes is a group of much younger men, ~
three of them sons of the men who carry on the corre-
spondence, meeting for the discussion of definite scien-
tific questions. There is not a single case in which the
same person is mentioned in the two bodies of records,
until we reach, in 1768, the notice of the election of
Benjamin Franklin to membership in the younger body.

At some time, perhaps in the summer of 1765, when,
as one of the early members, Philip Syng, wrote some-
what later, ‘‘the Junto fainted last summer in the hot
weather and has not yet revived,’’ the old group seems
to have ceased to meet.° Yet even twenty years later,
in 1785, when but three of them were still living, they
retained their old feeling of comradeship, for one of
their members, Hugh Roberts, writing to another, Ben-
Jamin Franklin, concerning the third says, ‘‘Philip
Syne, the only other surviving member of the old Junto,
labours under infirmities, keeps much at home where I
ean seldom go to visit him.’

The younger group, on the other hand, continued to
meet, although with various intermissions, until in 1768
they changed their name, enlarged their membership,
and prepared themselves for the amalgamation with
the Philosophical Society which took place next year.

The proof in these letters of the non-identity of the

6 Report, p. 133,
7 Report, pp. 135-6.

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 191

two groups of men, both of which refer to themselves
as the Junto, does not it is true rise to an actual demon-
stration, but, added to the doubt left from a study of
the minutes, it amounts, in my mind at least, to an ab-
solute conviction. With the opposite view on this ques-
tion taken in the report of the committee, I cannot
therefore agree. The two groups of men have very
much in common, including the use of the name Junto,
but they were fivo groups of men, nevertheless.

The third piece of substantive evidence, the letter
written by Charles Thomson to Franklin, November 6,
1768, not only confirms the impression of the existence
of two societies, bui contributes to the solution of the
difficulty involved in their contemporary existence. In
this letter Thomson, who had been the most active -
member of the Society of which we have the minutes,
at least sinee 1758, tells Franklin of its recent revival,
the extension of its membership and its new plans, and
begs his advice and assistance in carrying out these
plans. He tells him that he, Franklin, has within the
last few months been elected to membership and still
more recently to its presidency. This is all in accord-
ance with what we already know from a study of the
minutes, and discloses no new fact. Incidentally, how-
ever, he tells what the minutes do not tell us, that the
Society was begun in 1750. This is a simple concrete
statement and there is no reason to doubt that it means
just what it says. The society of which we have the

minutes was ‘‘begun in 1790.’’S

8 Report, pp. 153-5.

192 SEPARATE REPORT ON THE

But in what sense was the Society begun in 1750?
That is the real question. In the year 1768, a commit-
tee was appointed to draw up ‘‘a short plain history of
the origin of this Society,’’? but unfortunately there is
no evidence that it ever performed that duty, which
would have relieved the present committee of its re-
sponsibilities. In default of such a history prepared by
those who had personal knowledge of the facts, we can
only solve the problem of the Society’s origin by going
baek to the minutes and interpreting them in the hght
of Thomson’s statement and of the Autobiography and
the correspondence. What occurred would seem to
have been something like this. In 1750 a club was
formed in exact imitation of the old Junto, so far as
concerned number of members, objects, procedure,
habitual subjects of discussion, rules, organization,
secrecy and every other discernible characteristic, ex-
cept personnel. It is notable that Franklin’s famous
four qualifications for membership in his Junto, kindli-
ness to other members of the Society, love for all man-
kind, devotion to search for truth, and belief in religious
freedom, as impressed upon entering members, were
almost word for word the same in the younger as in the
older society. Moreover, whenever the by-laws are re-
capitulated or revised they are spoken of as the ‘‘ ancient
laws,’’ or ‘‘original laws,’’ as though they were taken
over from an older body.” The members were, as has

9 Report, p. 116.
10 Report, pp. 56-7, 100, 101, 103-4.

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 193

been said, in three cases,—William Franklin, Philip
Syng and George Roberts,—sons of members of the
older body. In all cases that can be identified, they
were much younger men than the members of the old
Junto. This body, formed in 1750 in close imitation
and close personal connection with the body established
23 years before, ought therefore to be looked upon as
an offshoot of it, a younger branch, just such a body as
those five or six ‘‘subordinate clubs’’ described by
Franklin in his Autobiography as having been formed
in 1736 with the same rules as the parent Society.
This view of the case having been once accepted,
many pieces of miner evidence fall readily into place.
A letter from Cadwalader Colden to Wm. Franklin,
written in the same year as that of Thomson to Ben-
jamin Franklin, speaks twice of the ‘‘young Junto,”’
just as Franklin and Roberts speak of the ‘‘ancient
Junto.’ The word Junto, therefore, as applied to
both societies, may well have been looked upon as a
generic rather than a specific term. They were both
Juntos, an elder and a younger. So the later general
tradition, which is spoken of in the committee’s report,
of the connection of the American Philosophical So-
ciety with Franklin’s Junto may not have discrimi-
nated between the two forms of the Junto. Hven Dr.
Smith’s references in his address of 1791 may be ex-
plained as due to a misunderstanding of the relations
of the two societies, to which we now possess the clue

11 Report, pp. 138-9.

194 SEPARATE REPORT ON THE

through Franklin’s correspondence, but to which he
had no access.!”

It may in all fairness therefore be claimed that the
Philosophical Society is derived from the ancient Junto,
although through a younger branch. If the history of
our Society is followed back from 1769, one of its lines
of parentage, that of the Philosophical Society, as 1s
well known, goes back to 1743; the other in my opinion
goes back through the American Society and the
younger Junto, begun in 1750, to the parent of that
Society, the older Junto, established in 1727. The nar-
rative given in the report of the committee of October
15, 1841, seems to me to be a clear and correct statement
of the facts and the first, second, third, fourth, and
sixth clauses of their conclusion to be fully justified.
The fifth conclusion, however, the inference from these
facts that 1745 should be considered as the earliest date
of origin of the Society, does not seem to me to be justi-
fiable.’° If the ‘‘date of founding,’’ as it has been
formulated for the use of colleges by the Carnegie
foundation for the Advancement of Teaching means
“the year in which the institution was established out
of which the present college or university (institution),
has developed,’’ the Junto of 1750 certainly developed
out of the Junto of 1727, and the Society may claim its
descent through a younger line just as fairly as by
primogeniture, so that the date of origin of the Society

12 Report, pp. 141-2.
13 Report, pp. 53-96.

DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 195

should be considered that of the formation of Frank-
lin’s Junto, in 1727.
EK. P. CHEYNEY.

The question whether Franklin was ina proper sense
the founder of our Society is not in doubt. He founded
the American Philosophical Society of 1748. He founded
the Junto of 1727. The development of a junior Junto,
—if such a thing oceurred,—was unquestionably due to
the impetus of the older Junto; and the change of the
local Junto into a Society which included corresponding
members from other colonies was a mere broadening
of its purpose. In the sense of the ruling of the Car-
negie Foundation it is clear that when Franklin founded
his original Junto, he became the founder of the Ameri-
ean Society. He is admitted by all to be the founder of
the Philosophical Society. Our Society therefore owes
its origin to him on both sides.

CHARLEMAGNE 'TowEr,
JaMES T’, MITCHELL,
Mayer SULZBERGER,
SAMUEL Dickson,
Hampton L. Carson,
EK. P. CHEYNEY,
Francis B. GuMMERE,
W. W. Keen,

I. Minis Hays.

196 ACTION OF THE SOCIETY ON THE REPORT.

ACCEPTANCE OF THE REPORT

At the Stated Meeting of the Society held May 1,
1914, Hon. Charlemagne Tower, Chairman, presented
and read at length the report of the Committee on the —
Date of Origin of the Society.

On motion, by a unanimous vote, the Report was
accepted; the vear 1727 was declared to be the date of
the foundation of the Society, in accordance with the
finding of the Committee ; and the Committee was dis-
charged, with the thanks of the Society for its exhaus-
tive report.

Extracted from the Minutes.

7
a

Med
aay

-

~—.
oh
a

a7
i
=

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

P&A Sci,

: Kis
i en

ts
is

se
4
be.

t

A
+

oy

ey th
‘ nt af

Ned

Ay tee {
CAPRA
es

priihs
bid

5 Bek
thr NE

sa we
Oy

int

m7
5
ah

erties
be

sete
ESS Te ens
Pye 14 es nt

é

feck. aise eS
ae

vay “ Hage d
4859 bak acy
@ if

trae ate
anys fst
v :
itt ae
Be f
tera ahe
“ +g aS
5 is

&
Fy Soaks

util the

vee Sa ae.
ee ee
giv % PAS 5 ee i

a5.

es
ens Y

i)
.

Sas
-s
ees

‘ins gs
=.

AST

VFS

aes

a

Sian’

be
me
af