USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 4
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
In this connection, it may be said that the failure to provide for a methodical statement of accounts in the rent rolls was another reason for the uncertain and spasmodic collection of this form of revenue. No quit-rent practically was ever paid in the Lower Counties, because no regular rent roll was made up there. Neither, until 1706, did anything like a regular rent roll exist in the province.5 The proprietary receivers, more- over, instead of putting the original tract in one column of the rent roll, and in another the several areas into which it had been divided by sale, inheritance, assignment or otherwise, made transfers from one account to another as they received notice of some alienation, and continued transferring and add- ing parts of other tracts to those already divided, until it was
1 P. L. B., iv, T. P. to Peters, Jan. 10, 1756; v, to Hockley, Oct. 9, 1756; and to Peters, Sept. 8 and Sept. 30, 1758.
2 Ibid., ix, T. P. to Tilghman, Dec. 7, 1768.
3 Ibid., vi, T. P. to Peters and Hockley, Jan. 13, 1759.
+ Ibid., viii, T. P. to Physick, July 22, 1765.
5 Pa. Arch., 2d Series, vii, p. 65.
41
IN PENNSYLVANIA
41 ]
scarcely possible to know from what piece of land the subdivi- sions originally came, its bounds, or to whom it was first granted.I
Again, it was a constant practice, when lands were sold or divided by the original grantee or by his heirs or assigns, to make no mention of the arrears of quit rent that had accrued. Official incapacity, together with the confusion existing in the proprietary family, made possible the continuance of this per- nicious system. Hence when such lands were transferred, the whole of the arrears was often imposed upon the purchaser without his knowledge. Consequently, when the proprietors issued orders for the enforcement of their rights, considerable hardship might result to innocent persons, who would doubt- less never have made the purchase, could they have readily ascertained whether these continuous quit-rent mortgages were yet unpaid.2 Moreover, we have observed in the charter that, except in regularly organized manors, persons who bought of a grantee, held of the proprietor and not of the grantee. There- fore, in cases where ownership was divided and subdivided by alienation, the rent paid by the original grantee or his heirs con- stantly diminished, because no one could be obliged to pay the entire quit-rent on any tract of land as originally purchased, unless the whole belonged to him. If the tract was divided, just as many different accounts must be made up of sums re- ceived and receipts given as there were subdivisions. The original grantee or his heirs thus paid quit-rents for such a portion only as remained unsold, and the subsequent owners paid only for their respective shares.
It was not until 1742 that a scheme for the formation of a rent roll was definitely undertaken,3 but for several years very little was done. In 1757 the proprietors suggested that for
I P. L. B., vii, T. P. to Physick, Aug. 6, 1761 ; ix, to Tilghman, May 10, 1766 .. * Penn-Physick MSS., i, Benj. Chambers to Wm. Penn, February, 1700.
3 P. L. B .. ii, T. P. to Peters, Sept. 17. 1742.
42
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [42
this purpose persons should be appointed in every township to examine the titles of the inhabitants according to the returns in the surveyor general's office, though at the same time they admitted that it was doubtful whether very many would be willing to accept the employment.I Also it was not easy to make a rent roll based on the warrant books, for they often gave merely estimates of land granted, and sometimes the exact number of acres surveyed was not returned in the certifi- cate of surveys.2 The proprietors then suggested that the plan followed by Lord Baltimore in collecting his quit-rent should be imitated. This was to make a roll in which were entered in one column the tract as originally purchased, the name of the buyer and the quit-rent at the rate usual at the time of the pur- chase.3 In another column a record was made of subdivisions of original grants, alienations and transfers. This was taken from the books of the land office, and by means of it the original tract was kept entire on the roll, and the several persons who later held subdivisions of it were mentioned as those from whom in each case only a part of the rent was received. Otherwise every purchaser would appear as a tenant, and part of two tracts might be brought into one account under his name. It would soon be impossible then to know under what purchaser, or on what tract as first surveyed, the person paying quit-rent had settled.4 Then debt books based on the roll were given to the deputy collectors to facilitate their collection of the rents. But an obstacle presented itself in the shape of certain provisions in an act of assembly passed in 1705, by which the proprietors were obliged to receive quit-rent for part of a tract. This however was true only when a person who had bought a portion of an original tract, either directly of the first grantee
1 P. L. B., v, T. P. to Chew, Dec. 12, 1757.
2 Ibid., ii, T. P. to Lardner, June 8, 1745 ; x, to Hockley, July 24, 1772.
3 Ibid., v, T. P. to Hockley and Physick, Sept. 9, 1758; vi, to Peters, Aug. 31, 1759.
4 Ibid., vi, T. P. to Hockley, July 20, 1759.
43
IN PENNSYLVANIA
43]
or from his heirs or assigns, had presented himself at the land office with his certified deeds, for the purpose of having the transfer of the property entered on record, had paid the fee for the entry, and had his name properly inserted as a tenant in the rent roll. Even then they were not compelled to consider more than one alienation of the original tract, or to ,receive less than three pence sterling or a peck of wheat, which was the quit-rent on twenty-five acres of land alienated before March 25, 1706, or less than one shilling sterling or a bushel of wheat, the quit-rent on a hundred acres alienated after that time.1 Hence unless a person by purchase or otherwise from a pat- entee prior to the date mentioned had twenty-five acres, or subsequent thereto had one hundred acres, he could not ob- lige the proprietors to receive him as a tenant; but many de- puty receivers had accepted small rents on subdivisions of the first alienation of the original patented tract.2 Otherwise they were presumed to be ignorant of any such alienations, and could charge the original grantee or his successors for the whole rent reserved. They therefore directed their officers, especially the deputy receivers, to pay no attention to any alienation of property, and to make no inquiries con- cerning it, but to demand the quit-rent on the original tract, until the person who had made such alienation should request its entry on record.3 It was of course for the interest of the proprietors to keep the tracts as far as possible from subdivi- sion. Hence, as the person for whom any subdivision of the first alienation from the original tract had been made, could not insist that the proprietors should receive him as a tenant, they ordered that the person who represented the original first alienee, or any other parties then in possession of the tract,
1 P. L. B., vi, T. P. to Peters and Hockley, Jan. 13, 1759 ; viii, to John Penn, July 6, 1765.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., v, T. P. to Chew, Dec. 12, 1757 ; vi, to Peters and Hockley, Jan. 13, 1759; vii, to Physick, Aug. 6, 1761.
44
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [44
should be answerable for the rent of such portion, as if it had never been so disposed of.1 In other words the deputy receiv- ers were to pay no regard to any sub-grants, or receive any rents from sub-tenants. This would hinder the indefinite sub- division of the property, and the consequent diminution of the quit-rents, and would also be a literal compliance with the pro- visions of the act of 1705.2 Finally they suggested, as was the custom in Maryland, that an appropriate name should be given to every tract patented.3 The subdivisions there should be designated as parts of the tract bearing that name, rather than by the names of the individual grantees who changed with every act of transfer or succession. From the land as thus desig- nated, the quit-rent should be demanded,4 and when the rolls were made up5 the debt books should be prepared and given to those appointed to receive the rent.6 Though orders that
1 P. I. B., vi, T. P. to Peters, Aug. 31, 1759; vii, to Physick, Aug. 6, 1761.
2 The proprietors thought that, when a person held a tract on which the quit-rent was less than the sums mentioned in the act, he ought to combine with others sim- ilarly situated until the amount could be legally accepted by the receivers. Ibid., v, T. P. to Chew, Dec. 12, 1757 ; vii, to Physick, Aug. 31, 1763; viii, to John Penn, July 6, 1765.
3 Ibi.d., ii, T. P. to Lardner, June 8, 1745.
+ lbid., vii, T. P. to Physick, Aug. 6, 1761 ; ix, to Tilghman, Nov. 7, 1766.
5 The rent roll used in Philadelphia County, and which may serve as an exam- ple of the one projected for all the counties, was arranged as follows: In the first column was a description of each tract of land as originally purchased, and from which alienations might or might not have been made. In the second was a record of the patent for each tract, and the page of the book on which it was en- tered. In the third were the names and quantity of the first alienations within the tract, if any had been made. In the fourth were the names of the present possessors, and the amount held by each. Then followed the quit rents at various. rates to one or more of which the tract and its subdivisions were liable. Thus, in the fifth column was the quit-rent at the rate of one shilling per one hundred acres; in the sixth, at a half penny per acre ; in the seventh, at a bushel of wheat per hundred acres; in the eighth, at one penny per acre or any other rent ; and in the ninth, the total annual quit-rent in sterling. Penn MSS., Philadelphia Lana Grants.
6 P. L. B., vii, T. P. to Physick, Aug. 31, 1763; x, Juliana Penn to Tilghman, Nov. 28, 1774 : and to John Penn, Nov. 30, 1774, and1 April 5, 1775.
45
IN PENNSYLVANIA
45]
receivers should be appointed and that such a rent roll as has been described should be prepared were frequently issued by the proprietors, they were not obeyed. The reasons for this were the intricate nature of the regulations just described, and the unwillingness of thereceiver general to submit to any check on his authority. But from 1770 to the Revolution the proprietary officers found comparatively little difficulty in the collection of the quit-rent.
The fact will be recalled that in the charter power to create manors was given to the proprietor. It remains to be seen how far this was exercised. Twenty thousand acres were bestowed on a body of patentees, which in April 1682 was chartered under the name of the Free Society of Traders in Pennsylvania, and the land which it possessed was erected into the manor of Frank. In its charter were provisions that the corporation should receive all the rents, services, and dues which otherwise would accrue from the land to Penn himself, with the usual manorial jurisdiction and privileges. Three officers of the society also were permitted to sit in the provincial council. Articles of settlement, conditions of subscription, purposes, and methods of trade were soon after published. These in- cluded an extensive system of agriculture, the establishment of manufactures, and the carrying on of the whale fisheries. But the Free Society of Traders proved a failure. A manor house was erected on the land of its president," but, so far as appears, nothing further was done to improve or organize the manor, and in 1721 the land of the company was vested by legislative act in certain trustees to be sold for the payment of its debts.2
By way of illustration, the language of another manorial grant made in 1685 may be cited: "Eneas MacPherson of Scotland is given 5000 acres with all the customary privileges in free and common socage as of the seigniory of Windsor,
1 In 1684 he summoned by writ all justices and " lords of manors" to attend a session of the provincial court at Newcastle. Col. Rec., i, p. 139.
2 Votes of Assembly, ii, p. 290.
46
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [46
with powers to erect the same by these presents into the barony of Inversie. The said Eneas MacPherson may hold court baron, view of frank pledge, and court leet by himself or stew- ards. The quit-rent is one shilling per one hundred acres in lieu of all services and demands, without molestation of the proprietor, his heirs, and successors."I Again in 1701 the proprietor granted fifty acres within his own manor of Penns- bury to Martin Zeal, the same to be held of the manor and to be subject to the regulations of its courts when constituted. About the same time he directed the commissioners of prop- erty during his absence, to erect manors whenever possible ; but the order was not obeyed.2 This shows that at that time Penn still cherished the plan of erecting manors3 within the province. The difficulties with which he was beset may have prevented it; but had manorial courts been established in the province,4 the experience of other colonies proves that they
1 Penn MSS., Pa. Land Grants.
2 Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, p. 142.
3 He had attempted the previous year to have a law passed for the erection of courts baron, but the effort failed. Col. Rec., i, p. 607.
$ In 1688 the Welsh settlers refused to consider themselves included within the counties of Philadelphia or Chester, and therefore would not consent to bear any portion of the taxes, serve. in office, or perform jury duty. They claimed to be a distinct barony, and sent a petition to the commissioners of property stating that the proprietor had promised them 40,000 acres of land regularly laid out as a manor, and that they should not be obliged to answer in any provincial court, but should have courts and magistrates of their own. In accordance with the terms of this grant they asserted that he had issued a warrant for surveying the tract, March 13, 1684. Penn MSS., Autograph Petitions. They also protested against being summoned to the county courts of Philadelphia or Chester, lest they should be assessed in both counties, and called for a confirmation of their rights. It appears, however, that they were not numerous enough to occupy the whole of the barony. Therefore the governor and council declared that several baronies might lie within the same county, and that the Welsh were included within the bounds of Chester county. Inasmuch as they had refused to pay the interest and quit-rent from the date of the warrant, their plea to be regarded as a manor was denied. The fact that they possessed a manor could not be proved from the minutes of the commis- sioners, and therefore the unsettled part of the tract was granted to other purchas- ers. Col. Rec., i, pp. 265-6; Pa. Arch., Ist Series, i, p. 108.
47
IN PENNSYLVANIA
47]
would have possessed little vitality, while in Pennsylvania the spirit of the people was particularly opposed to the institution.I
Hence in the full and strict sense of the term there were no manors in Pennsylvania, whatever the proprietary tenths and other large surveys may have been denominated. Though the tenure expressed in the patents was nominally "as of the manor or reputed manor of - -- ," or, "as of the seigniory of Windsor in free and common socage, by fealty only," yet really it only implied rent service.2 Often the lands granted within a county were held as of the principal manor of that county, whether the particular tract was actually within the surveyed limits of the manor or not.3 So far as the proprietary manors 4 were concerned, the people settled in such large numbers that whenever the Penns secured a new grant of land from the Indians, the surveyors for many years were not accustomed to survey an amount equal to the tenth part which should have been set aside for manorial purposes. In some cases the proprietors had to content themselves with land which had been avoided by the settlers because of its worthlessness. But in order to prevent any vacant land which lay between former surveys and was accidentally discovered from being surveyed for themselves, the proprietors directed that such land should be granted to the discoverer at reduced rates. Moreover any reservation of land other than that directly sur-
1 The manorial idea, however, had not disappeared as late as 1750, for about that time Count Zinzendorff applied for a large section of country, which applica- tion the proprietors refused because special powers and privileges were desired. In order therefore that the people might be responsible only to the regular magis- trates, nothing that would permit a separation from the rest of the inhabitants should be done. Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., Thos. Penn to Peters, May 13, 1750.
2 Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, p. 142; Huston, Original Titles, etc., p. 80, et seq. Penn. MSS., Pa., Land Grants.
3 Ibid., Patents in the land office at Harrisburg.
4 In 1756 the proprietors suggested that the principal tenant in each manor should be given the general powers of a bailiff over the other tenants, but the suggestion appears to have been unheeded. P. L. B., iv, T. P. to Peters, Jan. 10, 1756.
48
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [48
veyed for manors was distinctly forbidden.' For land in these manors, which was generally of a superior quality, the proprie- tors issued what were called " warrants to agree," in which a price was fixed based on the report of the deputy surveyors concerning the worth of the tract in question.2 But they usually preferred to lease rather than to sell any portion of these reservations,3 though in 1764 option in the matter was given to Gov. John Penn.4
As an institution the manor is closely connected with the township. It had been part of Penn's plan to have the inhabi- tants settle in villages or townships, dividing 5,000 acres among ten or more families, according to their ability to cultivate such an area.5 Hence, in order that the tracts bought by large purchasers might lie compactly together, he introduced into his warrants the clause, " according to the method of townships appointed by me." But, owing to the very nature of early settlements, this plan could not long be pursued. In order to oblige the people to settle more compactly and to check the growth of speculation in land,6 a similar plan was broached in 1766. Orders to this effect were frequently sent to the land officers, but the collusion of the deputy surveyors with the land speculators defeated their execution.7 Yet the lands in the central and western parts of the province were usually settled according to a system of townships similar to that of New England.
Considering now a common usage of the land office known as the " law of improvements," we find that a title by improve-
1 P. L. B., ix, T. P. to Tilghman, Nov. 7, 1766.
2 Huston, Original Titles, etc., p. 196.
3 P. L. B., iv, T. P. to Peters, Feb. 21, 1755.
4 Ibid., viii, T. P. to John Penn, July 13, 1764.
5 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., i, Pt. II, p. 418.
6 P. L. B., viii, T. P. to Smith, Apr. 1, 1766.
7 Ibid., ix, T. P. to Tilghman, July 7, 1766, Aug. 5, 1767 ; to John Penn, May 9, 1769.
49
IN PENNSYLVANIA
49]
ment was a right acquired by one who had built, cleared, and resided on land not sold or appropriated by the proprietors. Improvers were thus presumed to be persons who had inad- vertently settled on lands to which they had no real titles, but who were not disturbed except in special instances. In the case of conflicting rights also, it was the custom to give the preference to the improver. Improvements without warrants did not form a part of the system of William Penn, nor did he intend to allow any other kind of title than that of legal pur- chase from himself. But through the acquiescence of the land officers and even of the proprietors themselves," the practice of making allowance for improvements grew up from a very early period. But when squatters became numerous 2 the proprietors began to express the opposite opinion. In 1738 they issued a proclamation stating that many persons had obtained from the commissioners of property warrants for land on the agreement that they would pay within a specified time both the price demanded and the quit-rent, or forfeit their rights. A large number of these persons had possessed them- selves of land without complying with the conditions, and others without permission had entered upon lands and transferred to third parties various claims under the name of improvements. It was therefore declared that such persons would be prose- cuted, and the lands granted to others, if the regulations were not obeyed.3 But, though the proprietors endeavored to dis- courage the practice, it is evident that they soon realized the necessity of concession, for they allowed under certain cir- cumstances a species of title known as inchoate to be devel- oped in the following manner. By settlement and improve-
1 Indeed, so far as it lay in their power, the proprietors never increased the price of land, so as to affect unfavorably any person who had already settled and made suitable improvements. But such a person could take advantage of a fall in price. P. L. B., iii, T. P. to Hamilton, Sept. 26, 1751; vii, to Peters, Dec. 12, 1761.
2 Ibid., T. P. to Tilghman, May 10, 1766.
3 Huston, Original Titles, etc., p. 283.
50
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [50
ment a right of pre-emption was established. When the lands were so settled and improved, the occupant would apply for a warrant for a certain amount including his improve- ments. On payment of two-thirds of the purchase money, a warrant was made out by the secretary and signed by the governor. This being recorded in the surveyor gene- ral's office, a copy was sent to the deputy surveyor with an order to make the survey. Then a draft was returned into the surveyor general's office, and as usual a certificate entered with the secretary. Upon payment of the remainder with interest and arrears of quit-rent, the patent was issued. Absolute title, however, was not regarded as secured till the patent was de- livered.I
This general description of the procedure of the land office, may well conclude with a notice of its attitude toward the set- tlement of the frontier. About 1718 the immigration of Scotch, Irish and Germans became very brisk, and from that time the frontiers of the province were pushed steadily westward. Con- flicts were brought about with the Indians, because many of the immigrants appropriated their lands. By 1726 it was esti- mated that 100,000 persons had settled without a shadow of right.2 Many of them made their way to the disputed region near Maryland, where no lands could honestly be sold. Still more beset the commissioners of property with queries as to where they should locate themselves, declaring that Penn "had invited the people to settle his country."3 They pretended to buy but had no money, and even had the disposition to pay
1 Col. Rec., ix, p. 380.
2 Some located themselves on reserved and manor lands, expecting to have them on lease. Indeed, in 1751, a petition was sent to the king by a number of these people, complaining that the proprietary officers had burned their houses and otherwise injured their property. The Privy Council resolved that the complain- ants should be referred to the courts of Pennsylvania. Penn MSS., T. P. to Peters, July 8, 1752.
3 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., i, J. Logan to Mrs. Penn, Feb. I, 1726; Pa. Arch., 2d Series, vii, p. 96.
-
51
IN PENNSYLVANIA
51]
for the land they had seized been shown, they were often in doubt where to apply. Hence many took advantage of the uncer- tainty and paid no attention to the proprietary officers, because they could grant no more lands than would repay Penn's mortgage of the province in 1708.' The confusion was heightened by the report that the contestants in the proprietary family intended to divide the province into shares, for if that were done the general interest in the enterprise was sure to de- cline. This was later denied by the Penns, who at the same time urged that an agreement should be reached with the newcomers by giving them grants of some kind rather than allowing them to settle without any.2 But the commissioners were unable to prevent encroachments on the land of the Indians, and of this as well as of other abuses connected with the settlements complaints were constantly made. In conse- quence of these troubles the Penns were frequently besought to come over, and place their landed interests on a firm basis.3 In 1730 the Penns stated that the people who at the sug- gestion of the commissioners had settled on any lands, could have them at the price for which they were sold at the time of settlement, plus the interest since the time of purchase, and minus the value of their improvements. Those who could not do this should be obliged to pay a quit-rent proportional to the purchase money. But the squatters stubbornly held their ground, regardless of attempts at ejectment.4 Then the secretary was instructed to allow settlers to pay only the in- terest, but no titles were to be given to them. Such as had paid interest, however, could not be ejected 5 without a bill in
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.