USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 3
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
After John, Thomas, and Richard Penn had entered upon their proprietorship, in 1732, the duties of the commissioners were entrusted to John and Thomas. But, upon the return of Thomas Penn to England in 1741, none of the proprietors were in the province till 1771. The governor, George Thomas, however, in 1741, received two commissions, and from this time on the practice of granting such to each gov- ernor continued. In the governmental commission proper the governor was regularly forbidden to interfere with the manage- ment of the land system, except so far as the use of his official
1 Annual Report of the Secretary of Internal Affairs, 1890.
2 Ibid., Col. Rec., i, p. 313.
30
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [30
position could aid the proprietary officers in the performance of their duties. But in the territorial commission he was empowered by warrants issued by the secretary under the seal of the land office, to grant vacant lands and lots claimed under William Penn or the "young proprietors," according to the original terms of such purchases, and on condition that all arrears of rent and purchase money were duly paid to the re- ceiver general. Furthermore, he was instructed to grant by similar warrants the common land on the terms in existence at the time of the commission, and under certain regulations to grant escheated lands as well, special attention being paid to the requirement that all rents reserved should be in sterling or its value according to the rate of exchange. After having re- ceived certificates of survey from the surveyor general, and of payment from the receiver general, he was authorized to grant patents under the great seal containing the reservation pre- viously mentioned. These were to be recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds at Philadelphia. Lastly, he was or- dered to grant licenses for ferries for seven years, to appoint and remove officials of the land office, and to exercise a general supervision over territorial affairs. The proprietors on their part promised to ratify his proceedings."
In 174I also special agents were appointed by the Penns to manage their manors and private estates. In 1765 a board of property was constituted, and to it was entrusted the adminis- tration of territorial affairs.2 It consisted of the governor, who was given the power of decision when projects injurious to the
1 MS. Commission Book B .; Pa. Arch., Ist Series, i, p. 625. Some evidence appears that as early as 1702 or 1704 the governors were given certain powers. in territorial matters, subject to confirmation by Penn himself. It is probable, however, that this was discontinued after 1708. Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 185.
2 Private applications to the proprietors concerning land were invariably re- ferred to the officials in Pennsylvania, the Penns refusing to be considered in the light of mere landlords. Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, May 9, 1761 ; P. L. B., viii, to W. Smith, March 8, 1765.
31
IN PENNSYLVANIA
31]
proprietors were broached, the secretary, the surveyor general, the receiver general, and, in 1769, the auditor general.1
.
Having thus indicated the duties of the managers of the land office, we are now prepared to consider warrants and patents. The method adopted by the proprietor for granting lands while in England was by deeds of lease and release, or of bargain and sale, executed by Penn or his steward, and the purchaser ; but he made it a general principle to give no deed for lands sold until the purchase money was paid.2 As we have already remarked, no particular locality to be surveyed was designated in these deeds, as that could be determined when the territory had been explored. But in each deed or conveyance was a clause obliging the grantee to have it duly registered in the public record office of the province. As near as can be ascertained, then, the early procedure did not differ much from the following: The secretary's office having been opened at Philadelphia, persons desirous of secur- ing land went there to procure entry on record of their respect- ive claims, these being based on the "Conditions and Conces- sions," or on special grants from the proprietor; but not in- frequently applications were made without reference to any particular grant or regulation. At the same or at a subsequent time they demanded warrants of survey for the corresponding quantities of land, which were issued by the secretary, subject to the direction of the commissioners. These warrants issued under the lesser seal were directed to the surveyor general, who, after their execution by himself or deputies, and after the fees for surveying had been paid, returned certificates of the surveys to the secretary's office, and registered them in his own office as well.3 Then patents conformable thereto were issued under
1 P. L. B., viii, T. P. to Peters, Sept. 20, 1765; ix, to Physick, Feb. 6, 1768; x, to Hockley, July 4, 1769, and Feb. 26, 1770.
2 Pa. Magazine of History, x, p. 189 et seq.
$ It was the practice of the commissioners of property from 1708 to 1732 to ac. cept the first return of a survey, if a patent was required, without demanding that
32
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[32
the great seal by the commissioners of property, when the ne- cessary payments had been made.
Owing to the fact that the various documents and regu- lations did not always specify the location of the grant, several warrants might issue for tracts adjoining each other, or at some distance apart. Such warrants, however, differed from warrants to take up land, as these were for portions of a tract already surveyed, and founded on deeds which had already been paid for. It was often the case that an applicant for a warrant insisted upon land the location of which he had chosen, in spite of any regulations concerning townships, and refused to pay the deputy surveyor unless his wishes were fol- lowed. But as a general rule the applicants for warrants merely stated the number of acres desired, and before long was instituted the practice of designating the land as adjoining a body of water, or the property of a particular settler,' and as subject to settlement within a specified time.
We can thus see that, especially in early times, the warrants were by no means uniform in their language and specifications. They were usually divided into two parts, the first of which contained the motive or reason for their being demanded and described the object upon which they were to operate, while the other part directed the execution of what was desired under certain conditions and restrictions. Not infrequently the first part of warrants involving resurveys? was allowed to contain any special statements which the parties thought proper to
the warrant should be first entered in the surveyor general's office, and a formal return sent from it to the secretary's office. Hazard, Register of Pa., xii, p. 362.
1 Warrants in the land office at Harrisburg. .
2 The early grants were supposed to have contained a large amount of land in excess of what was expressed in the deed, or what the possessor by the original warrant of survey had a right to expect. Hence a method of granting warrants of resurvey was speedily adopted, and after the excess had been deducted, of con- firming, by a new patent, the quantity as purchased. This eventually failed, for in some cases too much land was included, while in others mistakes and want of skill on the part of the surveyors caused widespread dissatisfaction.
33
IN PENNSYLVANIA
33]
set forth, and those to which expression had previously been given in their application. Sometimes they contained matters mentioned in the Indian deeds. Occasionally they stipulated the quit-rent, and the amount of purchase money which was either to be paid down or paid at some future time with interest. Sometimes they mentioned allowances for improvements. They often required that a patent should be taken out at a specified time, or stated that the performance of certain agreements was indispensable to their validity.I But what were known as "special warrants," were warrants which vacated rights to land and transferred them to other parties, because such agreements had not been complied with. Grad- ually, however, a set form of warrants was introduced. Notably in the warrants of Thomas Penn the new clause appeared providing for the payment of a year's rent at every alienation.2 But it is doubtful if this was ever conscien- tiously put into execution, and the clause eventually was dropped. Later in the history of the province, moreover, the
1 The early warrants ran generally as follows :
Pennsylvania, ss .:
By the Commissioners of Property : - that we would grant him to take up - of land, At the request of -
for which he agrees to pay to the proprietary's use -, and the usual yearly quit-rent of -- , for each 100 acres. These are to authorize and require thee to survey, or cause to be surveyed, unto the said - -, in the place afore- said, according to the method of townships appointed, the said quantity of
that has not been already surveyed nor appropriated, nor is seated by the Indians, he seating and improving the same within - after the date of survey, and make a return thereof unto the secretary's office, which survey, in case the said first fulfills the above agreement, upon location shall be valid, ctherwise the same is to be void as if it had never been made, nor this warrant ever been granted.
Given, etc., at Philadelphia, -.
Commissioners' Names.
To -, Surveyor General.
Warrants in the land office at Harrisburg.
2 William Penn had pursued a similar method in the Lower Counties. P. L. B., ix, T. P. to Tilghman, Nov. 7, 1766.
34
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[34
practice followed by the land officers of sending merely a written order to a deputy surveyor to survey land was forbid- den and all warrants were ordered to be issued in a regular manner.I
In regard to the prices of the common land, they were some- times expressed in the earlier warrants, but as a rule they were contained only in the patents. A portion of the purchase money, however, was usually paid, or secured by a mortgage2 at the time of taking out the warrant.3 But in some cases patents were granted and short term bonds and mortgages taken for part of the price.4 Before 1713 £5 per 100 acres, and one shilling quit-rent, was the general rate. This was speedily changed to £10 per 100 acres. In the warrants issued under the trustees subsequent to 1719 the terms were £10 per 100 acres and 2 shillings quit-rent. For a number of years after 17325 £15, 10 sh. currency was the regular price per 100 acres, with a quit-rent of a half penny sterling per acre, but after 1765 this was reduced6 to about £5 sterling per 100 acres,
1 P. L. B., vii, T. P. to Hamilton, April 25, 1762.
2 Because no court of chancery existed in the province, money due on warrants, if put in the shape of a mortgage, could be more readily recovered by suit, as mortgages were a security well known in law, while warrants and surveys were not. Ibid., viii, T. P. to Physick, Sept. 22, 1765.
3 This was true more especially with regard to the region comprised in a large purchase from the Indians in 1768. Ibid., x, T. P. to Tilghman, Feb. 26, 1770.
4 Huston, Original Titles, etc., p. 105.
5 In 1735, because the needs of the proprietors forced' them to resort to extra- ordinary expedients for the raising of money, the scheme of selling lands by a lot- tery was adopted. It was believed that such a scheme would secure titles at an easy rate to persons who had settled upon lands to which they had no right, and would thereby increase careful cultivation. 100,000 acres were to be laid out anywhere in the province, except in manors or in lands already surveyed or actu- ally settled and improved before 1735, the quit-rent being one shilling sterling per 100 acres. Many tickets in this lottery were sold, which became titles to land in spite of the fact that the subscribers never drew for their lots. The property sur- veyed in connection with this was for a long time kept separate from the common mass. Indeed, as late as 1770 there were warrants of acceptance for part of these lottery lands on special terms. Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, pp. 149, 150.
6 The high rates caused an emigration to other colonies, chiefly Virginia and
35
IN PENNSYLVANIA
35]
with a quit-rent of one penny sterling per acre.1 What was called surplus land, however, i. e., land which had been found on resurvey to be in excess of the amount intended to be granted and which often had been improved, was sold at con- siderably higher rates.
Hence the procedure of the land office in issuing warrants and patents may be summed up as follows: First, there was an official, usually the secretary, authorized under restrictions and regulations to issue warrants of survey. Second in order were claims, directions, or other legal causes shown to this officer for the issue of such warrants, and consisting of rights, general or special, substantiated in required forms and recog- nized by their admission on record. Then came the warrant it- self, which was an authoritative order issued under the lesser seal of the province to the surveyor general, and by him transmitted to his deputy, directing him to lay out and survey for the party therein named a certain quantity of land, and to return a cer- tificate of his survey to the secretary's office. The warrants and surveys could be registered, but the settler had no power of assigning a warrant, for no grant had been made to him, but only the promise of a grant when certain conditions mentioned in the warrant had been fulfilled. Moreover the warrants were presumed to hold good only for a brief period, with the understanding that the warrantee was speedily to pay the pur-
the Carolinas, which was accompanied with considerable financial loss to the colony, as the emigrants converted their effects into money and carried it with them. For this reason the proprietors had been making gradual reductions ever since 1751. Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., John Penn to Peters, Sept. 28, 1751.
1 Since about the middle of the eighteenth century, it had been the practice for the deputy surveyor to be ordered to survey a tract of land ; and perhaps several, years later a warrant was issued for the return of the survey. Hence, on the plea that it had been surveyed before the new terms were inaugurated land might be. bought on the old terms. The practice continued, but the proprietors doubted its expediency even in the case where it guaranteed the possession of the land to per- sons who had settled and made improvements thereon. P. L. B. viii, T. B. to John Penn., Oct. 28, 1763, July 6, 1765.
1129702
1
36
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [36
chase money and take out his patent.1 Fourth in order was the certificate so returned, and lastly, the patent or grant. This was a public deed from the proprietors issued under the the great seal and conveying to the grantee their rights in the land, describing its bounds, and giving the complete legal title, but reserving, of course, the usual quit-rent. The granting of the patent was evidence that all the previous requisites had been complied with. When it had been engrossed, the gov- ernor signed a warrant, directed to the keeper of the great seal, to affix the great seal, enter the patent on the public records and register his warrant. The proprietors were strict in their orders that no patents should be arbitrarily disregarded or vacated by their officers. As no patent was to be viewed as a private deed, it should furthermore not be cancelled unless this was made a matter of public record, either by some legal order, or by an acknowledgment on its reverse side signed by the parties. At the same time they directed that the greatest care should be observed in granting patents, so that none should be issued for lands already patented.2
Passing now to the consideration of the quit-rents,3 we find that they were collected from the common and manorial lands
1 P. L. B., vi, T. P. to Peters, Sept. 21, 1759 ; and to Hamilton, Oct. 18, 1760; ix, T. P. to Physick, Aug. 10, 1768.
2 Ibid., iii, T. P. to Peters, July 17, 1752, and Jan. 9, 1753; ix, T. P. to Tillghman, Nov. 7, 1766. The following is a specimen of an early grant : 500 acres (three-fifths of all royal mines, free from all deductions for digging and refin- ing, excepted), with all fishing, fowling, hawking, hunting, mines, minerals, quar- ries, meadows, pastures, marshes, savannahs, swamps, cripples, woods, underwoods, timber, trees, ways, waters, water courses, liberties, profits, commodities, heredita- ments, advantages, and appurtenances. Rent at one shilling per Ico acres. Penn MSS., Pa. Land Grants, 1705.
3 In one of William Penn's earlier wills, written about 1701, it was stated that even his children were to pay quit-rent in some form to him as proprietor. When his sons became proprietors, the private property of each in Pennsylvania was gen- erally held of themselves jointly by some nominal quit-rent. P. L. B., ii, T. P. to Logan, June 16, 1747.
37
IN PENNSYLVANIA
37]
and from lots in Philadelphia. They were so called because the tenant was by their payment " quit and free " from all other fendal services, while they were considered as public in their character2 in contradistinction to the other rents.3 Payable annually, they ranged in value from a pepper corn, a red rose, an Indian arrow, a buck's foot, a beaver skin, or a bushel of wheat, to several shillings per hundred acres, according to the period of time, the quality of land and the person to whom the grant was made.4 When the conviction became prevalent that an annual render by way of feudal acknowledgment was necessary for the perfection of title, the objections that had been urged
1 The purpose in granting bank and water lots in Philadelphia was principally to encourage the building of wharves. This was stated in the patents, which were ob- tained only by special application. On the return of the survey, a patent was issued containing certain stipulations. Among them were first that the quit rent should be larger than that imposed on ordinary city lots, and secondly, that this quit-rent was to continue for fifty years, at the expiration of which time the property should be duly appraised and one-third of the value paid to the proprietors as a perpetual ground rent. But sometimes the lots were sold outright at so much per foot .-- Lewis, Original Land Titles in Philadelphia, p. 127. These proprietary thirds, as they were called, were very distasteful to the people. Constant complaint was made and frequent solicitations addressed to the proprietors to know on what terms a release or reversion of them could be obtained. As the reservations were a source of considerable revenue, such requests were generally refused or evaded. Penn and Logan Corresp., i, p. 296; Penn MSS., Correspondence of the Penn Family, John to Thomas Penn, March 4, 1734 ; Ibid., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, March I, 1745, and July 20, 1759; Penn-Physick MSS., E. Physick to T. P., April 19, 1769.
2 Penn and Logan Corresp., i, p. 188.
3 These were ground rents on tracts and lots of land within boroughs and towns, such as York, Carlisle, Easton and Reading, rents from ferries, and temporary rent for squares of ground or pasture.
4 Penn had been so desirous of actual settlement that he frequently granted land without purchase money, and with only a quit rent reserved. Though no actual patent was issued, the settler was considered as the owner. His sons occasionally followed a similar course with settlements on the frontier. All such quit-rent, however, was exceedingly difficult to recover, as the neglect to demand it for many years, the patented lands being first levied upon, caused the people to believe they were not liable for it. P. L. B., ix, T. P. to Tilghman, July 7, 1766.
38
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [38
against its payment were dropped and the assertion made that the quit-rents were intended for the support of govern- ment. At any rate they formed a constituent part of the condition of sale, and were expressly mentioned in the patents.
In his description of the province published shortly after the charter, Penn declared that the quit-rent would be one English shilling, or its equivalent, per hundred acres. Those who so desired might buy off the most of it, but as he held of the king by a low rent, so all should hold of him by a low rent paid to secure their title and tenure.1 In September 1681 he agreed in a special instance to sell the quit-rent for a slight increase in the amount of purchase money, and the annual render of a beaver skin, which was about the value of a crown. But he resolutely refused to abate it entirely, though in the extensive grant to the Free Society of Traders it was nominally fixed at one shilling, and the commissioners of property were allowed an abatement. His sons also expressed a similar un- willingness to dispense with it.2
From the very beginning difficulties arose in the collection of the quit-rents. At first the sheriffs were ordered by both the provincial court3 and Penn himself to " collect, levy and gather all fees, quit-rents, and arrears " due him, and if neces- sary to distrain for them. They were accountable, of course,
1 " For £100 down I will sell off the yearly rent of £18, 6s. 8 d., and will reserve but 50 shillings, which may be reduced as the purchaser pleases, but something must be reserved for the security of the title."-A Brief Account, etc. £20, 16 s. 8 d. was the annual value of 5000 acres at a quit rent of one penny per acre. The difference between this amount and £18, 6 s. 8 d., is 50 shillings, the same as the quit rent of one shilling per one hundred acres imposed upon 5000 acres that had been purchased. These 50 shillings the proprietor was at first willing to sell off gradually, but as a sign of the feudal tenure, he required some quit-rent to be yearly paid, even if it were no more than a red rose.
2 Hazard, Annals of Pa., p. 549; Memoirs, Pa. Hist. Soc., i, Pt. i, p. 206 ; Penn MSS., T. P. to Peters, Oct. 6, 1755; Ibid., Supp. Proc., John Penn to Peters, July 29, 175I.
3 Pa. Arch., Ist Series, i, p. 98.
39
IN PENNSYLVANIA
39]
to the commissioners of property, and after 1689 to the re- ceiver general. But this use of the machinery of government soon fell into abeyance. Whenever it was necessary to pro- ceed to ejectment, or to other forcible measures, the procedure was in accordance with established law. Hence the secretary or receiver general applied to the governor for a writ to the sheriff, who then with as many subordinates as might be requisite aided that official in enforcing the claim at issue. At a comparatively early date the proprietor had appointed deputy receivers in the Lower Counties, and to some extent also in the province; but various causes soon rendered their services almost useless. They were laughed at, refused pay- ment, and even personally maltreated.1 Indeed, associations were formed expressly to induce the people not to pay their quit-rents. This was especially true when the conflict between the assembly and the proprietors grew more bitter. The Penns were naturally anxious for the payment of the rents due them, and retaliated by issuing frequent orders to their officers to enforce collection, even to the extent of distress and sale.2 . But in order to guard against sympathetic outbreaks such directions necessarily had to be executed with great caution.3
As the inhabited portion of the province extended, and the subdivisions of land increased, the duties of the receiver gen- eral became very arduous. For a while he had personally at-
1 Col. Rec., i, p. 182.
2 P. L. B., x, T. P. to Tilghman, Feb. 26, 1770.
3 "Braddock's defeat and the consequent uneasiness must not put a stop to your demanding our arrears in the town, and by degrees in the country. I desire you will not say anything about it in conversation, as it only raises discontents. We are only taking the same methods any common landlord does, and shall continue to do it till every man pays regularly once a year."-P. L. B., iv, T. P. to Hock- ley, Sept. 29, 1755. At other times the proprietors displayed considerable leniency in their dealings with people who had suffered from the ravages of war. " Inter est and quit-rent are to be forgiven those persons who have suffered during the war." Ibid .. vi, T. P. to Peters, Aug. 10, 1759; vii, Dec. 12, 1761; Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., Aug. 14 and Sept. 10, 1762.
1
40
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [40
tended to the collection of the quit-rents, but at times he had appointed deputy receivers who had performed their duties upon notice sent to the several constables. Therefore in 1756 the proprietors suggested that especially in the frontier coun- ties a deputy receiver in the person of the county clerk, or if necessary an officer in each district where an assessor was chosen, should be appointed and paid by a fixed salary, or by a commission on receipts." They thought there might be one such receiver for every eight or ten townships to collect per- sonally from farm to farm, because, unless the amount of arrears was kept down, many people might object to paying anything at all.2 In fact they believed the assessors ought to be em- powered to oblige the people to declare the amount of quit- rent that was in arrears.3 But the accounts were in such a state as to make it almost impossible to appoint regular deputy receivers, either at fixed salaries or on commission.+
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.