USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 21
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 Charter and Laws of Pa., pp. 124-126.
1
248
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[248
The act of settlement was regarded as a temporary measure until the frame of government could be more closely examined, and its relation to the actual needs of the colonists ascertained. To this end Penn asked the assembly whether it would like a new frame of government. The question was unanimously answered in the affirmative. When the proprietor agreed to grant it, the assembly immediately appointed a committee to draw up and present to him "a salutation by way of the house's acknowledgment of his kindness." I
It is thus to be seen that the request for a new charter came directly from the people, and not from the proprietor.2 Indeed,
1 Votes, i, pt. i, p. 12; Col. Rec., i, p. 63.
2 Benjamin Franklin ( Works, iii, pp. 124-127) has introduced into his narrative of the events of 1683 disjointed passages from a " remonstrance," supposed to have been sent to the proprietor by the assembly in 1704, as if the complaints of an angry and contentious assembly twenty years later could be adduced as evidence of the discontent of the people from the beginning. He says, " In the interval between this session at Chester and the next at Philadelphia, Mr. Penn, notwithstanding the act of settlement, furnished himself with another frame . . and concerning this again, the assembly of 1704, in their representation aforesaid, thus freely expostu- lated with the proprietor : ' By a subtle contrivance and artifice laid deeper than the capacities of some could fathom, or the circumstances of many could admit time then to consider of, a way was found out to lay that aside, and introduce another charter, which thou completedst in the year 1683. . . . The motives which we find upon record inducing the people to accept of the second charter were chiefly two, viz., that the number of representatives would prove burdensome to the country; and the other was that, in regard thou hadst but a treble vote, the people through their unskilfulness in the laws of trade and navigation might pass some laws over thy head repugnant thereto, which might occasion the forfeiture of the king's letters patent, by which this country was granted to thee; and wherein is a clause for that purpose, which we find much relied upon, and frequently read or urged in the assembly of that time, and security demanded by thee from the people on that account. As to the first motive, we know that the number of repre- sentatives might have been very well reduced without a new charter ; and as to the laws of trade, we cannot conceive that a people so fond of thyself for their governor, and who saw much with thy eyes in those affairs, should, against thy ad- vice and cautions, make laws repugnant to those of trade, and so bring trouble and disappointment upon themselves by being a means of suspending thy administration; the influence whereof and hopes of thy continuance therein induced them, as we charitably conclude, to embark with thee in that great and weighty affair, more
249
IN PENNSYLVANIA
249]
it is probable that the Quakers feared lest the presence of people who were not of their religion ' might cause them to lose the power they so much coveted, and for this reason asked the proprietor to take back part of what he had given up.2 They relied of course upon their ability to maintain their influence over the good-natured proprietor. On the other hand, we have noticed that Penn was unwill- ing to be responsible for the advantage the people might take of the fact that the only opposition he could make to the passage of their bills was by his three votes in council.3 This
than the honor due to persons in those stations, or any sinister ends destructive to the constitution they acted by. Therefore we see no just cause thou hadst to insist upon such security, or to have a negative upon bills to be passed into laws in general assemblies, since thou hadst by the said charter, pursuant to the authority and direction of the king's letters patent, formed these assemblies, and thereupon re- served but a treble vote in the provincial council, which could not be more injurious to thee than to the people. . . Thus was the first charter laid aside, contrary to the tenor thereof and true intent of the first adventurers.'"
1 I mean by this the representatives from the Lower Counties. At the meet- ing at Chester, in December, 1682, there appears to have been a contest over the chairmanship. But the absence of two persons who were not of the Quaker per- suasion, made it possible for the Friends to carry the day. Pa. Mag. Hist., vi, pp. 468-9.
2 " Friends have, several of them, lamented that I have given so much power away as I have done. At least till truth's interests had been better settled, and desire me to accept of it again, saying that, as God so signally cast it into my hand, and they believe for a purpose of glory to His name, and for the good of His people, and since the eyes and hearts of the people are after me in so eminent a manner, if I receive it not, they shall as yet be little regarded in the use of it." Ibid.
3 Even this slight power was not pleasing to Jasper Yeates, whom we have had occasion to notice before as an exacting and captious Quaker. A change in his religious opinions must have occurred later, for he was one of the commissioners named in the king's dedimus potestatem of 1701 to administer an oath (Col. Rec., ii, pp. 62-63). In reply to the complaint of Yeates, in 1683, Penn declared that his three votes in the council might be offset by the votes of three of the humblest freemen in the province who owned fifty acres of land apiece, while he was proprietor and governor and the possessor of millions of acres. Yeates said that Penn had made suitable provision for his heirs during their minority, but not in case they were idiots or atheists. Penn asked him what
250
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[250
was probably the reason why the veto power was restored to him.I
A lengthy consideration of the relative merits of the provi- sions of the frame of government and of certain amendments thereto followed in the assembly. The committee previously appointed to prepare the message thanking the proprietor for his kindness was further authorized to announce to him and the council that the assembly had gratefully accepted his offers and was ready to propose what it desired might be inserted in the frame of government.2 In the various conferences held with the council on this subject, a notable objection made by the assembly was that to the reservation in the new frame of the right of the governor to continue officers appointed by him in office during life, or good behavior.3 It agreed, however, to allow him during his life to appoint officers, but at his death the council and assembly should have the right to make nom- inations in the manner provided in the first frame. Desirous of offering to the assembly a final opportunity of giving its opinion on an important matter after the new frame had been read, the proprietor asked whether it desired the maximum
proof there was that the heirs of the freemen might not be the same. Yeates also thought that the requirement of a property qualification for the suffrage or for office-holding, was radically wrong. The proprietor held a different view-" What civil right," said he, " has any man in government besides property ? Is it not men's freehold that entitles them to choose or be chosen a member to make laws about right and property ? Wilt not thou allow me and my heirs as much as three fifty-acre men have in the government, that have fifty hundred times more property? No, Jasper, thy conceit is neither religious, politic, nor equal, and, without high words, I disregard it as meddling, intruding, and presumptuous." Pa. Mag. Hist., vi, p. 471.
1 " That which was the great objection at first was that I would not stand with my grant and estate as security to the crown for their use of the negative voice * * * * unless they and theirs would be a counter security to me and mine, which after two or three days consideration they agreed rather to leave that power and me the use of it, than to answer for them and theirs." Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 17.
2 Col. Rec., i, p. 65.
3 Ibid., p. 69.
25I
IN PENNSYLVANIA
251]
number of members to be increased to five hundred or to re- main at two hundred, as already embodied in the new frame. It was unanimously agreed that the number should be two hundred. On April 2, the clerk of the council read to the coun- cil and assembly the new frame of government, and the pro- prietor declared that what was inserted therein was by him solely intended for the benefit of the freemen, " and prosecuted with much earnestness in his spirit toward God." Then he signed and sealed the charter, and handed it to the speaker of the assembly and to two other members, "who received it in the name of all the freemen of the province, by signifying an acknowledgment of the governor's kindness in granting them that charter of more than was expected liberty." Thereupon the members of the council and assembly, as well as certain residents of Philadelphia who were present, signed the charter, and it was committed to the care of such persons "as were thought most fit to be entrusted with a matter of so great concernment." The committee which received the new char- ter was ordered to restore the old one with the hearty thanks of the house, and later an " acknowledgment of the governor's favors was writ and subscribed by the members." I
A comparison of the provisions of the old frame of govern- ment with those of the new shows the following changes : The council should consist of not less than eighteen members, three from each county, nor more than seventy-two, while the as- sembly should consist of not less than thirty-six, nor more than two hundred. The possession by the governor of three votes in the council was abolished. This would indicate that he was to have the veto power, but its exercise was limited by the provision that he should perform no public act without the advice and consent of the council. The division of the coun- cil into committees was abolished, but the standing council of one-third the entire number of members was continued. The additional provisions were : first, that the guardian of the pro-
1 Col. Rec., i, p. 72; Votes i, pt. i, pp. 21, 23.
1
252
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[252
prietor's heir, if a minor, and appointed in the manner pre- scribed by the first frame, should have the management not only of the public affairs of the province, but also of the private estate of his ward, and be yearly accountable for the same to the provincial council, until the heir came of age. This pro- vision, showing as it does how the proprietor regarded the ยท freemen and himself as one great family, of which he was head, was omitted, as will be seen, in the charter of privileges of 1701. Secondly, the estates of aliens should be allowed to descend to their heirs, as if they had been naturalized. Thirdly, the privilege of hunting and fishing anywhere in the province, except on duly located manors or other private property, was given in general terms. Both these provisions may have been the result of Furly's criticisms. Moreover, full and quiet possession of lands to which any person had lawful or equit- able claims was guaranteed, with the exception only of such rents and services as were or ought to be reserved to the pro- prietor .? Lastly, the absolute power of appointing officers was reserved to the proprietor during his lifetime.
The first meeting of the assembly under the new frame of government took place at Newcastle in May, 1684. In a con- test for the speakership between Nicholas More and Joseph Growden, both of Philadelphia, the former was elected. The bills, twenty in number, prepared by the council were passed into laws.3 They do not seem to have given universal satisfac-
1 In this connection it may be said that, out of fifteen laws declared at this ses- sion to be fundamental, nine had been suggested by Furly to be so declared. Charter and Laws of Pa., p. 154; Pa. Mag. Hist., October, 1895.
2 Ibid., pp. 155-161.
" Toshow the good feeling that existed at this time between Penn and the assem- bly, one of these laws may be cited. It was enacted that, if any person should en- deavor to injure the proprietor or to deprive him of his government, or to act in any hostile manner toward him, he should forfeit half his estate, real and personal, and be imprisoned for life. Also if any person should, by speech or writing, attempt to incite the people to hatred of the proprietor, he should be imprisoned for a year and suffer corporal punishment adequate to the offense. Provision was made, however,
.
IN PENNSYLVANIA
253]
253
tion, for even More declared his disapproval of them in most emphatic terms. In spite of this fact More stood high in the favor of the proprietor, and was appointed chief justice. Sub- sequently, however, as will appear, disgrace if not punishment followed his malfeasance in the high office with which he was entrusted. Unfortunately for Pennsylvania, the proprietor was compelled to return to England. The dispute with Baltimore had assumed such proportions that it became necessary for him to give his personal attention to the prosecution of the claim at court. Just before he embarked for England he com- missioned the council, of which Thomas Lloyd2 was president, to act as governor. But in order that no encroachment should be made on the powers still reserved to him, he carefully limited the right of appointment.3 The first assembly after his departure met at Philadelphia in May, 1685. As early as this time there were signs of the serious trouble between the coun- cil and the assembly, which, during the years of the enforced absence of the proprietor, was the cause of much grief to him. The first misstep was made by the president and council in their endeavor to change the style of promulgated bills, and their failure properly to publish them. In the fourteenth article of the frame of government of 1683 it was provided
that indictment should take place not later than nine months after the offense had been committed. Charter and Laws of Pa., pp. 173-4. On account of the oppo- sition of Fletcher, the royal governor, this law was not in the list of those confirmed by him in 1693. Ibid., pp. 190-191 ; Col. Rec., i, p, 406.
1 Col. Rec., i, p. 109.
2 " My love and my life is to you and with you," wrote Penn to Lloyd and others in the council, " and no water can quench it nor distance wear it out, or bring it to an end. I have been with you, cared over you, and served you with unfeigned love * * * and now that liberty and authority are with you, and in your hands, let the government be upon His shoulders in all your spirits, that you may rule for Him under whom the princes of this world will one day esteem it their honor to govern, and serve in their places." Passages from the Life of William Penn, p. 297. Proud, Hist. of Pa., i, p. 288.
3 Col. Rec., i, p. 242.
254
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [254
that the laws shall be enrolled in this style, " by the governor, with the assent and approbation of the freemen in provincial council and assembly met." In plain violation of this pro- vision of the frame, the council proposed the bills for this ses- sion under the style, "by the authority of the president and council." Against this proceeding the assembly entered an earnest protest, and refused to consider any of the bills, unless the style of their promulgation was made to conform to the frame. This determination of the assembly the council found it impossible to withstand. Accordingly it agreed that the old style of promulgation should be continued.I Satisfied with this concession, a majority of the assemblymen proceeded to the consideration of the bills. One point of objection still re- mained. The frame of government provided that all bills to be passed into laws should be published in every county twenty days before the meeting of the assembly. During the discussion of the bills in the assembly several members entered a written protest, " against all proceedings relating to the promulgated bills, as not being published according to the tenor of the charter," claiming that the action of the council in afterwards amending the style of the bills did not legalize them. On the first bill considered there was a tie vote, and the speaker for this very reason voted against it. An accommo- dation of the differences was at length reached, by which ten of the bills became laws.2
Aside from its disagreement with the council, the assembly was the scene of much personal jealousy. One member was actually expelled for a mere trifle, but was readmitted the fol- lowing morning. But the chief matter was the expulsion and impeachment of More. It is probable that in his position as legislator and chief justice he was possessed of considerable influence. There are evidences of his arrogant and offensive demeanor toward the officers and members of the assembly.
1 Col. Rec., i, p. 134; Votes, i, pt. i, p. 31.
2 Votes, i, pt. i, p, 32; Charter and Laws of Pa., p. 175 et seq.
255
IN PENNSYLVANIA
255]
During the consideration of the bills he frequently interrupted the proceedings by captious protests. Indeed he went so far as to say that "it were well if all the laws were dropped, and that there never would be good times as long as the Quakers had the administration."I This conduct brought to a crisis the intentions of More's enemies, for, on May 15, a bill of impeachment of ten articles was brought in against him.2 Among the charges he was accused of assuming unwarranted and arbitrary power, of sending il- legal writs to sheriffs, and of refusing to entertain a ver- dict brought in by a lawful jury. It was also said that he had declared himself not responsible to the council, and had denied its authority. For these reasons he should be im- peached as a " corrupt and aspiring minister of state." One member complained that More had called him a person of a seditious spirit. The house immediately voted that More had violated its privileges, and he was informed that, if he did not submit to its censure, he should be ejected. The charges were then ordered to be read, and More was requested to with- draw from the house while this was being done. It was voted by the assembly to impeach him on each article, and a com- mittee was appointed to prosecute him before the council. The house also requested the president and council to re- move him from his position as chief justice. In response they appointed a committee to acquaint More with the fact that the assembly had preferred charges against him, and that his presence was required in council. There appears, however, to have been but little desire on the part of that body to try the case, for when the assembly proposed to meet it for a conference on the matter, the reply was made that it had other business on hand. Objections were also raised by the council to the articles of impeachment, because they were not directed to the council and were not subscribed by the speaker or any of the assembly. Meanwhile More, still de- 1 Col. Rec., i, p. 135 et seq. 2 Votes, i, pt. i, p. 33.
256
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [256
fiant and insolent, refused to appear at the bar of the house, and declared that " he would have to be voted into the house as he had been voted out," before he would appear. The patience of the assembly at length became exhausted, and, May 18, More was formally expelled from his seat.1
The failure of the council to co-operate with the assembly made it extremely difficult for the latter to enforce its com- mands in connection with this affair. A notable instance of contempt of its authority appears in the conduct of Patrick Robinson, clerk of the provincial court. He had been ordered to produce before the assembly the records of the court for the use of that body in the trial of More. This he refused to do. Thereupon the assembly commanded the sheriff to bring him before it. He still refused to obey the assembly, and said that it had " acted arbitrarily, and had no authority." Subsequently, in the presence of the council, he expressed his contempt for the proceedings against More, and asserted that the articles of impeachment had been drawn " hob nob at a venture." For this conduct he was voted by the assembly "a public enemy to the province and territories, and a violator of the privileges of the freemen in assembly met." At the same time the council was called upon to re- move Robinson from office, and a committee consisting of the speaker and two other members was appointed to demand satisfaction. On his way to the council the speaker was threatened by Robinson with bodily harm. His actions were censured by the council, but it resolved that it could not legally remove him from office until "convicted of ill fame, and those crimes and misdemeanors alleged against him."2 In reply to a request of the same tenor from the assembly, the following year, the council stated that " it was not proper nor seasonable to be answered, nor was it signed by any of the as-
1 Votes, i, pt. i, p. 35. 2 Ibid .; Col. Rec., i, p. 142.
257
IN PENNSYLVANIA
257]
sembly." Robinson however agreed to resign within three months, and the proceedings against him were dropped.I
On June 2, 1685, More was ordered by the council "to de- sist and cease from further acting in any place of authority or judicature," until the charges against him were either proved or disproved. In July and September two members of assem- bly appeared in council and demanded, in " the name of the free people," why More had not been brought to trial. The council said in response, "that Nicholas More being at this time under a languishing condition, and not under promising hopes of a speedy recovery," it could not at that time give a definite answer. Again, in 1686, the speaker of the assembly in the name of that body desired to know why the impeach- ment of More was suspended. The president of the council replied, " that after the promulgated bills were duly considered and finished, which he did conceive was first the most proper work for the assembly, the business of the impeachment should succeed." Thus by one excuse or another was the trial of More postponed by the council, until it was finally lost sight of amid later quarrels.
After the assembly had expelled More, it sent the following letter to the proprietor : " We the freemen of the province * do with unfeigned love to your person and government " declare, * "dear and honored sir, the honor of God, the love of your person and preservation of the peace and welfare of the government were, we hope, the only centre to which our actions did tend. * * * " After denouncing More in unmeasured terms it proceeded, "Yet to you, dear sir, and to the happy success of your affairs, our hearts are open and our hands ready at all times to subscribe ourselves * * * your obedient and faithful freemen. We know your wisdom and goodness will make a candid construction of all our actions, and that it shall be out of the power of mali- cious tongues to separate betwixt our governor and his freemen,
1 Col. Rec., i, pp. 181, 191.
.
258
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [258
who extremely long for your presence and speedy arrival of your person."I But the proprietor had doubtless heard so many conflicting stories 2 about the disagreements, that he re- turned no direct answer3 to this letter. But he wrote to James Harrison and others, "I am sorry at heart for your animosi- ties; cannot more friendly courses be taken to set mat- ters to right ? * For the love of God, me, and the poor country, be not so governmentish, so noisy, and open in your dissatisfactions." +
It will be recalled that, in addition to the proceedings con- cerning More, the attempt of the council to promulgate bills in an unconstitutional manner had disturbed the relations be- tween it and the assembly. Unmindful of the protest of the former assembly, the council again in 1686 promulgated the bills for the ensuing session in the name of the " president and freemen in provincial council met." As soon as the assembly learned of this action, it charged the council with having knowingly and wilfully violated the charter. After the failure of repeated attempts of its committees to secure a general con- ference with the council, and there being every probability of a long controversy concerning the respective rights and privileges of the two bodies, the assembly, May 18, resolved to adjourn. Among the bills proposed by the council was one prolonging the existence of a number of laws. Immediate action was im- perative, lest by the adjournment of the assembly these laws might lose their force. Hence the council declared that, in view of the great trust reposed in it by the charter and the proprietor's commission, and in consideration of the fact that nothing should be permitted to subvert the government, if the assembly refused to pass the bill for the continuance of these
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.