Part 36

Footnote 148:

John and George Ross, Esqrs. lawyers of great respectability, and brothers; the former a resident in Philadelphia; the latter in Lancaster. Mr. George Ross was a member of the first congress; and was appointed by the assembly on the 5th of April, 1775, judge of the admiralty-court for Pennsylvania.

Footnote 149:

Edward Biddle, Esq. a lawyer of eminence, and a representative in assembly for the county of Berks, in which he resided. This gentleman was one of the delegates appointed to the congress of the 10th of May, 1775, under an unanimous resolution of the assembly, passed in December, 1774; but, having succeeded Mr. Galloway as speaker of that house, in the session of 1774-5, he did not take his seat in congress, with his colleagues. These were John Dickinson, Charles Humphreys, John Morton, George Ross, Thomas Mifflin, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Willing and James Wilson, Esqrs.

Footnote 150:

Emanuel Carpenter, Esq. long a respectable member of assembly from Lancaster county.

Footnote 151:

Thomas Minshull, Esq. a respectable member of the house, from York county.

Footnote 152:

The Hon. John Penn.—This worthy gentleman, a grandson of the celebrated William Penn, was lieutenant-governor of Pennsylvania, under the chief proprietaries of the province, from October 1763, to May 1771; and again, from August 1773, until the revolution.

-----

“Yet, my dear friend,” adds Dr. Smith, “I fear this bill will not pass; and the Governor may be reduced to the hard dilemma, of even striking out the name he would wish in, if he had the nomination himself. The house insist on putting the names in the bill, before it goes up: the Governor contends, that he ought to have at least a share in the nomination. This matter has been long litigated. The governor, to maintain his right, always strikes out some names—even though he approves of them, and puts in others. This he did last year, and put in the name of Dr. M——, and the other trustee now in the bill. The house would not admit his amendment, then; but now, this year, they take two of the very men the governor had appointed last year, vote them in themselves, and join Mr. Rittenhouse with them. The governor cannot well negative any of those approved by him, before; yet he must negative some one, to assert his right;—and I believe it would really give him pain, if that one should be David.

“I am thus particular,” continues the Doctor, “that you may understand the whole, and not think our friend slighted by the government, even if this thing should not succeed. All the council are hearty for Mr. Rittenhouse; and if he does not get this matter, he will not be long without something else. But I hope some expedient may be hit upon, to compromise the matter, should the bill not have faults in itself, that may set it aside.”

-----

Footnote 153:

The proprietary’s and governor’s council, consisting of James Hamilton, William Allen, Joseph Turner, William Logan, Richard Peters (D. D.), Lynford Lardner, Benjamin Chew, Thomas Cadwallader, Richard Penn, James Tilghman, Andrew Allen, and Edward Shippen, jun. Esquires. Joseph Shippen, jun. Esquire, officiated many years as provincial secretary and clerk of the council.

-----

The warm and sincere interest which Mr. Barton took in every thing that seemed likely to promote the welfare of his brother-in-law, was manifested on this occasion. In his answer to Dr. Smith’s letter, written a week after, he says: “Your letter by Mr. Slough was so truly obliging and friendly, that I cannot think of words strong enough to express my gratitude. Rittenhouse, I trust, will always be sensible of the favours you have shewn him, and of the uncommon pains you have taken to serve him on this occasion, which have been represented to me, fully, by Mr. Slough. Accept then, dear sir, my most hearty thanks for your kind offices in behalf of Mr. Rittenhouse. Accept of my wife’s best thanks, also — —. She shed tears of gratitude, when she read your letter, (for her attachment to her brother David is very great,) and declared, in a high strain of enthusiasm, that Dr. Smith was the most steady friend and obliging man that ever lived; that she should honour and respect him, while living, and, should she survive him, would always revere his memory. Thus it was, that the sister of your ‘optical and mathematical’ friend expressed herself on the occasion.”

-----

Footnote 154:

Matthias Slough, Esq. who served several years with reputation as a representative in the assembly, from the county of Lancaster.

-----

Notwithstanding the fair prospects which Mr. Rittenhouse thus had, in the beginning of the year 1770, of being enabled to establish himself in Philadelphia, with a handsome salary of 200l. per annum from the government, in addition to such funds as he might reasonably calculate on acquiring, in that capital, by his professional occupation, both he and his friends were disappointed, in regard to the contemplated official station: The assembly rose, as Dr. Smith seemed to have anticipated a very short time before, without passing the loan-office bill.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s actual removal into the city, in the succeeding autumn, appears to have been made in pursuance of a previous determination more recently formed; one founded on some plan, not liable to be affected by such contingencies as have been just noticed. Prior to that period, his Orrery was nearly if not quite completed: for it appears by a letter which he wrote to Mr. Barton from Norriton, on the 12th of May preceding his removal to the city, that the trustees of Nassau-Hall, in New-Jersey, had then agreed on some terms with him, as the inventor, maker, and proprietor, for the purchase of it. The trustees of the College of Philadelphia had likewise been in treaty with him, for the same purpose: but the Princeton College succeeded in their negociation, and thus acquired the property of the Orrery first constructed.

-----

Footnote 155:

On the 4th of Feb. 1770, he mentioned to Mr. Barton his then contemplated removal into that city, in these terms—“Dr. Smith, to whom I am indebted for many kindnesses, is very urgent to have me come to Philadelphia to reside, which it is probable I may do shortly: but I am not yet determined. If I live to write again, you shall know more of my mind; in the mean time, I shall be glad to have your opinion of the matter.”

Footnote 156: