USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 14
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51
1 P. L. B. iii, T. P. to Hamilton, Aug. 27, 1750, Col. Rec., v, p. 423.
2 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp. iii, J. Hamilton to T. P., Jan. 2, 1749 ; R. Peters to T. P., May 16, 1749; Ibid., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, Aug. 2, 1749.
162
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [162
pressed their willingness to furnish suitable munitions for blockhouses and other fortifications.I
For the purpose of checking the encroachments of the French, it was determined in 1754 to build a fort on the site of the present city of Pittsburgh. Hence Gov. Dinwiddie of Virginia issued a proclamation, February 19, 1754, offering as an encouragement to volunteers, 300,000 acres on the east side of the Ohio, one-half of which was to adjoin the fort, and the other half was to lie on or near the Ohio. These lands were to be divided among the volunteers in order of merit at the completion of their term of service, and to be granted free of quit-rent for fifteen years. The proposition having been transmitted to Gov. Hamilton of Pennsylvania, that officer answered, March 13, 1754, that he believed the fort and lands were within Pennsylvania,2 and in behalf of the proprietors of- fered the territory on the same conditions. He asked Din - widdie for an acknowledgment of the proprietors' rights. Dinwiddie replied that the Virginia surveyors did not consider that the forks of the Monongahela lay within the grant to the Penns ; but he agreed to send a request to England to have the boundaries ascertained. If the territory was within Penn- sylvania, however, he thought it reasonable that the quit-rent should be paid to the proprietors, at the expiration of the specified fifteen years. As the fort was later captured by the French, the military grant never took place, but various settlements were made by permission of Virginia.3
The Penns desired to avoid giving the people of Virginia any reasonable cause for dissatisfaction. But at the same time they feared that the Virginians might get control of the trade on the Ohio, and through that be led to form just such settle- ments there. Hence they directed Gov. Hamilton to secure it,
1 P. L. B., iii, T. P. to Hamilton, March 9, 1752, and iv, to Peters, Aug. 13, 1755 ; Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, May 31, 1754.
2 Cf. Col. Rec. v, pp. 423-4, 758-62. 3 Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, pp. 130-2.
163
IN PENNSYLVANIA
163]
so far as that could be done without passing beyond the limits of the province. But as the western boundary had never been accurately surveyed, if surveyed at all, and as therefore its location was not definitely known, this injunction amounted to little. The Virginians made a formal treaty for trade with the Indians, though their declared intention was not to prevent them from trading with the other provinces. The proprietors feared lest the purchases of the company might become too extensive, since by building a fort and making other prepara- tions it had shown a purpose vigorously to push colonization. But it was not until about 1770 that the government of Vir- ginia began to take an active interest in its colony on the Ohio. The idea was then advanced that a new province in that region would promote British interests. The proprietors in turn be- gan to take active measures to have large tracts surveyed there, as well as to have the boundary lines run. But the settlers in that region were still so few that there seemed to be no imme- diate danger of a collision. Soon after, however, as the people commenced flocking in, disputes began between settlers from the two provinces. Thereupon the Penns petitioned the king, in April, 1773, to fix the western limits." Lord Dunmore, governor of Virginia, then came forward with a denial that Pittsburg was within the limits of Pennsylvania.2 This he based on the fact that at the request of Dinwiddie in 1754 Virginia had built forts on the Ohio. As the Pennsylvania assembly did not contribute toward the building of these forts, the plea was urged that it did not consider the territory on which the forts were located to be included within the bounds of
1 In 1772, a grant similar to that to the Ohio Company was made to an organ- ization of which Franklin was a prominent member. Franklin, Works, III, p. 69, et seq .; IV, p. 233, et seq., 302-374; VII, pp. 355-6.
2 Dunmore seems to have been actuated by a desire to arouse Virginia in oppo- sition to Pennsylvania, with a view to its possible effect on the approaching conflict between the colonies and the mother country. Indeed, for this purpose he spent some time at Pittsburgh. New York Col. Doc., viii, p. 209.
164
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [164
that province. In assertion of this claim the Virginia govern- ment assumed jurisdiction at Fort Pitt. Commissioners were sent from Pennsylvania to Virginia to induce Dunmore to join in applying to the crown for directions to run the line, and in the meantime to establish a temporary limit of jurisdiction, since by reason of the dispute about Fort Pitt the county of Westmoreland on the Pennsylvania frontier had been thrown into confusion. To the latter request Dunmore refused to accede, while to the former he would agree only on condition that Virginia should bear no part of the expense. Therefore, when a number of discontented settlers applied to him for pro- tection, he assumed control over most of Westmoreland county, thus extending his jurisdiction over territory some of which lay fifty miles within the limits of Pennsylvania. He placed in command a man named Connolly, who arbitrarily seized a number of the county magistrates and sent them to Virginia, but upon the protest of Governor Penn they were released.I
Dunmore ordered Fort Pitt to be rebuilt, though Dartmouth, the secretary of state, subsequently required its destruction lest its existence might needlessly offend the Indians. Dun- more then issued a proclamation,2 April 25, 1774, commanding the officers and militia at Fort Pitt to repel any insult offered by the Pennsylvania government, and enjoining the inhabitants to pay quit rent to the king.3 Lands were freely granted by the Virginia officials, and persons holding land presumably under the Pennsylvania title were in some cases dispossessed. It is not unlikely, however, that the excesses committed were
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., xi, Tilghman to Wilmot, July 18, 1774.
2 Fa. Arch., Ist series, iv, p. 490.
3 At the time the bill for settling the boundaries of Canada was before parlia- ment, the proprietors feared that these boundaries might be extended as far south as the Ohio. This would have cut off a large part of Pennsylvania. To their relief, however, a clause was inserted, providing that the boundaries of Canada should not affect any rights by charter, or any lands already granted. P. L. B., x, T. P. to Tilghman, June 16, 1774.
165
IN PENNSYLVANIA
165]
due more to petty feuds among the settlers themselves than to any direct acts of violence countenanced by the Virginia authorities.
In order to quiet these disturbances along the frontier, the Board of Trade ordered commissioners to be appointed to set- tle the boundaries, in which act it was desired that the adjoin- ing colonies should concur. In reply to the plea of the repre- sentatives from Pennsylvania for a temporary line of jurisdic- tion, Dunmore stated that the proprietors had not duly supported their claims against the French. Moreover, he believed that the words of the charter did not mean, as the Pennsylvania commissioners insisted, that the western boundary line should follow in general the winding and turning of the Delaware, but that a meridian line should be drawn five degrees west of that river, from the northern limit of the province to the Mason and Dixon boundary on the south. He reminded them at the same time that he was acting for the king. But the negotiations proved fruitless, each party accusing the other of faithlessness and dishonesty.2
In June, 1775, the Board of Trade revived the petition of the proprietors that the northern and western boundaries of the province might be settled. After it had considered the negotiations of the Pennsylvania commissioners with Dun- more, it expressed the opinion that a line of temporary juris- diction should be drawn due north from the mouth of Red- stone creek to the Ohio. It was disposed, however, to question the title of the Penns to the land in the vicinity of Fort Pitt, on account of their failure to provide for its defence. At the hearing before the Board it was answered that what- ever might be the opinion of the Board on this point at a time
1 The opinion of the proprietors evidently changed during the three years sub- sequent to 1771, because at that time they certainly favored a straight line as the western boundary of Pennsylvania. P. L. B., x, T. P. to Tilghman, Feb. 26, 1770; Wilmot to John Penn, Dec, 12, 1771.
2 Penn MSS., Penna. and Va., Dunmore to Tilghman and Allen, and vice versa, May, 1774.
1 66
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [166
when the situation of Fort Pitt was not ascertained, former presumption ought to give way to subsequent observation. It was urged that the Pennsylvania magistrates had exercised peaceable jurisdiction there, until driven away or imprisoned by Dunmore's officers. Therefore, the Penns thought it was unjust to put them in the position of plaintiffs, who were required to make out a title to lands against which no counter-title except force could be set up. They looked upon the Monongahela as a natural boundary about which the ingenuity of commissioners could not raise objections, as would be the case if a temporary line was run. Finding that the Board did not favor this proposi- tion, they offered to fix the Yohiogany river as a temporary boundary. This would still have included Fort Pitt within Pennsylvania, a fact that the Board was unwilling to allow. Hence the matter was postponed ; but on account of the out- break of the colonial revolt no further action was taken 1 Dur- ing the progress of the Revolution Virginia proposed that, in order to complete Pennsylvania's southern boundary, the Mason and Dixon line should be extended due west from the Delaware through five degrees of longitude, and that from the western extremity of this line another should be drawn due north to the northern limits of the state. These propositions were finally ratified in an agreement between the two states, dated April 11, 1784.2
IV New York.
THE locating of 43º north latitude caused some controversy with New York. As early as 1738 the attention of the Board of Trade had been called to the probability of disputes among the inhabitants on the border, when territory in that region should be settled.3 Thirteen years later, in answer to the
1 P. L. B., x, Juliana Penn to John Penn, April 15, 1775; Penn MSS., Penna. and Va.
2 Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, p. 132.
3 N. Y. Col. Doc., vi, p. 125.
167
IN PENNSYLVANIA
167]
Board of Trade's letter of that date desiring information con- cerning the boundaries of the several colonies, Gov. Hamilton of Pennsylvania stated that that province was bounded on the north by New York and a part of Lake Ontario, of Lake Erie, and of the country possessed by the Six Nations. This would make 43° fall about 40 miles north of Albany.I The governor of New York naturally interposed vigorous objections to such an opinion, and soon after granted a warrant of survey to Sir William Johnson and others for a huge tract of land on the eastern branch of the Susquehanna. Hamilton, believing that this territory was within the boundary of Pennsylvania as out- lined by the royal charter, requested Gov. Clinton to inform the warrantee that the proprietors preferred to have the north- ern boundary settled, but, if in any event the land should be surveyed, he desired that the proprietary officers might enter a caveat against the granting of any patent therefor. The proprietors then petitioned the king to order that the boundaries should be determined. Receiving no definite response, they told the Board of Trade that several of the inhabitants of New York had attempted to procure grants from the Indians, or patents from the governor of that province for lands within Pennsylvania territory, not for the purpose of settlement, but merely for speculation.2 The Board, however, did not see fit to take any steps in the matter.
Knowing that the authorities of New York expected to fix the northern boundary of Pennsylvania at 42º north lati- tude, the proprietors in 1755 hinted to Robert H. Morris, gov- ernor of the latter province, that, when a purchase should be made from the Indians, it would be advisable to have the northern boundary of Pennsylvania extended without mention of any particular degree, lest thereby they should lose any
1 At the same time he wrote to Gov. Clinton, of New York, that he believed 43º was not much south of the latitude of Albany. This shows how vague were the ideas of latitude and longitude. Ibid., p. 748; Hoyt, Syllabus, etc., p. 40.
2 P. L. B., iii, T. P. to Peters, Oct. 27, 1752; to Halifax, Aug. 14, 1753.
I68
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [168
part of the three degrees intended by the royal charter.I This plan seems to have been followed in subsequent purchases, in 1758 and 1768.2 Occasionally grants of land within territory claimed by the Penns were made by the governor of New York. Against this practice they petitioned the king in 1773, and again in 1775. In the latter year, at the suggestion of the Board of Trade, commissioners appointed by the governors of both provinces selected a stone on an island in the Delaware River, from which the northern boundary of Pennsylvania should be determined.3
After the Revolution commissioners were again appointed, March 31, 1785, to ascertain the northern line; but the line they ran in 1787 terminated a few miles south of Lake Erie. Considerable dissatisfaction resulted, for local surveyors had fixed a line several miles north of that of the commissioners. Hence in October 1788, by permission of Congress, the Penn- sylvania assembly authorized the supreme executive council of the state to purchase the Indian title to the territory in- cluded between the lines; and the following year the Indians ceded the region as far north as Lake Erie. This, agreeably to the cession from New York and Massachusetts to the United States, was bounded on the east by the west line of New York. The line as fixed at 42° was ratified by both states, September 29, 1789.4
2 We have seen in the discussion of the Maryland dispute that the parallels 400 and 430 were regarded as beginning the fortieth and forty-third degrees. This being the case, the proprietors by charter would be entitled, according to the lim- ited geographical knowledge of 1681, to all territory as far as about fifteen miles north of the present city of Binghamton. Properly speaking, however, the paral. lel 420 begins the forty-third degree.
2 Pa. Arch., Ist series, ii, pp. 370-1; Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, p. 122.
3 Penn MSS., Fenna. and Va., Petition of Thomas and John Penn, March, 1773, and February, 1775 ; and Board of Trade Report, June 1, 1775; Ibid., Offic. Corresp., xi, J. P. to Wilmot, Jan. 30, 1775.
$ Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, p. 130.
PART II
GOVERNMENT
١
CHAPTER I
THE IDEA OF WILLIAM PENN.
HAVING completed our review of the land system of Penn- sylvania, we may now examine somewhat at length the char- acteristics of the government proper. In other words, we turn from the territorial side of the proprietary system to its governmental side. As we are dealing with an organic struc- ture, it follows from the very nature of the subject, that terri- torial relations and government cannot always be clearly distinguished. A boundary line, clear and plain at all points, cannot be drawn between them. It was often through gov- ernmental action that the territorial system was regulated, while on the other hand, political struggles frequently arose out of questions connected with the proprietary estates. But, though one cannot in all respects clearly distinguish between two spheres of activity, it is possible to do this satisfactorily in the main, and along broad and familiar lines. Under the head of government fall naturally the powers, purpose, and policy of the proprietors, and the effects that changes in the condition and make-up of the proprietary family had on these. There belongs the discussion of the proprietary charters or frames of government, those documents of fundamental importance by which the proprietor limited and defined the exercise of his powers. The description of the organs of government, their functions and relations, the social elements and political ten- dencies which were operative among the colonists, the way in which colonists and proprietors came into collision, all these matters are properly treated under the head of government. In close connection with these lies the history of the contro-
171]
171
I72
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [172
versies between the proprietors, or their deputy governors, and the assembly, the body through which popular sentiment found expression. These disputes constitute much of the political history of the province, the part in fact which is of chief importance for our purpose. Finally comes the outline of relations with the home government, and the culmination of the disputes between proprietors and people, which, when taken in connection with the revolt of the colonies, led to the collapse of the proprietary system.
We have thus indicated the field which must be covered in the course of the discussion of government in Pennsylvania. In order to show with what powers of government William Penn and his sons were invested, it will be proper to cite the provisions of the royal charter which bore directly thereon. In the preamble is stated the desire of William Penn to enlarge the British empire, and thereby to promote the advancement of its trade and commerce, and his intention to educate the savages carefully in the principles of Christianity. Then fol- lows his request to be granted the territory, to transport a colony, and to be endowed with whatever powers might be requisite for its safety and good government. To this end the proprietor, his heirs, deputies and lieutenants, were given power to make and under their respective seals to publish any laws with the advice and approbation of the freemen, or of the majority of them, or of their representatives, who should be assembled as often as necessary, and in such form as to the proprietor and themselves should seem best. But for matters that might require a remedy before the assembly could be summoned, the power to issue ordinances was granted to the proprietor and his deputies. Such ordinances, however, should be reasonable, and so far as possible in accordance with the laws of England, and were not to injure personal or property rights. In order to insure the allegiance of the proprietor and of the freemen, the charter provided moreover that neither the proprietor nor the freemen should maintain correspondence
I73
IN PENNSYLVANIA
173]
with any king, prince or state in war against England; nor should they commit any act of hostility to any power in amity with England. Secondly, a duplicate of all laws should within five years after their enactment be sent to the Privy Council in England. If any of the laws so transmitted should within six months after the date of their reception be declared inconsistent with or contrary to the sovereignty or lawful pre- rogative of the crown, the laws, statutes and rights of England, or the faith and allegiance of the grantees and of the freemen, and therefore adjudged void by the crown under privy seal, then such laws should be considered repealed. But if they were not so annulled within the time specified, they should remain in full force. Thirdly, the grantee should appoint an agent to reside in or near London, who should be ready to appear in any court at Westminster to answer for misde- meanors, willful faults, or neglect permitted against the laws of trade. After damages had been ascertained, the grantee should within a year make full satisfaction therefor. Until this was done it was declared lawful for the crown to seize the government, but this proceeding should not affect private rights.
The right was also given to the proprietor and his lieuten- ants to appoint judges and all other officers, and to endow them with suitable powers, to establish judicial tribunals, and to outline their functions and forms of procedure. Judg- ments rendered by these tribunals should be absolute and available in law, but the crown should have the right to hear ap- peals from Pennsylvania against such judgments. The power of granting pardons was also given except in cases of treason and murder, when a reprieve should be allowed until the royal pleasure thereon was known. Moreover, full privileges of commerce and transportation were granted to the proprietor and the inhabitants of the province. To the proprietor also was given the right to establish harbors, seaports and the like, and to receive the customs and subsidies therein, as assessed by himself and the freemen. Officers appointed by the com-
I74
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [174
missioners of customs, however, should be permitted to attend to their duties in these ports. No taxes, except those which were customary or which might be levied by act of parliament, should be imposed upon the proprietor and the freemen. Power was also given to Penn to divide the country into counties, hundreds and towns, to erect and incorporate towns into boroughs, and boroughs into cities, " with all convenient privileges and immunities according to the merits of the in- habitants, and the fitness of the places." He was likewise en- trusted with the powers of captain-general, to levy, train, and muster the inhabitants, and to wage war even beyond the ter- ritorial limits of the province. At the solicitation of the Bishop of London, a clause was also introduced into the charter commanding that, when twenty or more of the inhabitants should so desire, ministers approved by that ecclesiastic should be sent to Pennsylvania. All officers of the crown were commanded to assist the proprietor when necessary, and, in event of misunderstanding, the interpretation of any word or clause should be most favorable to Penn.
Being in possession of these powers, Penn was now ready to found his colony in America. The occasion of his application to the crown for permission to found a colony has already been described. The cause lay much deeper. The character of William Penn, it may be said, has suffered as much at the hands of his friends and eulogists, as it has under the sharp thrusts of Macaulay's hostile criticism.' He may be briefly characterized as a seventeenth-century idealist of the more at- tractive and genial type, one whose knowledge was as exten- sive as his piety, whose reputation as a courtier2 was second
1 Macaulay, History of England (Porter and Coates Ed.), i, pp. 456-8, 585, 590; ii, 206, 221, 268, 273, 277 ; iii, 524; iv, 105, 139.
2 Ibid .; Chalmers' Political Annals of the Revolted Colonies, p. 635. Refer- ring to the contest with Lord Baltimore, William Penn, in 1684, wrote to the Mar- quis of Halifax ( Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., i, pt. ii, p. 421), " I only pray that my case may be remembered and recommended to the king by my noble friend, the Mar-
175
IN PENNSYLVANIA
175]
only to his capacity for religious enthusiasm, and who, though benevolent, never lost sight of private advantage. Though the grant of Pennsylvania was made partly in payment of a debt, the chief object of Penn in establishing the colony was certainly not pecuniary gain." He perceived that the vast wilderness of which he had become proprietor, must for an indefinite time be a source of vexation and expense. Still, his philanthropic schemes did not entirely exclude the thought of gain.2
quis of Halifax. I am not to be blamed for this liberty, when it shall be consid- ered how great a place his wit, honor and abilities have with the king, and how much and with what success he has acted the friend to my poor concerns." Writ- ing to another courtier about the same time, he spoke with pride about the " station in which it had pleased his imperial majesty to place him in his American empire." Referring again to Baltimore, he said, " I tell them that our great Justinian must issue this difference, take this fort, and get the victory." Ibid., iv, pt. i, p. 183 et seq. Any one at all acquainted with the character of Charles II. will at once perceive the adulation and flattery in this reference to him as the " great Justin- ian." Such a tone of deferential humility toward courtiers and crown appears in bold contrast to his supposed renunciation as a Quaker of all worldly titles and blandishments.
] The fact that Penn died in comparative poverty, and endeavored to dispose of the government of the province to the crown, is a sufficient answer to Benjamin Franklin's sneer, that the proprietor united " the subtlety of the serpent with the innocence of the dove." Works, iii, p. 123.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.