In the discussion in the assembly two men whose future careers were important factors in history were prominent exponents of the two sides.

John Dickinson was perhaps the most influential American through the pre-revolutionary days. He was the son of a planter whose home was on the eastern shore of Maryland. The father was desirous that his son should be well educated, and partly for this purpose bought a large estate near Dover, Delaware, when John was eight years old. Here he became judge of the county court and a man of prominence. For the next ten years the boy was under the care of a tutor who filled his mind with high ideals and aided him to secure an English style remarkably simple, elegant, and effective, which no one of his day, except, perhaps, Franklin, equalled, and which made him easily the "Penman of the Revolution."

Ten years of close legal and historical study followed in the Philadelphia office of the first lawyer of the day, in the Inns of Court of London, and again in his own modest start at practice in Philadelphia. His well-trained and logical mind, his conservative and orderly tendencies, and his Quaker associations made him a valuable recruit to the cause of moderate resistance which was to characterize the Pennsylvania colonists.

His interests were political rather than legal, and for a political career he had equipped himself by a painstaking preparation in historical and logical study. In 1760 he was made a member of the Delaware Assembly, and two years later, at the age of thirty, of that of Pennsylvania.

It required not a little fortitude for this young student of law, with his fortune to make, to come out on the unpopular side. In an elegant and cogent speech he made not a defence of the proprietaries, whose conduct he admitted to be indefensible, but a plea against the worse evils of royal government to which the people were exposing themselves. He pleaded for the old charter and the liberties it gave them, and asked if in any of the royal colonies there was much real freedom. He hinted at a possible church establishment and

a standing army, and pertinently asked whether the crown had not supported the proprietaries in their worst claims. "In seeking a precarious, hasty, violent remedy for the present partial disorder we are sure of exposing the whole body to danger."

Few would say in the light of following events that Dickinson was wrong. The proprietaries were better masters than the king would have been, but the assembly was guided by present feelings. Its position was expressed by the gentleman who was to make the reply to the effective argument just delivered.

Joseph Galloway was also a native of Maryland, and had come to Philadelphia to practise law, in which he was eminently successful. He was learned, rich, and conservative; and till his espousal of the British side in the Revolution drove him from the country, an influential citizen. His argument was devoted to showing that neither policy nor character would be likely to induce such a king as George III. and such a parliament as the English Parliament to do anything to destroy the liberties of the province. Colonial success in the future would be dependent on the proper treatment of existing colonies. The king was a good king, and the parliament a just and friendly parliament.

The two speeches were issued for popular consumption. Dickinson's introduction was written by Provost Smith, and Galloway's by Franklin.

When the vote was taken only three assemblymen stood with Dickinson.

The election of 1764 was fought out on this issue. The proprietary party rallied all its forces and defeated Franklin and Samuel Rhoads in the city of Philadelphia, by the narrow margin of twenty-five votes in four thousand polled, and Galloway also lost his place. On the other side, Dickinson was defeated, and did not return till 1770, when events had vindicated his position. On the whole, a slight gain of votes was made by the proprietary party, though they still had not more than one-third the assembly. Franklin, though bitterly opposed by them, was made agent to present

the subject to the king and his advisers, and immediately sailed to England.

In the mean time party spirit had cooled; the wisdom of the movement became a matter of doubt in the minds of sober men. Quakers recovered their veneration for the old charter, and finally the assembly directed Franklin to move cautiously and to secure all proper liberties to the people before making the transfer. Indeed, they authorized him not to present the matter at all if circumstances seemed unfavorable.

The resolutions never passed out of Franklin's hands. When he reached England every one was talking of the Stamp Act. It was no time to enlarge the powers of the crown. Though succeeding assemblies endorsed the change, there was no serious complaint that their agent did not press the business to success. The events which followed in rapid succession drove it from the public mind.