USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 16
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
188
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [188
demand for greater security, and whenever he renewed his appeal for aid the same conditions were offered.I
In 1694 and 1696 he again confirmed the accounts, which now aggregated £10,202, 8s. 7d. In September of the latter year he desired Ford to give him a defeasance of the absolute conveyance of 1690. Ford agreed to consider his request, and prevailed upon him to sign another account of £10,347, 15s. 5d. Then Ford on the pretense that, though the deed of Sep- tember, 1690, was absolute, still it was intended solely as security for the £6,900, induced the proprietor to sign a gen- eral release of all accounts, claims, and demands, as well as ot the equity of redemption in the province and territories. How- ever, he agreed to give Penn a defeasance by which, if the proprietor, by March 30, 1697, would pay £10,657, the prin- cipal and interest of £10,347, 15s. 5d for six months at 3 per cent., the estate should be reconveyed. Penn assented to the terms, and gave a bond of £20,000 for payment of the money at the time specified. Ford, now, armed with all these deeds and having the proprietor at his mercy could afford to be gen- erous. Hence, in return he gave Penn a copy of all the ac- counts, and promised verbally that if any material error was found, that it should be made good in spite of the release for all claims.2
It seems that parliament had laid a tax on money at in- terest. Ford therefore told Penn that the money due for the province would be liable to taxation, and that this could be prevented only by Penn making an absolute conveyance of the province and territories. On his part, in order that the
1 Fletcher, the royal governor in 1693, said, concerning this request, " Some meetings have been about it, and it is reported that however much they appear his friends, they stagger when he comes near their purses. Those that are able want better security, and those that are not secure themselves saying they would if they could." N. Y. Col. Doc., iv, p. 35. See also Fenn and Logan Corresp., ii, pp. 225.
2 Penn MSS., Ford vs. Penn.
189
IN PENNSYLVANIA
189]
possession of the proprietor might not be disturbed, he promised to lease the premises to Penn for three years at an annual rent of £630, the compound interest of £10,347, 15s. 5d. reckoned every six months at 3 per cent.1 With some hesitation Penn stipulated in the presence of Ford and his wife that, notwithstanding what might be agreed upon between the parties, the premises should continue only as a mortgage; secondly, that the transaction should be kept concealed and should not hinder the sale of land ; thirdly, that Ford would never demand payment except as Penn could se- cure it from the province ; and lastly, that Ford should execute to Penn a deed containing a clause for the redemption of the premises, on the basis of a mortgage, but not by a defeasance. Thereupon, the proprietor, thinking himself safe in the posses- sion of the accounts, and unable to pay the £10,657, executed, April 1, 1697, an indenture of absolute release and a confirma- tion of all the premises. At the same time he gave to the Fords the royal charter and deeds of enfeoffment. Then Ford on the following day leased to Penn the province and terri- tories on the terms that had just been suggested. Eight days later he entered into an agreement with Penn that, as he was anxious to sell the premises, and in consideration of the diffi- culty of raising money, as well as of Penn's own desire to purchase the premises, he would sell the province and terri- tories to him for £12,714, 5s., payable at the expiration of three years.2 Penn believed that his conveyance of April I, 1697, made Ford simply a trustee for himself, except so far as any money was actually due to the steward. However this may be, Ford's influence was still paramount. Just before sailing on his last voyage to the province in August 1699, Penn went to take leave of the steward and his wife. After a whispered consultation, these worthies demanded that he
1 " I then not so much as suspected the baseness and extortion of the account." Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 101.
2 Penn MSS., Ford vs. Penn; Penn and Legan Corresp., ii, pp. 100-101.
190
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [190
should give up the agreement of September 29, 1696, which had allowed the proprietor the inspection of the accounts, as well as reparation for any injury caused by errors therein. He did not have it with him at the time, and strenuously op- posed the demand. Then Ford threatened to stop the pro- posed voyage, to proclaim that the province was mortgaged to himself, and by other threats and assurances called upon the proprietor to sign another written document. Penn begged him to be silent, and on Ford's assurance that it would not hinder an examination of the accounts, signed the document. This stated that, as no errors had been found in the accounts, the proprietor thereby agreed to release Ford from any obli- gations.
In 1699 the steward by will devised to his wife and cer- tain trustees Pennsylvania and the territories, to be sold for the benefit of his wife and children, unless within six months Penn should pay £11,134, 8s. 3d., together with all debts and arrears of rent. In this case the trustees should reconvey the province and territories to the proprietor. It was provided, however, that this privilege should not extend to Penn's heirs in case of his death, or give him or his heirs any equity of re- demption.1 After his father died Philip Ford went to Penn- sylvania and, in May 1701, demanded that Penn should pay the rent, or if he did not, the fact of the mortgage would be immediately published. The proprietor quieted him by a small payment, and he returned to England.2 Penn soon fol- lowed him, and under pressure from the Fords, agreed to have his lease continued.
In 1702 the proprietor desired to refer the matter to impar- tial persons, but after three years of negotiation the Fords re- fused. Thereupon Penn complained to the London Meeting. That body in 1705 appointed some of its members to induce
1 Penn MSS., Ford vs. Penn.
2 Ibid .; Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 95.
191
IN PENNSYLVANIA
191]
Mrs. Ford to accede to Penn's request, or at least to cease pros- ecuting him until the matter could be adjusted. The request was again refused. Hence the meeting declared it would hold no further communication with the Fords until they yielded. Penn and his son in November, 1705, were thus forced to pro- ceed against them by a bill in Chancery. This was just what the Fords most desired, for it is very probable that their unwillingness to allow an examination of the accounts was based on the hope that, in the proceedings in Chancery, their in- justice would not be considered. In the bill it was stated that Penn, by reason of his confidence in Ford, had to his prejudice signed several specified documents both before and after the steward's decease. For the sake of bringing matters to an accommodation, however, he confined himself particularly to Ford's excessive charges. He admitted he had mortgaged the premises as security to Ford, but asserted that he had re- served the right to sell a certain amount of land. For the quan- tities thus sold he had received £2,000, and had paid Ford £615. Because the steward did not receive the remainder at once, he had added £1385 to his former accounts and charged the usual 8 per cent. Moreover, Penn was charged with £1,200 put into the stock of the Free Society of Traders, but an inspection of the books of this organization showed that Penn was credited with only £500. He stated further in the bill that he had been charged with the rent of the province for five years, 1697-1702, and that of this sum he had promised to pay £2528, IIS. 2d., on condition that the payment should not prevent an examination of the accounts, or be construed to ratify the conveyance of the province in 1697, or continue to make him a tenant. He pleaded that the document of 1699 was obtained by fraud. He claimed that several sums had been entered in the account as money advanced, but for which he had given no orders. He declared that Ford by the last conveyance was merely a trustee, and that Mrs. Ford, though fully aware of this circumstance, had prevailed on her husband
4
192
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[192
so to alter his will as to make the deed of release of April I, 1697, an absolute title. As, however, the proof of its being a mortgage was rather meagre, Penn relied chiefly on the agree- ment for the sale of the premises back to him, and the fact that the rent reserved was exactly the interest of the sum pretended to be due. He believed the Fords should have 6 per cent. on all money advanced, 1/2 per cent. commission on receipts and payments, 272 per cent. commission on all goods to be bought and sold as mentioned in the accounts, and £40 annual salary, as well as interest on the above at the legal rate. The Fords demanded upward of £14,000. Penn was willing to pay £4,300. Hence the plaintiffs asked for relief against the many errors in the accounts, amounting as they believed to over £10,000. Lastly, they desired the privilege of redeeming the premises, and of paying no more for the redemption than should appear to be due by a thorough examination of all the accounts, but without reference to the various mortgages and other documents.
In April, 1706, Penn presented a petition to the chancellor for an injunction to stay the defendant's proceedings in the Exchequer on the account of £20,000. This was granted. The Fords immediately filed a bill against Penn to extinguish his claim of redemption and to have the estate sold according to the will for the benefit of the heirs. This being answered by Penn, the Fords in June entered a plea and demurrer. In this they denied Penn's statements concerning the circum- stances under which he had executed the several deeds, and asserted that it was not material what Mrs. Ford said or did under coverture. They offered in evidence all these deeds, as well as Penn's agreements not to examine the accounts. But they made no special claim prior to the date of release in 1697. They declared that Penn had threatened to continue the suit in Chancery indefinitely, so that they should be deprived of their money. They stated finally that, under the circumstances, the plaintiffs should not be allowed the right of redemption,
193
IN PENNSYLVANIA
193]
and that the agreements aforesaid had precluded any examina- tion of the accounts. But if the court should judge the estate redeemable, they desired that the £10,658, with the interest due upon the various accounts, should be paid in full. The case was ably argued by several prominent lawyers. But the chancellor decided that the existence of so many settlements of accounts and of assurances by the various deeds precluded any inspection of the accounts, and intimated that, unless the matter could be peaceably compromised, the sum mentioned with costs would be decreed against the plaintiffs. The Penns introduced another bill in December, but in May, 1707, the chancellor again declared that, however unreasonable the ac- counts might be, in consideration of the repeated deeds and confirmations he would not set such a precedent as might be established by unravelling the account. Hence the Penns were advised to proceed no further.' The Fords, elated at their prospect of success and supported by the proprietor's enemies in England, early in 1706 ordered Isaac Norris, David Lloyd and John Moore, who were supposed to be Penn's greatest enemies in the province, to forbid any payment of rents to the proprietary officers and to receive the rents them- selves. A little later in the same year they were entrusted with full powers to dispose of land. Norris refused to serve, but Lloyd and Moore at a meeting of the commissioners of property, produced copies of the deeds, Ford's will and Mrs. Ford's power of attorney. Then Lloyd, who was in constant communication with the Fords, made generally known the orders that had been sent and the proceedings in Chancery, and hence the payment of rents to the proprietor was seriously checked.2
1 Penn MSS., Ford vs. Penn; Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, pp. 109, 163, 174- 179, 237.
2 " Cherish or threaten tenants as they give occasion for either," wrote Penn to Logan, June 10, 1707, " and get the governor and the best of my friends, who I bless God are the best, to bestir themselves, and browbeat that villainous fellow, David
194
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[194
Norris shortly after sailed for England, only to find upon his arrival that Mrs. Ford and the trustees had commenced a suit in the Common Pleas against Penn for the arrears of rent due since 1697. The proprietor, however, did not appear very ap- prehensive about it. Norris called his attention to the confusion that would arise if no security was offered for lands sold by him since his deed to Ford in 1697, and hinted at the unpleas- ant reflections that might result from his persistence in con- cealing the gravity of the affair, or in remaining reticent toward those who wished to befriend him.' To this Penn replied that he was not silent as to the expense of the business, and had always insisted upon the approbation of Ford in all sales of land. Moreover, he expressed great confidence in his right to equity of redemption, and attempted to minimize the danger arising from the mortgage.2 Then Norris endeavored to treat with the Fords. He found them insolent and boast- ful over the advantage the law had given them, and unwilling to make concessions.3 Their arrogance was heightened a few weeks later by a verdict in the Common Pleas for nearly £3000. Thereupon the proprietor was arrested and confined in Fleet prison.4
To crown all, in January 1708, the Fords appealed to Queen Anne in the name of the widowed and fatherless. They cited the deed of 1697, the proceedings in Chancery, and the
Lloyd. . .. If I only had supplies, I could bear up till matters came to an issue with the Fords." Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, pp. 228-9, 167, 254, 265.
' It is probable that one of the chief reasons of Norris' errand was to ascertain the exact nature of the transactions; for even to Logan, his confidential agent, the proprietor never revealed all the circumstances, and in 1705 wrote, " Philip Ford's business is only a mortgage." Ibid., ii, p. 95.
2 Ibid., p. 198.
3 Speaking of Philip Ford, Norris said : " He has no great depth of his own ; but his language bore the mark of his mother's character in cunning caution, or the craft of lawyers that have not yet reaped their part of the crop." Ibid., p. 210.
4 Penn MSS., Ford vs. Penn; Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, pp. 237, 251, 255.
195
IN PENNSYLVANIA
195]
judgment in the Common Pleas. They complained that, whereas the duration of the deed of 1697 was only three years, Penn was now in possession of the province. They declared that they could not obtain satisfaction, as Penn had no estate in England, and was confined for debt in the Fleet prison. In order to prevent the partiality or opposition of proprietary officers, they desired that, by letters patent or otherwise as the queen might see fit, they might be put in pos- session of both the land and the government of the prov- ince and territories.ª By order in council the petition was referred to the chancellor to examine the allegations of the petitioners, and to report to the queen a statement of the case, together with his opinion as to what was proper to be done. In the hearing before the chancellor, Sir Edward Northey, the attorney for the proprietor, showed that the language of the deeds gave Ford no power of government, and that, as no decree had issued from Chancery, the property was not yet alienated. He declared that the Fords had deceived the queen in stating that they had recovered their rights in the courts, and that, even if this was the case, equity of redemption re- mained. He did not believe that the queen could grant them possession, for the law should determine property between subject and subject. Hence a suit should be commenced in the courts of Pennsylvania. The chancellor concurred in this view, notwithstanding the objections of the attorney-general, Sir Simon Harcourt, who had been retained by the Fords. He decided, moreover, that the queen had no right to grant the government, " for," said he, "it would not be decent to make government ambulatory, as Penn might speedily pay the sum demanded, or might have his plea of abatement in the accounts granted, in which case the queen might be petitioned to put
1 The Fords " produced the proclamation made by Charles II., at the time of the grant, that the people should yield obedience to William Penn as an example that the like might be to Governor Philip, or Governess Bridget now." Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, pp. 262-3.
196
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[196
him in the government again." The petition was therefore dismissed.1
The Fords were now willing to listen to proposals of com- promise. Logan had often told the proprietor to state his case to the queen and to offer the government for a compensation to pay off his encumbrances. In 1706 he advised Penn to make over the province to mortgagees who would furnish whatever sums might be needful, and who, with Penn's ap- probation, should appoint persons to sell lands in Pennsylvania in sufficient quantity to satisfy their claims. When they were satisfied, the province should revert to its original owner. In pursuance of this suggestion, as has been previously noted, Norris entered into negotiations with the Fords; but for fear of injuring their cause in Chancery, they did not wish to accept less than £14,000. Norris saw the necessity of em- ploying some means to remove the malicious intentions of the Fords to expose the proprietor to insult and ridicule. After a conference with Penn, he suggested to Logan that the quit- rents or manors might be taken as security by several wealthy London merchants. Logan replied that measures were slowly being taken to raise subscriptions in the province, but the security expected was similar to that which he himself had proposed the year previous.2 Many of the proprietor's friends then warmly expoused his cause. They redoubled their efforts to obtain a compromise with the Fords. They threatened to appeal to the queen or to parliament to have the accounts examined, and the exorbitant demands reduced. But the more conservative favored concession. Some proposed to take the province, and allow the proprietor £500 annually
1 Penn MSS., Ford vs. Penn; Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 263.
2 " They have spread reports about the country that he is a prisoner in the Fleet, and are bold with his reputation in all their discourse of him. E. Hartwell, Jos. and Sylvanus Grove, with others whose names I've forgot, have perused the whole accounts from the beginning, and declare they never saw nor heard of the like extortion." Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p, 238. See also pp. 167, 210, 225.
197
IN PENNSYLVANIA
197]
until the mortgage could be paid off. Penn immediately be- sought his friends in the province to advance £5,000, so that he " might come and live among them till death." 1
Meanwhile Norris and other friends of the proprietor met Ford and induced him to promise that, if Penn would agree to be bound in good security to pay whatever was awarded, he would consent to leave the matter to referees. But when Penn was busied in finding bondsmen, Mrs. Ford pretended that her son had never made any such agreement, and he immediately corroborated her statement.2 Then a man named Meade, a known enemy of Penn, consented to arrange a com- promise with the Fords. A conference for this purpose re- sulted in a note from Philip Ford stating that he could not clear Penn from the encumbrances and establish him in the government, until the grievances of the people were redressed. He insisted that Penn should sign a paper to this effect. But the proprietor refused, lest thereby an admission of many unjust charges should be made. Indeed the Fords hoped that he would give up in despair, remain in the Fleet, and allow them to do as they chose.3 But Penn speedily disap- pointed their expectations. He endeavored to secure a loan of £7,000 from the lord treasurer. Failing in this, he in- duced several London merchants to advance him £6,600. Thereupon he made a final offer of £7,600 to the Fords.
1 Fenn and Logan Corresp., ii, pp. 223, 228, 234.
2 Her character is still further shown by her offer to sell the province to Norris, and then after Penn had been imprisoned, by her threatening to force Norris to tell all he knew about the proprietor's affairs. Even Norris himself was over- reached by this woman, who in spite of the fact that she was bedridden, retained all the cunning and deceit of her younger days. See Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, pp. 237, 257.
3 " Whatever grievances we have or complaints to make," wrote Norris in 1707, " it has always been my opinion they should be asked in a civiler manner, * * * and that without a mixture of falsity and absurdity. But for any to put it to this issue, that he (the proprietor) must confess all wholesale, and promise amendment thereto, and to insist upon it at this juncture and upon this occasion is unfriendly, if not cruel." Ibid., ii, pp. 200, 239, 243, 267-269, 271, 290.
198
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[198
Recognizing the impossibility of gaining actual possession of the province, they agreed to accept it, October 5, 1708, and executed a deed of release." The following day he mortgaged the province to certain trustees both in England and America. They immediately empowered Logan and others to receive Penn's effects, to sell lands and to collect the quit-rents and other debts due the proprietor.
On April 6, 1712, Penn by will granted the government of Pennsylvania in trust to the Earl of Oxford, Earl Mortimer, Earl Powlett and their heirs, with instructions to dispose of it to the crown or to any private person, provided it could be done advantageously. The money arising from such a sale was to be disposed of as later in the will should be directed. 'All his lands and other possessions in Pennsylvania or else- where in America he bequeathed to his wife and other trustees. They were instructed to sell land enough to pay his debts and after payment to convey to his daughter, Laetitia, and to each of the three children of William his son by his first wife, ten thousand acres-these grants to be laid out in proper places selected by the trustees. The remainder of the province should be given to the children by his second wife, John, Thomas, Margaret, Richard and Dennis, in such proportions as his wife should direct.2 All his personal estate, together with the arrears of rent in Pennsylvania, was bestowed upon his wife, who was also the sole executrix. By a codicil, he gave her an annuity of £300 out of the accruing rents.3
1 Penn MSS., Ford vs. Penn ; Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 306.
? William Penn, Jr., had been given the fragments of the estate in Ireland, to- gether with some land in Pennsylvania. Dennis died in infancy. Franklin, Works, vii, p. 273. The failure of Penn thoroughly to examine the country, ex- plains the great difficulties encountered in the attempt properly to apportion the shares. Moreover, the difficulty was increased by the importunate demands of Penn's daughter, Laetitia, and her husband, William Aubrey. Pa. Arch., 2d series vii, Trustees to Logan and vice versa, Nov. 30 and Dec. 19, 1711; Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., i, Logan to Mrs. Penn, Aug. 27, 1719.
3 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., i, p. 213.
199
IN PENNSYLVANIA
199]
From this disposition of the government of Pennsylvania by will, three questions arose : Ist. Whether it was valid against the heir at law, William Penn, Jr .. or his heirs who claimed by descent ; 2nd, whether the object of the trust had not been effected by a contract already entered into by Penn with the queen for the sale of the government ; 3rd, whether, in conse- quence of this last mentioned fact, his interest was not con- verted into personalty, which by will was conveyed to the widow.
The lawyers disagreed over the question, whether by will the government of the province could be separated from the owner- ship of the land. One prominent lawyer stated that the de- vise of the government seemed to complete the contract with the crown; but, since the will was made hurriedly during a severe illness, the disposition of the money arising from the sale was not indicated. Therefore he believed that the earls were trustees only for the heir at law, upon whom the govern- ment would have devolved if no will had been executed. The devise of the land, however, was good, unless the land, or some of the quit-rents were inseparably annexed to the government. The attorneys of Mrs. Penn thought the devise of the govern- ment to the three lords and their heirs, and that of the land to the widow and the other trustees were both perfectly valid. But the advocate for the heir at law declared that " the govern- ment granted by charter to William Penn and his successors, consisted in the privileges and jurisdictions to them also thereby granted; that these privileges and jurisdictions were inseparably annexed to the soil; that as the testator had en- deavored to separate it from the dominion of the land, the devise of the government was void ; and that the devise of the land was similarly illegal, as the intent was to alien the pro- priety as a thing distinct from the government, which did not agree with the law affecting such seignories."I Hence the
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.