USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 17
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 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., i, pp. 216-218.
200
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [200
trustees refused to act unless under a decree of Chancery, the interpretation of which was also required by the commission- ers of the treasury before paying to the executrix the balance due on the purchase of the province by the crown. But, as stated, this would make the government a part of the person- alty, thus rendering illegal the conveyance to the earls. The voiding of a portion of the will might serve to vacate the whole and leave the estate to be disposed of by the rules of intestacy. Then on the principle of primogeniture, William Penn, Jr., might claim both the land and the government. As a matter of fact in 1719 he sent to William Keith, who had been ap- pointed governor in 1716, a new commission and instructions, to act in that capacity. But since by the will authority to is- sue such a document was not granted, and as the commis- sion did not enjoin the performance of the duties required by parliament for the execution of the laws of trade, Keith, after consultation with the assembly, decided not to publish it. Under instructions from the Privy Council, however, he con- tinued to act as governor.I
But in 1720, when William Penn, Jr., died, his eldest son, Springett, asserted his own right to the government. Hence, in order to establish the will, which, November 4, 1718, a short time after the death of the first proprietor, had been proved in the prerogative court of the Archbishop of Canter- bury, on October 23, 1721, Mrs. Penn and her children brought into the court of Exchequer a bill against the trustees of the government, Springett Penn as heir-at-law, and the other legatees. Six years later, July 4, 1727, a decree of the Exchequer declared the will duly proved. Two years prior to this time, however, an agreement was drawn up between Mrs. Penn and Springett, to the effect that Major Patrick Gordon might succeed Keith as governor, provided that by this act Springett's rights of government should not be impaired.
1 Col. Rec., iii, pP. 63-68; p. L. B., ii, T. P. to Peters, June 7, 1745.
20I
IN PENNSYLVANIA
201]
The friends of Keith tried to prevent the execution of this by insisting that, by the will, the sole power to issue commissions was vested in the lords to whom the rights of government 'were transferred. But Powlett, the surviving devisee, did not oppose the selection of Gordon, and his appointment received the royal approval.I
In November 1718, shortly after the will of the proprietor had been proved, Mrs. Penn by deed poll conveyed to John, her eldest son, and to Thomas, Richard, and Dennis, as joint tenants, the province and the Lower Counties. Again, Jan- uary 7, 1726, after the death of her youngest son, Mrs. Penn revoked this deed poll, and, with certain reservations, granted one-half of the province to John, and the other half jointly to Thomas and Richard.2 Immediately after the decree of the Exchequer, by a sextipartite deed, the tenure of the younger brothers was changed to tenancy in common.3 Furthermore, in January, 1730, the surviving trustees made a reconveyance of the land to the three brothers, and by other deeds executed in 1735, 1737, 1741 and 1742, the territorial rights of the young proprietors were established.4
Now that they were reasonably assured in their possession of the land, the young proprietors were uncertain as to their course with relation to the government. It had been remarked that, if the crown did not choose to purchase the government, the trustees should not continue in their fiduciary capacity. But it would seem that, by the terms of the will, the younger branch of the family could not, except by purchase, receive the powers of government. Here, however, a difficulty arose.
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., i, J. Logan to John Penn, Oct. 8, 1725, and Feb. II, 1726; Ibid., Supp. Proc., Springett to John Penn, July 25, 1725 ; Pa. Arch., .2d series, vii, p. 130.
2 " The Title of William Penn and Descendants to Pennsylvania."
3 Ibid.
4 Breviat, etc., p. 66, et seq.
202
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[202
The younger members would have been glad to purchase these powers, but their straitened circumstances appeared to put it out of the question. They also preferred the comforts of life to a title and empty honors. Hence, they agreed that if Springett Penn would offer them a liberal sum they would resign to him all their claims. As a matter of fact in 1730 Springett formed the plan of assuming the governorship as the successor of Gordon, and proposed to grant the govern- ment in fee to John, Thomas, and Richard, on condition that he and his brother William might enjoy it for their lives. Failing in this, he offered to sell his interest, but the brothers had not the means with which to pay the price he asked. Negotiations for this purpose however were pending when Springett died. Thereupon, in 1731, William Penn, grandson. of the first proprietor, in consideration of £5,500 and of certain specified reservations, agreed to relinquish all claims to the soil and government. A few days later the young proprietors mortgaged the province to him as security for the payment of this sum, but the government was carefully reserved. In the agreement, however, William Penn had directed Powlett, the surviving trustee, to convey the government to the three brothers, but this was not properly done until February II, 1744.2 Of the three brothers, Thomas seemed best fitted for the management of the proprietary interests. Therefore, in 1732, when he visited Pennsylvania, the two brothers who re- mained behind urged him to sell their lands at almost any price, if by this means they could secure money enough to pay their debts and to relieve themselves from embarrassment.3.
1 John and Thomas were employed in a London dry-goods store, while Richard was for some time without employment. Penn MSS., Corresp. of the Penn Family, John Penn to T. P., Feb. 25, 1732.
2 MS. Decree of the Chancellor, 1750.
3 Aside from paying the debts left by their father, it must be remembered that the young proprietors had to bear the expense of the litigation with Baltimore. " It is impossible," wrote the brothers in 1734, " for us to live any longer under the
203
IN PENNSYLVANIA
203]
With the object of making Thomas himself the purchaser, they proposed terms on which they would sell to him their interest in the province. The proprietary estate consisted of more than twenty-seven million acres. John and Richard estimated the value of this, exclusive of the bank lots, to be £50,000. They suggested that 100,000 acres should be dis- posed of by lottery. They offered to sell Conestogoe Manor for £10,000, and expressed a willingness to dispose of the bank lots, and of all the rights and claims they possessed in the Jerseys. If Thomas would advance the necessary sum, he could become sole proprietor. This of course he was unable to do. An offer of £60,000 was then made by outside parties for the whole interest in Pennsylvania, but the bargain was not consummated.I
Finally, the three brothers entered into an agreement to entail the estate upon the following terms:2 Each of the brothers upon his death should devise his share to his eldest son in tail male, with the remainder to the other sons in like manner, and if any should die without male issue his portion was to go to the survivors and their heirs as appointed. John Penn never married, and at his death, in 1746, bequeathed his half of Pennsylvania to Thomas for life, then in succession to the sons of Thomas, or in default of these to the descendants
continuous pressure we now suffer, for we have nothing to live on save what comes from thence, or be continually dunned for our debts." There seems little doubt, however, that the sons of the first proprietor were often reckless and extravagant. In fact, their personal letters give abundant evidence of love for display, if not of their actual prodigality. But this early poverty of some of the greatest landholders the world ever saw, is rather noteworthy.
1 Penn MSS., Corresp. of the Penn Family, John Penn to T. P., Feb. 25, 1732; Sept. 28, 1733 ; March 4, 1734; T. P. to John and Richard Penn, June 14, 1736. Ibid,, P. L. B., i, John and Richard Penn to T. P., May 12, 1734 ; John Penn to T. P., Feb. 4, 1735. Ibid., Offic. Corresp., ii, John Penn to T. P., April 23, June I, and June 21, 1735.
" Similar agreements were made in 1750, 1751 and 1774. " Title of William. Penn and Descendants to Pennsylvania."
204
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[204
of Richard. Thomas Penn thus became the owner of three- fourths of the province. This fact, coupled with that of his own natural ability, made him the chief proprietor.1 John Penn, the eldest son of Richard, succeeded to his father's pro- prietorship in 1771.
II Bargains with the Governors
Early in the history of the province the assembly had voted that the government should be supported by the inhabitants. The proprietor in the time of his personal administration of the government expected that this would result in the grant of an allowance to himself. At various times he urged upon the assembly the fulfillment of its promise, but did not meet with a flattering response. Small sums were assessed for his benefit, but he never received anything during his absence.2 When not present in person, he made private grants to his deputies in the hope thereby to keep the government better under his control. But the amounts thus given were quite small, the intention being that the perquisites of the office should supply all deficiencies. When, however, Penn found himself in pecuniary difficulties, this scheme was soon modified. The assembly had then begun to provide more systematically for the expenses of the government, and the proprietor threw upon it the burden of supporting his deputies. He refused to pay salaries, or to make further grants. Indeed, he went so far as to send orders that no law should be passed, or any privileges granted, until at least £1,000 was annually given for the support of government.3 But in 1704, he promised to al- low Gov. Evans £200 per annum till the province gave him a
1 Pa. Arch., Ist series, i, p. 734; Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., vii, T. P. to Rich- ard Penn, March 22, 1755; Ibid., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, May 29, 1755.
2 Col. Rec., i, p. 597; Votes, ii, pp. 419-424.
3 Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 70.
205
IN PENNSYLVANIA
205]
salary. When that took place, Evans was ordered to send to the proprietor all that he received beyond £400, not only from the assembly, but also from the perquisites. As no written contract of this transaction existed, and as the governor ex- pressed his unwillingness to accede to it, the matter was dropped. Penn made a similar stipulation in 1708, but his wishes again failed to be observed."
It was surmised, though not generally known, that the young proprietors endeavored to secure a share of the receipts of government.2 In Gov. Gordon's commission, 1725, it was. stated that he should have all the profits from the govern- ment ; but the circumstances of the proprietors made an in- , crease of their revenue necessary. Hence they directed Thomas Penn to enjoin Gordon to pay from his receipts- £200 which they had agreed to give William Penn. Finding it impossible to execute this project, they suggested that the governor should allow them £500 a year out of his salary. They declared that, as the deputy governor of Vir- ginia accounted to the governor for the profits, and was given a portion in return, they did not think it just that a stranger should receive so large a sum, while they were overburdened with debt. If the governor declined to accede to the proposi- tion, he must be dismissed.3 But the illness and subsequent death of Gordon terminated the negotiation.
For a while thereafter the government remained in charge of the president and council, till some one could be found who- would make it advantageous to the Penns to appoint him deputy governor. George Thomas proved to be the man. He was a wealthy planter of Antigua, who also owned con- siderable property in Pennsylvania itself. While on a brief
1 Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, pp. 141, 236, 264, 285, 291.
2 " Speech of Joseph Galloway," 1764, preface.
3 P. L. B., John Penn to Gordon, May I and to T. P. July 20, 1732 ; John and Richard Penn to T. P., May 12, 1734.
206
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [206
visit to England he heard of the vacancy in the government, and accordingly, in 1736, presented himself to Thomas Penn, who, being pleased with his appearance, sent him to his brother John. The candidate promised to furnish credentials, and to give security for the performance of whatever might be required for the interest of the proprietary family. He wanted the place not so much because of the profits of the governor- ship, as on account of a liking which he had for the people and country, and a desire to improve and enlarge his own estate. He represented that his independent fortune would raise him above temptations to avarice and corruption, so that the family affairs would not suffer, or the people be subjected to oppression. He urged further that, if any one of the pro- prietors intended to take the government on himself, the proposal should be kept a secret. If not, he would agree that the terms of appointment should be as advantageous to the Penns as the position would permit, or as could be obtained from any other person.1 After some hesitation his offer was accepted, and a contract was made for four years, with twelve months' notice to quit. In this it was stipulated that, whereas Thomas was to receive about £2,000 a year in Pennsylvania in salary and perquisites, he would annually pay to the pro- prietors £500 sterling, provided half of the profits, ordinary and extraordinary, should amount to that sum; or, if not, a half of what did arise. In other words, he had his choice of giving £500 per annum clear, or one-half the perquisites. It was agreed that the compact should remain a secret, as Thomas feared the transaction might be regarded by the public as disreputable.2 He assumed the government in 1738, some-
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, G. Thomas to John Penn, Oct. 5, 1736.
2 Penn MSS., P. L. B., i, John Penn to T. P., Oct. 10, 1736, Feb. 17, 1737 ; Offic. Corresp., iii, G. Thomas to John Penn, Nov. 9, 1736, Feb. 28, Aug. 2, 1738, Jan. 24, 1739 ; P. L. B., i, G. Thomas to John Penn, Nov. 4, 1740, and vice versa, Nov. 26, 1741.
207
IN PENNSYLVANIA
207]
what to the disappointment of the colonists, as they would have preferred one of the proprietors."
In accordance with the contract, Thomas ordered his at- torney to pay the half year's salary, though at the time of the payment only a small part of the sum had been received. In- stead of the fees and perquisites of the office amounting to £1000 per year, as he had expected, they yielded only £600 in currency. This sum was not sufficient to meet the expenses of living which were required from one in his station. Hence Thomas soon found that he was suffering pecuniary loss. Had he known the actual disposition of the people, he would not have felt obliged to obey the general instructions issued by the proprietors at the time of his commission. And indeed, when the Penns insisted upon a literal performance of the agree- ment he complained that, though Gordon had violated similar directions, he had not been compelled to pay an annuity. At the same time, because of his refusal to yield to the demands of the assembly, it appropriated nothing for his support, and, had it not been for his independent fortune, Thomas would have been forced to comply with its wishes. His position was made all the more difficult by the fact that the people regarded it as a dire calamity, that they should have a governor whose means raised him above the necessity of submitting to their will. He had hoped for a peaceful administration, but instead he was involved for several years in contentions with the as- sembly, especially about the granting of supplies to the king and the issue of paper money.2 He speedily saw his mis- calculation, and when the assembly continued to withhold his support, repented of his bargain with the proprietors. He
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, J. Langhorne and J. Logan to John Penn, May 20, 1737.
2 The house voted £3000 for the king's use, and at the same time petitioned for the removal of Thomas. As for some time the crown had not demanded a grant, this appeared like a bribe to secure his removal. Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, R. Peters to T. P., Oct. 24, 1741; G. Thomas to John Penn, Oct. 27, 1741.
.
208
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[208
even claimed that at times, when the payments from his private estates were not forthcoming, he suffered for the want of food and drink.1 But of this fact the house was not aware, while- Thomas would not give it the opportunity to say that he- yielded to its desires in order to suit his own interests.
When he proposed to resign the governorship, the Penns. reminded him of his obligation. At length, however, he pleaded so earnestly for a release from the money article of" the agreement, and had so faithfully served the proprietary in- terest, that Thomas Penn expressed his willingness to grant the request. He felt that, though several lords were desirous of obtaining the position for their friends, the retention of Gov. Thomas would be for the advantage of the proprietors. Therefore it was suggested that, as the assembly was so remiss in its payments, and as probably the whole amount, both of salary and perquisites, would not exceed £1,200 or £1,500 per annum in currency, it would be advisable to let the governor have £1,200 thereof, and that he should account to the pro- prietors for the balance.2 But this suggestion was not adopted .. The agreement remained in its original form, and the gover- nor retained his office. After a time harmony between him and the assembly was restored. Then it voted him all his arrears, and he in turn paid all that was due to the proprietors.3. But when in 1746 he resigned his position, he endeavored not only to have his bond canceled, but to secure the return of a large part of the money which he had paid to the Penns. His claim was, that he had a right to all sums which had been granted him by the assembly, especially as he had advanced. money from his own pocket to aid the king's troops. Upon:
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, G. Thomas to John Penn, Mar. I, 1740.
2 Penn MSS., Corresp. of the Penn Family, T. P. to John Penn, Nov. 11, 1740 ;. P. L. B., i, John and Richard Penn to T. P., Nov. 26, 1740; John Penn to G. Thomas, Mar. 7 and Nov. 26, 1741.
$ Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, G. Thomas to John Penn, Nov. 5, 1745, to T. P., Apr. 26, 1746.
209
IN PENNSYLVANIA
209]
the failure of this proposal, he tried to obtain the governorship for his son ; but the proprietors were no longer in need of such bargains. In fact, rather than compel the deputy governors to give up a portion of their salary, it was their purpose, when their circumstances would allow it, to render them financially independent, unless the assembly chose to make a settled allow- ance.1 But this was never done.
The proprietors made no further attempts to procure a share of the salary or perquisites of the gubernatorial office.2
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, G. Thomas to T. P., May II and June 12, 1748; and vice versa June 30, 1748; Ibid., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, Feb. 20, 1748, May 29, 1755.
2 Despite all the above evidence, Thomas Penn in a letter to Richard Peters (Penn. MSS., Supp. Proc., May 29, 1755), unqualifiedly denied that he had ever entered into any agreement which he might be ashamed to own before all the world, or with a governor for receiving part of his salary !
1
CHAPTER III
CHARACTER AND POLICY OF THE YOUNG PROPRIETORS
IT has been generally supposed that the sole aim of the sons of William Penn was to make money, regardless of what- ever the effect of this course might be on the condition of the people. For this reason they have been subjected to a great deal of sharp criticism. But an examination of their circum- stances will, in some measure, serve to show that such criti- cism is based largely on blind partisanship. We have seen that the attempt of William Penn to realize his humanitarian schemes proved a dismal failure, financially and otherwise. The result was, that he left as a heritage to his sons only a contested estate, a heavy burden of debt, and the remembrance of their father's good name. They would not have been human if they had excluded all ideas of private enrichment, while the absurdity of yielding at once to the importunities of the assembly was evident. Their position was unfortunate, and in a variety of ways they were exposed to misrepresenta- tion. Any acts of theirs, however generous might be the mo- tive, were likely to be viewed with suspicion, lest their object might be in some way to secure personal advantage. They must either submit to the popular will, or wage continual war, and thereby expose themselves to unnumbered accusations. To serve the public, and at the same time promote personal interests, without sacrificing dignity and governmental power, was proved in the case of the proprietors to be an impossibil- ity. To govern in harmony with the assembly, meant com- plete subjection to its control.
Why did not the young proprietors adopt the early policy
[210
210
21I
IN PENNSYLVANIA
21I]
of their father? In reply it may be said that any attempt on their part to revive paternalism would have met with violent opposition, while at first their poverty made the cherishing of such a plan, even for a moment, an impossibility. But there was another and deeper reason for the attitude they assumed. The young proprietors knew the criticisms to which their father had been subjected. They knew how vainly he had ap- pealed for help to his alleged friends in the province. They knew how, instead of the love and gratitude which should have been the reward of his efforts, complaint and misrepresentation had been his portion. Are we to wonder, then, why the sons of William Penn did not overflow with kindly feelings toward the people of the province? Our real cause for surprise should be, that, in their voluminous correspondence with their officers in the province so few harsh and unkindly expressions appear. Even in these instances the outbreaks were due to some taunt or sarcastic " remonstrance" from the assembly. That body was very fond of recalling the virtues of William Penn, now that he was dead, and by comparison reminding his sons of their own supposed defects.
Perhaps it is not surprising that in the popular mind preju- dices existed against the proprietors. They were Englishmen, presumably very wealthy, fond of pleasure, conscious of their distinguished position, and therefore apparently antagonistic both to popular institutions and to individual liberty. It must be admitted that to some extent this was true. But, as the people never seemed inclined to cooperate heartily with the proprietors, but kept up the fire of criticism to which allusion has been made, it should not be a cause for wonder that the Penns were slow to make advances.
Before proceeding to show from their correspondence that the proprietors were by no means so selfish as they are com- monly represented to be, it may be well to state that, on several occasions they displayed a commendable public spirit. They contributed to the support of the University of Pennsyl-
212
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[212
vania. They sent cannon for the defence of Philadelphia.2 They were benefactors of the Pennsylvania Hospital.3 They on several occasions opposed the passage of acts of parliament which were prejudicial to the welfare of the colonies in
1 Penn MSS., Philadelphia Land Grants. When the project of establishing a university was first broached, the proprietors were in doubt as to the advisability of it. " Your proposal for the education of youth," wrote Thomas Penn to Gov. Hamilton, Feb. 12, 1750 (P. L. B., ii) " is much more extensive than I ever de- signed, and I think more so than the circumstances of the province require. The best of our people must be men of business, which I do not think very great public schools or universities render youth fit for, and the additional exercises are not fit accomplishments for many. I do not think it will be any real advantage to Pennsylvania to establish such an academy, as the large allowance made to young gentlemen at all places of learning gives them the lead in every excess. I find people here think we go too fast with regard to the matter, and it gives an oppor- tunity to those fools who are always telling their fears that the colonies will set up for themselves." But four years later, in a letter to Mr. Peters (Penn MSS. ), he said, " I find the people of New York have resolved to establish their college (Columbia), and have persuaded Dr. Johnson to accept of the presidentship of it, and expect to make it greatly serviceable to all the provinces, as they look on your academy only as a school to fit them for that college. But I hope, when Mr. Smith (later Provost of the University of Pennsylvania) arrives, it will not be neces- sary to send any pupils from Philadelphia."
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.