USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 18
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
2 " I send these pieces of cannon personally, for I do not wish it drawn into precedent that we are to furnish cannon for all forts." P. L. B., iii, T. P. to Ham- ilton, Aug. 27, 1750.
3 " Though the application to us for ground to build a general hospital, after the scheme was settled without consulting us, or making us the compliment of asking whether we would choose any part in the direction of it, which from our station we had reason to expect, and if so large a benefaction was intended to be asked of us more especially, yet the regard we do and ought to bear to our country, and the attention we have to every proposal for its real service, inclines us to overlook what is disagreeable to ourselves, and to grant land for the purpose in a place where there is considerable vacancy, which may be given in time, if our successors shall judge it necessary. The land will be granted with the power of incorporation into a body different from that you have formed by act of assembly. The grant will not pass till this act is repealed, for we or the governor should have some power of superintendence." Ibid., T. P. to Hamilton, Dec. 19, 1751 ; to John Penn, Dec. 7, 1764. " We hope it may be in our power to assist every institution that tends to the service of the province." Ibid., ix, T. P. to W. Smith, March 8, 1770.
213
IN PENNSYLVANIA
213]
general. They were careful to discourage undue favorit-
1 " The clause in the bill for taking the duty off pig and bar iron, to prohibit erecting any slitting mills and steel furnaces in America, is a precedent of most dan gerous consequence to prevent our making what we want for our own use, therefore I shall use every means in my power to have it left out of the bill. I spoke of it as an attack on the rights of the king's subjects in America." Ibid., T. P. to Hamil- ton, Feb. 12 and May 16, 1750.
" I shall endeavor to prevent a repeal of the act for laying duties on negroes. I think it not for the security of the province to encourage their importation, and that to encourage any particular trade which will be prejudicial to it is not jus- tifiable, and I think it highly reasonable that the province should judge whether it thinks it for its service to import them." Ibid., vii, June 13, 1761.
" People here do not like our falling into manufactures in the plantations, and have strange, narrow notions of such things." Ibid., T. P. to Barton, Feb. 11, 1762.
" We have endeavored to get the stamp tax postponed, as it is an internal tax, and wait till some sort of consent to it shall be given by the several assemblies, to prevent a tax of that nature from being laid without the consent of the colonies. We hope the consent may be a salvo jure for such a claim of right by the colo- nies, unless they can propose a fairer tax." Ibid., viii, T. P, to Hamilton, March 9, 1764.
" We have been much employed in endeavoring to prevent a stamp duty from being laid on the colonies. As we failed to do this, we have endeavored to have the stamps made as small as possible." Ibid., to John Penn, Feb. 8, 1765.
" People here generally think the assemblies claim too great privileges, and that they are little more than the common council of a borough. Indeed, I cannot con- ceive how ours could claim an exemption from taxes here, when there is a plain estimation of it in the charter. Mr. Hughes, however. has been appointed to sell stamps in Pennsylvania. I did not apply to have any person appointed, lest I should be thought a favorer of the bill." Ibid., to W. Allen, Feb. 15, 1765; to John Penn, April 13, 1765.
But when the stamp act was repealed, the proprietors thought the people in the province had by their demonstrations of joy " shown their love of freedom in an improper manner." At the same time they cautioned the governor to be careful in his behavior in the matter. Ibid., to John Penn, Jan. II and March 18, 1766. Furthermore, Thomas Penn wrote to Rev. William Smith, April 1, 1766 (Ibid.), " As the new administration and a majority in both houses of parlia- ment have showed so much tenderness to us in the repeal of the stamp act, and are now engaged in altering all the late laws which have been so injurious to our trade, I am desired to tell my friends that they hope and expect this will be re- ceived with all gratitude and thankfulness, and that great care will be taken to prevent any behavior that may indicate a sense of victory over the legislature of their country. If they do this, they will gratify their enemies, and make it impos-
214
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [214
ism.1 Their public spirit also is well illustrated by the follow- ing extracts from their correspondence.
In a letter to Peter Colinson, August 1, 1737,2 Thomas Penn wrote, "I have regarded the public welfare equally at least with my own and the family's, and never thought of ad- vancing my interest at the expense of the public. The quit- rents must be increased to such a sum as may handsomely support those who shall hereafter be in the station in which we are placed ; for my father's rate of one shilling per hundred or thousand acres would not find a gentleman shoes and stock- ings. I want to have every debt due from my family paid. To this end I shall ever think myself obliged to serve the pub- lic both with my person and pocket ; but I never desire to have views so noble, extensive, and benevolent as my father, unless he had left a much larger fortune; because these views, though good in themselves, yet by possessing him too much, led him into inconveniences which I hope to avoid." Again in a letter to Richard Peters, October 16, 1747, Thomas Penn wrote, " I shall ever wish to do these poor people all the good I can, and as my father recommended the care of them to James Logan, I must to you. At the same time, I assure you that whenever I return to America, I shall be more than ever at- tentive to them and their affairs." 3 To the same person on July 17, 1752, he wrote, " We have nothing in view but what is for the real interest of the country. It is that alone which
sible for their friends to serve them. This I have engaged they will not do, but make very early acknowledgments for the favor done them."
1 Penn MSS., P. L. B., viii, T. P .; to W. Allen, July 13, 1765 ; ix, to Peters, Oct. 7, 1766 : " No man can be more sensible than I am of your caution in in- terfering in public business on account of your alliance with our family, but you must not wonder that people should suspect that has often an influence in ap- pointments, even without any reason. It cannot be expected to be otherwise, and therefore cannot be prevented." To W. Allen, June 9, 1768.
2 Penn MSS., Corresp of the Penn Family
3 P. L. B., ii.
S
215
IN PENNSYLVANIA
215]
inclines us to increase the influence of the executive part of government, by no means to gratify a thirst for power, and I would not have so much that, should it come into bad hands, it may be made use of to the prejudice of the people."I A few years later, when the questions relative to the raising of sup- plies for the king's service were being agitated, while the gov- ernor and the assembly denounced each other as disloyal to the king, and as wanting in public spirit, the proprietors ex- pressed a strong desire for peace and concord. They declared that they felt a real affection for the colonists, and did not wish to secure for themselves personal advantages at the public ex- pense. They said further, that they would not suffer them- selves to be so far provoked by any treatment which they might receive from the assembly, as to wish to rob that body of any part of the liberty it had a just right to expect, or that would conduce to the advantage of the people .? "It is dis- agreeable," wrote Thomas Penn to Gov. Morris,3 "to find a people for whom my family wish to do everything in their power to make them considerable, taking every step they can to injure us." "I am sure I have no desire to have any authority inconsistent with the well established liberty of the people."4 "You may be assured that I wish to devote my time to the service of Pennsylvania. I hope to live long enough to convince many that are now of opposite sentiments, that I have nothing more at heart than her real service, though I may think it necessary to attain it by methods different from what they propose."5 "We do not wish to abridge any part of the constitution granted by our father, but we would pre- serve it to after ages."6
1 P. L. B., iii.
" Votes, iv, p. 95; Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, July 8, 1752.
3 Pa. Arch., Ist series, ii, p. 253.
4 P. L. B., iv, T. P. to Peters, Feb. 21, 1755.
5 Ibid., T. P. to W. Logan, May 6, 1756.
6 Ibid., viii, T. P. to W. Smith, Dec. 7, 1764.
216
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [216
Lastly, a short time after the assembly had petitioned the king to remove the proprietors from control of the govern- ment, Thomas Penn wrote to one of his officers, November 7, 1766, "I must say that you judge rightly that we would do everything in our power to be upon good terms with the peo- ple of Pennsylvania, consistent with the preservation of our just rights, which we ought to preserve for the benefit of our family, and in some sort for the benefit of the people, who, if we were to give up some of our power to their representatives, more than they have, would not reap any real security to their liberties from it. We are very well pleased to receive your in- formation of any affair in which the people have a just cause of complaint, and shall impartially, as much as possible for us, consider the case in order to their redress, in which we will act according to the principles of equity and honor."
Considering now the religious view of the proprietors, it may be said that John Penn, although not a regular attendant at Quaker meetings, and although not a strict observer of their customs, never joined the Church of England. Richard in early life became a communicant of that church. But Thomas did not become an Episcopalian till about 1758.2 The fact that the proprietors had ostensibly forsaken Quakerism, caused the Friends to be bitter against them, and to treat them slight- ingly.3 At first the proprietors cherished a like spirit in return,4 but gradually their resentment cooled, and, though occasion- ally angered by some demonstration on the part of the Quak-
1 P. L. B., ix, T. P. to Tilghman.
2 Deposition by Thomas Penn before the Lord Mayor of London, March 3, 1758; Penn. MSS., Supp. Proc., P. L. B., v, T. P. to Peters, March 23, 1758. As early as 1743, the proprietor wrote to Gov. Thomas (P. L. B., ii), " I felt obliged to solicit the ministry against the Quakers, or at least I stated that I did not hold their opinions concerning defence. I no longer continue the little distinction of dress."
3 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., vi, R. Peters to T. P., Feb. 3, 1753.
4 " I wish the Friends well, but I think many of them pert, forward coxcombs who should not be allowed to engage in services for which they are not fit." Ibid., iii, T. P. to F. J. Paris, March 27, 1741.
217
IN PENNSYLVANIA
217]
ers, they in general bore themselves in a kindly and peaceable manner toward that sect. This may be seen in the following ex- tract from a letter written by Thomas Penn to William Logan, son of James Logan, and, like his father, a Quaker. "Though I think I have not been treated by many of the Quakers in a manner that should engage me to take the most particular care of their interests, yet I never had the least desire to injure them, or to abridge them of that liberty of conscience they had a right to by their charter. No treatment of me can ever per- suade me to act so bad a part, and I think they and every other denomination of Christians have a right to worship God in their own way. I am so far from being their enemy, that I shall ever be ready to show the society on all fitting occasions that I have a regard for them. If they pretend a power over those of other persuasions, I cannot be their friend in any such affair. Every particular denomination of the Christian religion is perfectly upon a level in Pennsylvania." You may be cer- tain I have not the least intent to injure that society, or to treat it on any occasion with the least disrespect. I wish to have preserved to it all the liberty and indulgence my father could entitle it to, and only in return wish to see the members of it act with that caution, prudence, and simplicity that justly entitled so many of its former possessors to the esteem and re- gard of those they lived among. They were not lovers of strife and contention, but common peacemakers."2 Again in 1767, Thomas Penn said,3 " I can truly assure them, though
1 " I wish to see all places of religious worship on an equality in Pennsylvania, and I am of opinion it may be attended with ill consequences to grant any charter to a religious society." P. L. B., ii, T. P. to Peters, Oct. 9, 1749. " By the set- tlement of Pennsylvania, all professions of the Christian religion are to be on the same footing. This is what we wish to continue, and must leave it to the gover nor to choose such as he thinks are most fit for magistrates, without giving such preference to those of any profession as may be injurious to the rest." Ibid., viii, Aug. 10, 1764.
2 P. L. B., v, T. P. to Logan, June 21, 1757.
3 Ibid., ix, T. P. to W. Allen, July 31, 1767.
218
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[218
we do not profess ourselves of their society, we are very firmly disposed to show a great regard for them on all occasions, not inconsistent with the safety of others, and shall ever wish to consult their real interest."
Passing now to a subject immediately connected with their religious opinions, the question might be raised, why did not the sons of William Penn, upon their succession to the pro- prietorship, assume personal direction of the government ? Not only were they urgently requested to do so by numerous friends in Pennsylvania, but by taking immediate control they would probably have improved their private estate. More- over, some doubt had arisen as to the person on whom the government should devolve in case Gov. Gordon died, or was removed from office. Hence Thomas Penn, when contemplat- ing his visit to the province in 1732, had some thought of as- suming the governorship. But the exemplary conduct of Gordon, and the confusion of property relations seemed to render such a step unwise.
When the subject was first seriously broached, Thomas Penn asked the opinion of Mr. Paris, the family lawyer, re- specting its feasibility. His opinion was that it would be necessary for the other brothers to convey the entire estate and government to Thomas, before he could properly assume the governorship, otherwise an act of parliament would be needful. Also the statute of 7 and 8 William III., Chap. 22, had provided that all governors and commanders-in-chief, no matter by whom they were appointed, must take an oath to observe the navigation acts and must also procure the royal approbation. Neglect of duty, or neglect to take the oath, en- tailed dismissal from office and a fine of £1,000. Therefore, if John and Richard Penn did grant Thomas the powers of government, he would have to take the oath and procure the approval of the king.I Indeed all three brothers believed that,
1 Penn MSS., Corresp. of the Penn Family, F. J. Paris to T. P., Jan. 29, 1732; John Penn to T. P., January and May, 1732.
219
IN PENNSYLVANIA
219]
whether acting as deputies or as governors-in-chief, they were liable to take the oath. It was thereupon suggested that, if any of them should happen to be in Pennsylvania at the time of Gov. Gordon's death, he might assume the administration until a deputy governor should be appointed. But this might be viewed as an effort to evade the statute. Hence, as an ex- pedient, John Penn proposed that Richard should become governor. Richard, however, declined to accept the office on the plea of lack of ability to discharge its duties.
At length Thomas decided to take it. Then John and Richard ordered Mr. Paris to prepare an instrument for this purpose. The attorney warned them that such a proceeding might not be safe without the proper confirmation and qualifi- cation. A violation of the statute might serve as an excuse to the crown for the forfeiture of the royal charter. In fact the assembly might refuse to act under him. At this juncture Thomas Penn, who was then in the province, frankly offered to give way to his elder brother, and to allow him to qualify as governor, if it was thought that, by his returning to England the interests of the family there would be better promoted. But the eldest proprietor refused. Then John and Richard suggested that Thomas should qualify himself by oath before the council of Pennsylvania, as Gov. Markham in 1698 had done, and, on the strength of that, obtain the royal approba- tion.I To this Thomas would not agree,2 but, even had he done so, it was at best a questionable plan, and its consumma- mation was likely to be opposed before the Board of Trade by the influence of Lord Baltimore. At any rate, a commission to Thomas as governor was made out. John Penn signed it and petitioned the king for his approval. No sooner had this become known than a number of the friends of the family ex- pressed deep concern at the prospect of Thomas Penn taking an oath. As the act seemed to imply the abandonment of his-
1 P. L. B., i, John and Richard Penn to T. P., Aug. 10, 1736.
2 Ibid., John Penn to T. P., June 6, 1737.
220
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [220
own religion and that of his father for mere temporal advantage, it threatened to arouse the opposition of the entire Quaker sect. There was a chance even that it might lead to their publicly disowning him. This caused John Penn to hesitate, and event- ually to withdraw the petition. At the same time, Thomas requested that for the present the idea be abandoned. Then came the proposition of George Thomas. John Penn of course was careful to conceal the agreement made with this prospec- tive governor, and gave the friends of the family to understand that Thomas Penn had declined the governorship on account of the difficulty about qualifying. This was in fact the chief obstacle, but the opposition of Baltimore to the control of the proprietors over the Lower Counties and the secret bargain with George Thomas certainly had their weight.
At various times thereafter,2 when the requests of his friends became more earnest, and when in 1755 the opposition to Gov. Morris 3 was at its height, Thomas Penn thought of per-
1 The attorney general later stated his opinion that a Quaker governor might qualify by affirmation, instead of by taking an oath. Penn MSS., Corresp. of the Penn Family. T. P. to John Penn, Sept. 10, 1736; to R. Partridge, Aug. I, 1737; Private Corresp., ii, T. Hyam, and W. Vigor to John Penn, Oct. 5 and Dec. 18, 1736; P. L. B., i, John Penn to T. P., Feb. 4, 1735, Oct. 10, 1736, Feb. 17, May 25, and June 6, 1737.
2 In 1747 Thomas Penn wrote to the president and council (P. L. B., ii), "An appointment for governor will be made soon, unless one of ourselves should be able to leave England, but our controversy with Baltimore detains us." Gov. Hamilton was soon after appointed. When in 1752 that officer contemplated a release from his duties, the proprietor said ( Ibid., iii), " Next year I propose to go to Pennsylva- nia, and take the government upon myself." But on account of the proceedings against Baltimore he was forced to give up the plan. Ibid., T. P. to Peters, June 10, 1754.
3 " The situation with the French and other public affairs demand your presence. Some call Morris a tyrant, others say you might as well have sent the devil, and have in this regard shown your great regard for the province. The moderates say it is the most unfortunate thing that has happened to Pennsylvania, and that he will sit in hot water if he shows his Jersey airs and continues to be a stickler for preroga- tive." Penn MSS., Corresp. of the Penn Family, R. Hockley to T. P., Aug. 4, 1754.
22I
IN PENNSYLVANIA
221]
sonally assuming the governorship, but the decisive step was never taken.1 About the same time also, John, the eldest son of Richard Penn, manifested a wish for the executive office, but owing to his youth, inexperience and reckless conduct, it was not gratified 2 till 1763. John was succeeded in 1771 by his brother Richard, but became governor again in 1773 and continued in office till the Revolution.
It now remains for us to consider the proprietors from the standpoint of their relations with the English government. They were entrusted with many of the prerogatives of the crown, and the proper exercise of them necessitated great care in preserving them from the inroads of the rapidly-growing democratic spirit in Pennsylvania. We have already noticed that the people in the province looked upon the proprietors as aristocrats. Particularly was this true when, toward the mid- dle of the eighteenth century, the revenue of the proprietors from their estates made their position more independent. That they should develop aristocratic tendencies is not remarkable. They had a lineage of which to be proud. They were the proprietors of one of the largest of the provinces. Their asso- ciation with the aristocracy caused them to maintain a corres- ponding social station. Democracy, as the term was under- stood in America, had very little foothold in England. Indeed, the British government was aristocratic, and would scarcely tolerate interference on the part of the proprietors to champion popular rights.3 Hence, if the proprietors were democratic in
I Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, Oct. 25, 1755; Offic. Corresp., vii, R. Hockley to T. P., Nov. 28, 1755.
2 Ibid., Corresp. of the Penn Family, R. Hockley to the proprietors, Oct. 7, 1754; Supp. Proc., T. P .. to John Penn, June 4, 1755.
3 In 1730 the proprietors refused, unless paid for the service, to solicit the crown's approval of the acts of assembly. Inasmuch as they did not attempt to exercise a parental supervision similar to that of their father, they believed that, when the acts had been presented at the proper office in England, their duty ceased. For this and other reasons the assembly soon after appointed an agent. P. L. B., i, John Penn to Gov. Gordon, May 3, 1730. Their attitude at this time was probably due
A
222
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[222
their sympathies, they were liable, under cover of some speci- ous pretence, to being deprived of their powers of government. If they were aristocratic in their predilections, they would sharply antagonize the progress of the democratic spirit in Pennsylvania. It was only natural that their birth, education and position should incline them toward the aristocratic side.I Standing as they did in the place of the crown, the proprietors, therefore, did not approve of appeals to the public, even though in their behalf. They thought that such a practice sprang from a principle injurious to the true spirit of government, and tended to confusion. They were thus not inclined to depend upon mere popular ratification of their measures.2 When they failed, moreover, to induce the assembly to accept money bills on their terms, they declared that its proceedings were such as to justify the assertion, that grants of supply for the king's use were not cheerfully made, and that professions to the con- trary were undoubtedly false. But by clever management the proprietors succeeded in persuading the Board of Trade that they had made the assembly perform at least a part of its duty.3
to financial embarrassments, for seventeen years later they expressed a willing- ness to assist the colonists in securing the royal approval of the acts. But their fear that the home government would resent such an interference, prompted them to be careful in the matter. On March 9, 1747 (Ibid., ii), Thomas Penn wrote to the speaker of the assembly, " We shall ever be glad to render any assist- ance in defence of your laws, but we prefer the assembly agent would act, as ap- plications in defence of privileges are much better received from a body of people, than from a proprietor whose powers are thought too great by the officers of the crown. We found the Board of Trade look on us a little coldly."
1 " Mr. Franklin's doctrine that obedience to governors is no more due them than protection to the people, is not fit to be in the heads of the unthinking multi- tude. He is a dangerous man, and I should be glad if he inhabited any other country, as I believe him of a very uneasy spirit. However, as he is a sort of tribune of the people, he must be treated with regard." Ibid., T. P. to Peters, June 9, 1748.
2 Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, Oct. 25, 1755; Offic. Corresp., vii, R. Hockley to T. P., Nov. 28, 1755.
3 Pa. Arch., Ist Series, ii, pp. 367-8.
+
223
IN PENNSYLVANIA
223]
Of the reputation gained by this service they stood in special need, as a means of strengthening their position with the home government. But when choosing a successor to Gov. Morris in 1755, Thomas Penn said that hereafter he intended to rely on his own resources, and did not wish to have the deputy governor too subservient to the English government.1 In fact he believed it proper for the governor to obey proprietary instructions in ordinary affairs, and only in extraordinary cases the directions from the ministers.2
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.