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, William Parsons, William 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, 

 Vol. I, p. 1.38.)] In all 22 [23]. 1 Sparks 81, et. seq. 



