USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 41
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
Before passing to a consideration of the instructions some- what in detail, it may be well to cite Thomas Pownall's"
1 Because they had been rather skeptical as to the fitness of Americans to hold the gubernatorial office (Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, Oct. 25, 1755), the proprietors during this period were accustomed to consult men in high official stations regarding such appointments. However, in 1755, toward the close of Gov. Morris' administration, the Duke of Cumberland had recommended Pownall to Thomas Penn for governor. It was supposed that Pownall was the man best qualified to reconcile the parties then in conflict. But the news
.480
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [480
views as expressed in his "Reasons for Declining the Gov- ernment of Pennsylvania."" He pointed out the insecurity likely to result from bonds and high penalties to enforce instructions, because temporarily and for the immediate safety of the province the governor could not deviate from them. The case was different in the provinces directly under the king, for there any governor for the good of the service might depart from his orders, and seek pardon therefor. Hence emergencies and unforeseen accidents should be taken into consideration. Again, in the administration of govern- ment matters of dispute that might otherwise be satisfac- torily settled, were often determined beforehand by the pro-
of the prospective appointment aroused great disgust among the proprietary party, as Pownall was a personal friend of both Franklin and Norris. "The appoint- ment of Pownall," wrote Mr. Hockley to Thomas Penn, June 3 and 5, 1756 (Penn MSS., Corresp. of the Penn Family), "would give great disgust to all your friends here, except the Quakers, as he is a great intimate with Franklin and Norris. One member of the assembly said you did not know Mr. Pownall, otherwise, notwithstanding you had paid the Duke of Cumberland the compliment of the appointment or recommendation of a governor, when he was proposed you would have told the duke that you intended to take the government upon yourself. Pownall's appointment will not be satisfactory, because he will be apt to pry into every one's business ; is a great stickler for certain families, communicates secrets readily, if to his advantage. His veracity is called in question by many, and he is artful and insinuating in working into the favor of the ministry." In fact, as soon as Richard Penn heard of it, he opposed the idea as likely to injure their pri- vate interests and cause other inconveniences. This was due to Pownall's attitude concerning the instructions. The governor's commission and instructions were submitted to his inspection. He made many objections, and flatly refused to give any security to obey them, in spite of the opinion of Lord Halifax, that they were perfectly proper (Ibid., P. L. B., iv, T. P. to Peters, May 8, 1756). The fact that he was at the time counsellor to Lord Loudoun on colonial affairs, and that he expected eventually to succeed Shirley as governor of Massachusetts, added weight to his rejection of the Penns' propositions. Thereupon the Duke of Cumberland recom- mended Denny (Ibid., April 20). The proprietors subsequently expressed satis- faction that Pownall had not been appointed, but they were somewhat nettled at his criticisms (Ibid., Private Corresp., iv, Richard Penn to T. P., April 8, and 10, 1756).
1 Pa. Mag. Hist., xiii, p. 441 et seq.
48 I
IN PENNSYLVANIA
481 ]
prietors. The lieutenant governor, therefore, could not take any practical measures to accommodate such disputes without danger of prosecution on his bond. In other words he had no discretion in the discharge of the duties of his office, while the proprietors, whose situation made it difficult for them to understand the true needs of the province, shaped his course of conduct regardless of circumstances. He then dwelt on the serious defects of such a method of administration. He thought the powers granted to the proprietors by the royal charter were such as might well secure the good government and defense of the province. The proprietors did in fact grant all these powers in their commission to the governor ; but their exercise was abridged and in measure changed, he believed, by the mode of administration prescribed and defined in the instructions. The people necessarily were discontented under such a regime, for they thought administration by a deputy thus hampered and restricted could not satisfy their needs and those of the province. Hence they did not enjoy, said he, the full rights and privileges of their charter. Furthermore, the lieutenant governor was required to exercise his authority subject to the council. The assembly then could act only on the principle that the full powers of government must be somewhere within the province; but if they were not in the governor, it must itself assume the authority necessary for the furtherance of the welfare of the province. The presence of a governor who could not act independently occasioned, rather than removed, internal disorders. The assembly naturally would refuse to have any confidence in the deputy or the proprietors. Strict obedience to instructions, also, would destroy all impartiality, and no service could be rendered in the province, either to the proprietors or to the king. Finally, he criticised several items in the instructions, which he showed to be contrary to the practice in the royal provinces.
In his remarks throughout Pownall displayed an inclination to curry popular favor, as well as an intense dislike toward the
482
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [482
government of colonies by proprietors. He recognized also the innate defects of the proprietary system of instruction-de- fects, however, which were inherent in the system of which the instructions were only a part. But he failed to recommend any measures other than instructions by which the proprietors would be insured the preservation and continuance of their legal rights.
Passing now from the theory of proprietary instructions, let us notice their provisions and some of the results of their enforcement. In general it may be said that the assembly refrained from opposition to instructions so long as no attempt was made through them to thwart its ambitious schemes. In fact the instructions of the first proprietor were apparently more agreeable than the unrestrained will of a deputy governor.1 But when it tried to assume complete control of the affairs of the province, the proprietors struggled to preserve their rights, and for this purpose relied on their formal instructions issued at the time the commission was granted, as well as on their pri- vate letters to the governors. These officials, because they were on the spot and were actively engaged in promoting and de- fending the interests of the proprietors, had considerable hard- ship to undergo. They became involved in long and bitter controversies with the assembly, and in some cases were driven from office by these contentions.2
1
The first commission granted by William Penn was dated April 10, 1681.3 In general terms Captain Markham, who received this document, was authorized to do all that might be needful for the peace and safety of the province till the pro- prietor came. In particular he was to call a council, receive from the inhabitants acknowledgment of Penn's authority and right to the soil, settle boundaries and determine disputes about
1 Col. Rec., i, pp. 244, 269 ; Votes, ii, pp. 200-207.
2 This was true of Gookin in 1716, Thomas in 1747, Hamilton in 1754, and Morris in 1756.
3 Hazard, Aunals of Pa., p. 503.
483
IN PENNSYLVANIA
483]
land, establish courts, appoint sheriffs, justices of the peace, and other minor officers, and if necessary, to call the people together for the purpose of suppressing tumults and revolts.
Passing over the instructions issued by Penn, February I, 1687, to the commissioners of state, we find that in 1689 he directed Gov. Blackwell that all things should be done in his name as absolute proprietor; that full validity should be at- tached to his appointments to office ; that the laws should be collected and transmitted to England; that justice should be administered impartially, and that only proportion- ate fines should be allowed. He ordered Blackwell to discourage feuds, assist the commissioners of property, improve roads and highways, and promote the general prosperity of the province. The governor was also to inform the proprie- tor of what laws were unnecessary and defective. Lastly, there were minor directions concerning equity, suppression of vice and crime, care for the poor and unfortunate, and watch- fulness over the cultivation of good morals.I
After Blackwell had resigned in 1689, Penn ordered that the council should maintain virtue, keep the peace, collect the quit-rents, and provide a salary for the governor. "Let the laws you pass," wrote he, " hold so long only as I shall not declare my dissent, that so my share may not be excluded, or I finally concluded without my notice ; in fine, let them be con- firmable by me, as you will see by the commission I left when I left the province."2 This last order was embodied also in the commission issued to Thomas Lloyd as governor early in 1692.3
Until 1704 Penn adhered to the practice of reserving final assent. At this time the assembly informed a committee of the council that it was dissatisfied with the clause in Gov.
1 Col. Rec., i, p. 318.
2 A similar provision had been inserted in the commission to Blackwell the year previous. Votes, i, pt. i, p. 51 ; Col. Rec., i, p. 316.
3 Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 71.
484
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [484
Evan's commission, whereby the proprietor had reserved to himself and heirs the right of final assent to all bills that the gov- ernor should accept. The conclusion reached by the assembly respecting this matter was that the reservation was void, because the royal charter did not admit of it. Furthermore it was argued that, by making void the clause concerning instructions, the gov- ernor's commission was nullified, because it possessed the nature of a royal writ, and to be valid must be good in all its parts. Un- certain about its accuracy in the matter, however, the assembly desired the opinion of the council whether bills passed and sealed with the great seal could be afterwards vacated by the proprietor without the consent of the assembly. In reply the council, among whose members was William Penn, Jr., stated that the saving clause was void in itself, but that did not invali- date the rest of the commission ; moreover that the proprietor could not annul such bills without the consent of the assembly.I That body on its part sent him an angry address, recounting the trouble which a reservation of this kind might occasion. Penn found it advisable to yield, and wrote to James Logan, “ I have sent the governor a commission without the frightful reservation ; so that tender Briton and patriot, D. Lloyd, trust- ing upon the governor's honor and integrity in the use thereof, have only signed it; and do desire thee to take care that the master of the rolls seal it with the great seal of the province."2
1 Col. Rec., ii, pp. 144-7. James Logan also wrote to the proprietor that the exer- cise of the right of final assent might be advisable in matters concerning his terri- torial rights, but would be a hindrance to the granting of supplies. For, owing to the three possible negatives of governor, proprietor, and crown, the assembly could not be sure that any measure would pass. On another occasion he stated that the royal charter made all acts passed by the lieutenant governor as available in law as those passed by the proprietor. " The very words of that saving [clause ]," said he, makes the clause void, there being nothing reserved but an assent to laws passed, which when passed will need none. That answer was believed by all those that signed it was truly right in itself, yet would scarce have been complied with by the council had not necessity forced them, for without it the assembly would have done nothing." Penn and Logan Corresp., i, pp. 268, 286.
2 Ibid., ii, p. 103.
485
IN PENNSYLVANIA
485]
This ended the controversy respecting the power of final as- sent.
The instructions issued to Gov. Evans in 1704, to Gov. Gookin in 1708, and to Gov. Keith in 1716, included commands to suppress vice, to discourage faction, to seek the advice of the council in all matters of moment, and to abide by it; to refrain from interference in matters affecting the proprietor's property, to "preserve a good understanding " with neighbors and Indians, and, finally to protect the religious rights of the people.ª The assembly requested that the instructions which the trustees and the proprietary family had sent Keith, should be laid before it. To further his personal ambition, and to gratify the assembly, he did so.2 Thereupon, in 1724, he and the as- sembly joined in declaring that the instructions were a viola- tion of the privileges of the representatives of the people, and that he as governor was not bound to obey them. Then he proceeded to spread them broadcast among the people.3 The displeasure of the Penns at these proceedings was so great that they removed him from office.4 But the house refused to pro- tect him against the penalties for his offense, though it sent a remonstrance to the proprietary family and to the king, the tone of which, however, was too moderate to satisfy the de- sires of the governor.5
1 Logan, " Antidote in some Remarks on a Paper of David Lloyd's called ' A Vindication,'" etc. " A Memorial from James Logan," etc.
2 From this time on at the beginning of the administration of almost every gov- ernor, and, in the case of instructions occasionally during his administration, the assembly requested that the commission and instructions from the proprietors to- gether with the commands and form of approbation of the crown should be laid before it. As a rule the commission and its approval by the crown were submitted to its inspection, but instructions, both royal and proprietary, were communicated at the discretion of the governor and then only in cases of great and immediate importance.
3 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp. i, J. Logan to Mrs. Penn and John Penn, July 30, 1724, Feb. II and 12, 1725.
+ Pa. Arch., 2d series, vii, p 84.
5 Votes, ii, pp. 463, 485.
486
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [486
As their private relations became less involved and the mem- bers of the proprietary family began to see the necessity for a more active management of the administration, the instructions were extended in range. Gov. Gordon in 1726 was in- structed to obey all directions, and to do nothing which might injure the family or its interests; to observe the laws of trade ; to refrain, so far as possible, from appointing the same persons to more than one office ; to pass no act for the issue of of paper money without a clause suspending its execution till the king's pleasure should be known, and to transmit to Eng- land all laws within six months after their passage. Also, he was ordered to induce the assembly to appoint and pay an agent whose duty it should be to solicit action by the crown on the various laws as dispatched. Because of the clamor of the people for paper money, and of the complaint of the assembly that he was unduly restricted by his instructions, we have seen that Gordon violated the one which concerned bills of credit.I The Penns, however, did not feel strong enough in their control over the government to consider either his dis- missal, or the instituting of a suit for the forfeiture of his bond. The natural result was that the instructions given to Gov. Thomas in 1738 should be less stringent than those of Gordon on the subject of paper money. Also he was forbidden to pass any law or to bestow any office without the approval of Thomas Penn, who at that time was in the province. These were the only important points in which the instructions of Gov. Thomas differed from those of his predecessor.2
The instructions issued to Gov. Hamilton in 1748 and to Gov. Morris in 1754 were very similar. The bond of £5,000 held them to the performance of their duty and to strict com- pliance with all instructions, whether they concerned the
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., ii, J. Logan and P. Gordon to the proprietors, April 30, May 2 and 16, 1729.
2 Ibid., P. L. B., i, John Penn to T. P., Feb. 17, 1737; to Gov. Thomas, March 29 and June 20, 1739.
487]
IN PENNSYLVANIA
487
territorial interests of the proprietors' government, or any other matter connected with provincial affairs. Among the numer- ous requirements contained in the instructions of these gover- nors, the following may be cited as representative. The gover- nor was to discharge his duties for the interest and advantage of the proprietors, and for the peace and prosperity of the people. For all acts of government the advice and consent of the council, or of the proprietors, if they or any of them were in the province, must be obtained. The governor was not to permit Catholics to settle or hold office in the province. The emission of paper money should be discouraged. The organi- zation of a regular militia should be promoted, though with due attention to the conscientious principles of the Quakers. The extension and increase of settlements was to be encour- aged, and the control of the proprietors over ferries main- tained. Directions were given concerning the establishment of a court of chancery, but the governor was forbidden to es- tablish one unless the assembly passed a law to regulate its procedure and the fees of its officers. The governor was for- bidden to ask the advice of the assembly. He was not to con- sent to the levy of an impost, except in case of great necessity. Lastly, he was to insist that a salary of £1,000 per year be settled on him by the assembly.I
When the province became involved in the French and Indian War, the assembly protested that for it to prepare bills was a loss of time, if the governor was restricted by private in- structions.2 The binding force of these it believed was greater than was generally known, though the proprietors, in order to avoid censure, seemed anxious to shift the responsibility for them on to the shoulders of the king. It was true that the Penns did not care to assume personal responsibility for the instruc- tions at a time of such peril, and therefore ordered Gov. Morris to say that in amending laws he exercised his own
1 MS., Bond, Commission and Instructions to Hamilton and Morris. 2 Votes, iv, p. 265.
488
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [488
judgment.1 Meanwhile Morris was requested that, if he were so hampered by proprietary instructions, he would lay them before the house for inspection.2 He answered that he would present such of them as concerned the public service. This did not suit the purposes of the assembly, and a prolonged discussion arose between it and the governor, which served only to increase the prevailing uneasiness.3 The opinion that the governor was too much restricted by his instructions was by many held as firmly as belief in their religion, and a sentiment frequently expressed was that nothing should be done till one of the proprietors came over in person.4 In order to raise an outcry against the proprietors, and to draw down upon them a censure from the home government for insisting on a matter essentially private in character, the assembly declined to give money or supplies, if instructions were brought into play.5 The pro- prietors, however, informed Morris, that, if the ministers wanted supplies to be granted on terms different from the instructions, he was judiciously to waive the latter. In some surreptitious manner, Robert Charles, the provincial agent in England, secured a copy of Morris' instructions, and sent it to the assembly. The reading and publication of this raised a storm of personal abuse against the governor. Some of the assemblymen went so far as to say that they preferred to have the French conquer them rather than to surrender
1 Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, Oct. 25, 1755.
2 In 1756, during Gov. Denny's administration, the house requested a sight of his instructions from the proprietors. The purpose of this, according to its own declaration, was to prevent the offering of any bill that might conflict with them. When the governor complied with its wishes, a bill directly opposed to one of the instructions was immediately sent up to him. This deceitful conduct, however, seems to have been generally censured. Shippen Papers, p. 63.
3 Votes, iv, pp. 330-568; Col. Rec., vi, p. 226 et seq.
4 Penn MSS., Corresp. of the Penn Family, R. Hockley to Richard Penn, Aug. 3, 1754.
5 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., vi, R. Peters to T. P., Dec. 16, 1754.
489
IN PENNSYLVANIA
489]
their privileges to the proprietors.1 After the house had sent an address to the king remonstrating against the instructions as interfering with his majesty's service, the Penns were sum- moned before the Board of Trade. In response to interroga- tions on this point, they denied that they had given orders that were an infringement of the charter, or of dangerous conse- quence to the British interests. They also declared that they would not communicate private instructions to the house, though they were willing to submit them to the examination of the king and ministers. In reply to the insinuations of the assembly, they distinctly asserted that they had not prevented the governor from affording the proper aid in procuring sup- plies, but on the contrary had urged that a firm pressure be laid on the house for that purpose. Lord Halifax, presi- dent of the Board, then declared his satisfaction with what the proprietors had done.2
Ere long the house took decisive action. It drew up resolu- tions which embraced the following : that instructions were not calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the province ; that they were of dangerous consequence to British interests, a positive breach of the charter of privileges, and in- consistent with the legal prerogative of the crown as settled by act of parliament. It complained also that, in order to conform to proprietary instructions, it had been compelled to enact a law which reduced by one-half a grant of supplies to the crown. Such a course of proceeding was declared to be a violation of the constitution and liberties of the country.3 This indirect appeal to the interest of the crown was one of the strongest weapons which the assembly could use against the proprietors. Realizing this, it never failed to use the weapon for the ad-
1 Penn MSS., Corresp. of the Penn Family, R. Hockley to T. P., Aug. 4, 1754; to the proprietors, Aug. 22, 1755; Pa. Arch., Ist series, ii, pp. 253-258.
2 Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Morris, May 10, 1755.
3 Votes, iv, pp. 368-374, 571, 605-612. " To the Freeholders of the City and County of Philadelphia."
490
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [490
vancement of its own power, trusting to its remoteness from England as a shield against adverse criticism. But however reasonable the instructions may have seemed at home, at times it was almost impossible to enforce them in Pennsylvania. This was due partly to the character of the instructions, but more to the blunt statement of the assembly that, when it was allowed to inspect them, and when, if they were found to be of the same character as heretofore, the governor should be led by his judgment to conclude that such considerations as allegiance to the crown, or the immediate safety of the colony, were of sufficient importance to induce him to disobey them, notwithstanding the penal bond, it would continue to grant addi- tional sums to the king's use. Hence, early in 1757, the as- sembly appointed Franklin and Isaac Norris, as commissioners to go to England for the purpose of soliciting a removal of the grievances caused by instructions. As the latter declined to accept, Franklin was sent alone. In August he delivered to the proprietors, by whose influence it was laid before the attorney general and solicitor general, a paper called "Heads of Complaint." It ran as follows :
" That the reasonable and necessary power given to deputy governors of Pennsylvania by the royal charter of mak- ing laws with the advice and consent of the assembly for raising money for the safety of the country and other pub- lic uses, according to their best discretion, is taken away by proprietary instructions enforced by penal bonds, and restrain- ing the deputy from the use of his best discretion, though be- ing on the spot he can better judge of the emergency, state and necessity of affairs than proprietaries residing at a great dis- tance, by means of which restraints sundry sums of money granted by the assembly for the defense of the province have been rejected by the deputy, to the great injury of his majesty's service in time of war and danger of the loss of the colony.
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.