USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 43
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
But the accusations against the province increased in vol- ume. Edward Randolph and Robert Quary4 were especially
1 Col. Rec., i, pp. 496-7.
2 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, pp. 270-I.
3 Col. Rec., i, pp. 527-529.
4 However zealous Quary may have been in representing Pennsylvania in as dark colors as possible, his own character does not appear to have been any too good. As early as 1684 his complicity with pirates led to his dismissal from the govern- orship of South Carolina, and as late as 1708 he was suspected of the same crime. Hist. Colls. of S. C., i, p. 86; Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 289. For this reason it is probable that in many cases his accusations against the province were lacking in truth. See Penn and Logan Corresp., i, p. 162, where Penn describes him as the greatest of villains in the world " for his lies, falsehood and supreme knavery." It must be remembered also that he was an eager advocate for the resumption of royal control over the province. Still, in 1705, the proprietor sug- gested, probably'as a prudential measure, that Quary be made a member of the council. But, owing to the protest of Logan that such an action might disgust Penn's friends, the suggestion was not heeded. In fact Quary himself refused to accept the position. Ibid., ii, pp. 121, 196. Later, however, the relations be
503
IN PENNSYLVANIA
503]
zealous in this particular. In constant communication with the Board of Trade, they took every opportunity to represent the province in as bad a light as possible, and suggested that Pennsylvania, in common with the other proprietary govern- ments, be placed under the immediate jurisdiction of the crown.I Addresses of vindication from the governor, council, and assembly of Pennsylvania2 seem to have had little effect. In 1698, however, the assembly passed "an act for preventing frauds and regulating abuses in trade." In this act the methods of collecting the customs were carefully defined, and provisions made for the suppression of illegal commerce.3 But the complaints of Quary against the act and against the conduct of Gov. Markham for his alleged complicity in the nefarious practices4 caused an order in council to be issued, August 31, 1689, repealing the act and forbidding the contin- uance of Markham in office.5 At the same time the Board of Trade instructed Penn to see that due obedience was rendered to the court of admiralty, and to assist the revenue officers in enforcing the laws of trade. He was further ordered to have acts passed against pirates, and to provide for the establish-
tween Quary and the proprietor appear to have been more cordial, for Logan withdrew his opposition to the appointment of the former as councillor. Ibid., pp. 195-6, 231, 318. But in spite of the assertion of Dr. E. B. O'Callaghan to the contrary, (N. Y. Col. Doc., v, p. 199) no evidence exists that Quary ever was a member of the council of Pennsylvania.
1 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, p. 278; N. Y. Col. Doc., iv, pp. 300-302.
" Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, p. 278; Col. Rec., i, p. 553.
3 See Charter and Laws of Pa., pp. 268-274.
4 Watson, Annals of Philadelphia, ii, p. 212 et seq .; Pa. Arch., Ist series, i, pp. 126-129. Because Andrew Hamilton had been accused of conduct similar to that of Markham, in 1702, the Board of Trade protested against his appointment as governor. But when Penn agreed to give a bond of {2,000 for Hamilton's ob- servance of the navigation acts'and of instructions relating to them, the queen saw fit to overrule the protest of the Board. Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., i, Andrew Hamilton to William Penn, May 7, 1702; Breviat of Evidence, Penn and Balti- more, p. 62.
5 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, pp. 279, 286, 292, 294.
504
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[504
ment of a militia. He was also to be careful that nothing should be done to the prejudice of the crown, and to report to the Board the condition of the province and the result of his efforts to put down the abuses.I
With these orders in mind, which, if he wished to retain con- trol of the government he saw must be obeyed, Penn arrived in Pennsylvania late in 1699. But he immediately recognized how inconsistent with the principles of a Quaker, and how fatal to his intention to restore peace among the people of the province would be any attempt on his part to carry out the orders regarding the establishment of a militia.2 Hence he de- voted his attention to the other matters contained in the in- structions of the Board. As Quary had been so instrumental in sending accusations against Pennsylvania, he was called
1 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, p. 294.
2 " If the crown itself disowns not the power of raising forces against subjects in rebellion, the proprietary of Maryland is more concerned to defend his fort against the king than we are to defend ourselves against his fort, which is plainly acting in the way of hostility against the subjects of our sovereign lord the king." Wil- liam Penn to the Earl of Sunderland, Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. i, p. 184. Here Penn seems to admit the necessity and lawfulness of military force to sup- port government and defend public and private rights against rebels and rioters. Furthermore, to illustrate somewhat amusingly the ideas of William Penn regard- ing defensive war, the following anecdote, told by Logan to Franklin, may be given as related in Franklin's Autobiography ( Works, i, p. 153). "He (Logan) came from England (in 1699), when a young man, with the proprietor, and as his secre- tary. It was war time and their ship was chased by an armed vessel, supposed to be an enemy. Their captain prepared for defense, but told William Penn and his company of Quakers that he did not expect their assistance, and they might retire into the cabin, which they did, except James Logan, who chose to remain on deck and was quartered to a gun. The supposed enemy proved a friend, so there was no fighting ; but when the secretary went down to communicate the intelligence, Wil- liam Penn rebuked him severely for staying on deck and endeavoring to assist in defending the vessel, contrary to the principles of Friends, especially as it had not been required by the captain. This reprimand being before all the company piqued the secretary, who answered, " I being thy servant, why did not thee order me to come down ? But thee was willing enough that I should stay and help to fight the ship when thee thought there was danger." See also Pa. Mag. Hist., vi, p. 404.
505
IN PENNSYLVANIA
505]
before the proprietor and council. There he preferred charges against David Lloyd, then attorney-general of the province, for outrageous behavior toward the king's officers, and against Anthony Morris, a justice of the peace who had illegally issued a writ of replevin.I In reply Penn declared that the action of Morris was rash and unwarrantable, and promised to make all the restitution in his power. At Quary's request also he sus- pended Lloyd from the council, and, in compliance with or- ders from the Board of Trade which had already been informed of the conduct of Lloyd and Morris,2 dismissed them from office.3 The proprietor further acknowledged that there was some reason for the complaints against the province,4 and censured the maladministration of affairs during his absence. In fact he "was sometimes warm enough to inveigh highly against past proceedings, not sparing several in express words that were concerned in them,5 and laying open in large dis-
1 It appears that the collector of customs at Newcastle had seized certain goods- imported contrary to law, and that Quary by a warrant to the marshal of the court of admiralty had left them in his custody. The owner of the goods then attempted to obtain from Gov. Markham a writ of replevin. Failing in this, he brought the matter before Judge Morris in the county court. Whereupon Lloyd, totally ignor- ing his official position in his wrath against Quary, advised the owner to bring suit against the marshal for detainer of the goods. But when that officer exhibited in court his commission stamped with the images of the king and queen, and with the seal of the high court of admiralty attached, Lloyd seized it and cried, " What is this ? Do you think to scare us with a great box * * * and a little baby ? * * * 'Tis true * * * fine pictures please children, but we are not to be frightened at such a rate." He proceeded also sharply to criticise the court of admiralty in the province, and eventually persuaded Morris to grant the writ of replevin .. Col. Rec., i, pp. 541 et seq., 565, 602-3.
2 Ibid., pp. 575, 603; Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, pp. 281, 283, 294.
3 Morris later appears to have been reinstated. Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., ii, pt. ii, pp. 202, 204.
4 Penn and Logan Corresp., i, p. 18.
5 The fact that Penn was unfavorably disposed toward Lloyd gave considerable offense to that person's followers, who of course were bitter against Quary and his- adherents. Ibid. But in view of the circumstances it is difficult to see how Penn could have acted differently.
506
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[509
course what would be the consequence if they took not some more effectual ways to satisfy superiors at home."' Accord- ingly in January 1700 he called a special session of the legisla- ture. At this session an act against pirates and privateers, and another similar to the one repealed by order in council, were passed. This having been done the proprietor dis- missed the assembly, and entered upon a series of measures to suppress the practices of which Quary and Randolph had complained.2 While engaged in these efforts, directed par- ticularly against piracy, he met with considerable opposition, and lost much of the popularity he had formerly enjoyed.3
In August 1701, the proprietor again summoned the assembly to consider a letter recently received from the king ordering that Pennsylvania should contribute £350 sterling to aid in erecting fortifications on the frontier of New York. But on the ground that the inhabitants were already burdened with heavy expenses and that the adjacent provinces had done nothing, the assembly decided to postpone further considera- tion of the letter. " In the meantime," said the assembly, "we earnestly desire the proprietor would candidly represent our conditions to the king, and assure him of our readiness (accord- ing to our abilities) to acquiesce with and answer his com- mands so far as our religious persuasions shall permit, as be- comes loyal and faithful subjects so to do." 4
In spite of Penn's efforts to prove that he had done his best to "take care of his government," the Board of Trade, March 27, 1701, submitted to the House of Commons the following re- port.5 It declared that it had often represented to the king how inconsistent with the commerce and welfare of Great Britain
1 Penn and Logan Corresp., i, p. 18.
2 Pa. Arch., Ist series, i, pp. 131, 137-9, 149; Col. Rec., i, p. 581 ; ii, pp. 12, 13, 22, 24.
3 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, pp. 301, 309, William Penn to the Board of Trade.
4 Col. Rec., ii, p. 31.
5 Penn and Logan Corresp., i, App.
507
IN PENNSYLVANIA
507]
were corporate and proprietary governments. These provinces, said the Board, had not in general answered the chief design for which such large tracts of land and such privileges and immuni- ties had been granted by the crown. They had not complied with the laws of trade. Several of their governors had not been approved by the king, and had not taken the oaths required by the laws of trade. They had passed laws repugnant to those of England and prejudicial to English commerce. Some of them had refused to send to England a complete collection of their laws. They had denied appeals to the king in coun- cil. They were the refuge of the pirates and other violators of the laws of trade. By raising and lowering the value of coins, by exempting their own inhabitants from the payment of cus- tom duties, and by harboring fugitives, they had done great injury to other colonies. They engaged in manufactures. They had no regular militia, and were lacking in the proper means of defense. All these statements led the Board to be- lieve that the condition of the corporate and proprietary prov- inces was one of confusion and anarchy. "To cure these and other great mischiefs in these colonies, and to introduce such administration of government and fit regulations of trade as may make them duly subservient and useful to Eng- land," the Board gave its opinion that charters should be resumed by the crown-a proceeding that could be best effected by the legislature of Great Britain. Owing in part to the exertions of Randolph,' a bill was introduced in the House of Lords which provided that the charters of government granted to proprietors and corporations in America should be revoked, and that the king should extend his jurisdiction over the provinces affected thereby. Private rights, however, and the validity of laws that had been confirmed by the crown should not be questioned.2 But although the bill was twice read, a contentious session caused it to fail of passage.3
l' Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii., pp. 314-15; N. C. Col. Rec., i, pp. 545-8.
2 Mass. Hist. Coll., Ist series, vii, pp. 220-222.
3 Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, i, p. 304.
508
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[508
Early in 1702, a few months after Penn had returned to England, Quary sent to the Board of Trade memorials reciting at some length the abuses that existed in Pennsylvania, and censuring Penn for not having taken a more active part in abolishing them." In person and by letter Penn made an elaborate defense before the Board,2 and by that body was later assured that, if the evil practices received a salutary check, his powers of government would not be taken from him. Thereupon the proprietor ordered the governor and council and the magistrates to enforce to the utmost the powers of his charter, and the authority of the laws. 3 Still, for several years after this time accusations against Pennsylvania were sent to England, and, as we shall see in the next chapter, Penn, desirous of sparing himself any further trouble, entered into negotiations with the crown to dispose of his rights of govern- ment. While the negotiations were pending, in 1706, the Board of Trade again represented to the queen the corrupt state of affairs in the proprietary provinces,4 but nothing further seems to have been done.
Returning to the discussion of military affairs, we find that as early as 1702 Gov. Andrew Hamilton endeavored to per- suade the assembly to establish a militia, but, aside from the aversion of the Quakers to this proceeding, the dispute between the province and the Lower Counties prevented any action from being taken.5 By the efforts of the governor, however, one company of militia seems to have been organized; but the op- position to it, particularly from the Episcopalians who hoped thereby to hasten the approach of royal government,6 caused it speedily to be disbanded.
1 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., ii, pt. ii, pp. 193-5, 202-3 ; iv, pt. ii, p. 323.
2 Ibid., ii, pt. ii, pp. 196-201, 204-6; iv, pt. ii, p. 325.
3 Penn and Logan Corresp., i, pp. 271-2.
+ Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, pp. 357-8.
5 Col. Rec., ii, pp. 78-80.
6 Penn and Logan Corresp., i, pp. 124, 152.
509
IN PENNSYLVANIA
509]
In 1704, soon after he had entered upon the duties of his office, Gov. Evans informed the assembly that a letter from Lord Cornbury, the governor of New York, called for a contribution of £350 to help defray the expenses of building fortifications on the frontier of that province. In reply, the assembly referred the governor to the statement of the assem- bly of August, 1701, and declared that the security of the frontier settlements of Pennsylvania, and the preservation of friendship with the Indians, were sufficient reasons for not raising money at this time." The governor warmly criticised this somewhat evasive policy of the assembly, and vainly urged it to reconsider the matter.2 Then he determined to establish a militia, but, as had been the experience of his pre- decessor, he met with some opposition from the Episcopalians. The Quakers, of course, took no specially active part in the proceedings, but that their quiet influence was injurious to any military organization is very probable. However, by the inducement that members of the militia should be exempted from " watch and ward," the governor persuaded a number of persons to enlist. A proclamation issued shortly after con- tained a clause to that effect, and at the same time required all the inhabitants who were not conscientiously disposed other- wise to furnish themselves with arms and ammunition. But, as we have seen in a preceding chapter, the establishment of the militia led to serious disputes with the civil magistrates of Philadelphia,3 which eventually caused its discontinuance. Again, in May, 1706, hearing that some French privateers were in the vicinity of the province, Evans made an effort to bring about a military organization.4 With the consent of the
1 Col. Rec., ii, pp. 136-139.
2 Ibid., pp. 142-3.
3 Ibid., pp. 151-2, 161-2, 171; Penn and Logan Corresp., i, pp. 287, 318, 320, 322.
4 About this time Evans indulged in a very silly performance to frighten the Quakers into taking measures to defend themselves. By a preconcerted arrange- menthe galloped through'thestreets of Philadelphia, waving a sword and shouting
510
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[510
members of the council who were not Quakers, he issued a pro- clamation calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms and ammunition. Several persons were then ap- pointed to make a careful investigation of the amount of these military necessities. At the same time a general muster of the province was ordered. The governor also asked the advice. of the council as to the wisdom of calling an assembly to provide for the safety of the province in case of attack. But it was pointed out to him by the Quaker members of the council that, as every representative except one in the assembly was a Quaker, little would be gained by convening that body. On the other hand the members of council who were not Quakers urged that, if the assembly were called and should then refuse to provide for the necessary defense, the home government would know to whom to attribute the blame.2 The governor decided, nevertheless, to summon the assembly, and requested it to aid by a law his efforts to establish a militia. But, finding it unwilling to comply with his wishes,3. he decided to abandon any further action in the matter.
In May, 1709, three months after Charles Gookin became governor, a French privateer landed some men at Lewes in the Lower Counties, and plundered it.4 A few weeks later Gov. Gookin sent to the assembly a letter from Queen Anne order- ing a quota of 150 men, besides officers, to be sent from Pennsylvania to take part in an expedition against Canada. He suggested, however, that, as the majority of the inhabi- tants were conscientiously opposed to military service, the as- sembly should grant £4,000 for the support of government.
to the people to prepare for an attack from the French. The injuries and confusion caused by this prank, or " false alarm," as it was called, made the governor an object of bitter dislike among the Quakers generally. Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, pp. 134-5; Proud, Hist. of Pa., i, pp. 469-71; Gordon, Hist. of Pa., pp. I38-9.
1 Col. Rec., ii, p. 241. 2 Ibid., pp. 243-4. 3 Ibid., pp. 249, 250. 4 Ibid., p. 448; Fenn and Logan Corresp., ii, pp. 343, 348.
5II
IN PENNSYLVANIA
5II]
With this sum he thought he could obtain the number of men desired. He also declared positively that he would consider no other legislative business until the wishes of the queen were complied with. Thereupon eight of the Quaker mem- bers of the council held a conference with a number of the assemblymen," and urged that, although it might not be in ac- cordance with their principles to bear arms, still, it was their duty to obey the queen so far as their circumstances would ad- mit. But the assembly told the governor that, if raising money to hire men for purposes of war were not against the religious principles of its members,2 it would willingly contribute thereto. However, in order to avoid the charge of disloyalty and ingratitude toward the queen "for her great and many favors," the assembly dodged the question by resolving that, although it could not "for conscience' sake " raise money for military purposes, yet it would present the queen with £500.3 The governor expostulated with the assembly for granting so small a sum, but it peremptorily refused to aid directly the expedition against Canada, or to increase the amount of the present.4 Although it later agreed to make the total amount £800,5 cwing to disputes with the governor over his refusal to pass several bills, there is no evidence that the money was ever paid.6 On account of the fact, however, that the French privateers were still cruising about the coast, Gookin saw fit to issue a proclamation calling for the establishment of a militia, and for a suitable supply of arms and ammunition.7 At length the people, weary of bickerings with the governor and of the continual appearance of the animosity between Lloyd and Logan, elected in 1710 an entirely new assembly,8 which the following year passed a bill giving £2,000 to the queen.9
1 Col. Rec., ii, pp. 449-459. 2 Penn and Logan Corresp., P. 348.
3 Col. Rec., ii, p. 460.
4 Ibid., p. 466. 5 Ibid., p. 475.
6 Ibid., pp. 492-3, 495-502.
7 Ibid., p. 469.
8 Ibid., p. 516; American Broadsides, Friendly Advice to the Inhabitants of Pennsylvania.
9 Col. Rec., ii, p. 538; Bradford, Laws of Pa.
1
512
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[512
Nine years later Gov. Keith told the assembly that, on account of the defenseless condition of the province, he intended to es- tablish a militia. The assembly replied that, as the majority of the inhabitants of the province were conscientiously opposed to the practice of arms, it could not lend its encouragement to the proposition, but said it would lay no restriction upon any one who was otherwise inclined. At the same time the governor was requested to take care that the enlistment should be entirely voluntary." With this request he wil- lingly complied, but there is no evidence that the militia he established ever amounted to anything.2 During the remain- der of his administration, and during that of Gov. Gordon, no further efforts to induce the assembly to provide for a militia were made. In 1728, however, in an address to Gov. Gordon, the assembly admitted that the presence of many disorderly persons in Pennsylvania was probably due to the fact that there was no militia to keep them in check. Hence it re- quested him to enforce the riot law of England,3 but with the means at his disposal the governor could do little to quell the disturbances.
Taking up again the discussion of the policy of the home government toward Pennsylvania, we find that, in February, 1712, the Board of Trade was informed that Pennsylvania was unwilling to contribute for defense, and that it had even sup- plied the French with provisions, while juries impanneled there would not render a verdict against a person guilty of such practices. As a result a bill was introduced into the House of Commons providing for the extension of the jurisdiction of the crown over proprietary provinces. For a brief period it was vigorously pushed,4 but, chiefly owing to the lack of interest in colonial affairs, it failed of passage.5 In its report, rendered
1 Votes, ii, pp. 272, 274.
2 Watson, Annals of Phila., i, p. 272.
3 Votes, iii, p. 77.
4 Penn MSS., Autograph Petitions, Council to Mrs. Penn, April 25, 1716.
5 Chalmers, Revolt of the American Colonies, ii, p. 5.
513
IN PENNSYLVANIA
513]
not long after this time, approving the action of Gov. Keith in declining to accept from William Penn, Jr. a commission as governor, the Board of Trade said: "We think it our duty upon this occasion to acquaint your excellencies (the lords justices) that we have been informed there was formerly an agreement made between her late majesty and Mr. Penn for [the sale of the government of ] this province, and that Mr. Penn did receive part of the money in pursuance of the said agreement. We are not able to judge how far it may suit with the present condition of his majesty's affairs to com- plete this agreement, but we cannot help thinking that all occasions should be laid hold on to recover at least the dominion of all the proprietary colonies into the hands of the crown.I" Again in 1721 the Board declared : "We think it our duty on all occasions to represent the advantages that would accrue to your majesty and the public by taking proprietary govern- ments into your own hands, where it may be done agreeable to law and justice." "There is one circumstance," continued the Board, " very particular in this charter (of Pennsylvania), viz .: that the proprietor hath five years allowed him to trans- mit his laws for the royal approbation, but the crown hath but six months for the repealing them, within which time if they are not repealed they are to be reputed laws to all intents and purposes whatsoever, from whence it frequently happens that several laws unfit for the royal assent continue in force for five years, and after having been disallowed by the crown are enacted again, and by this practice become in a manner per- petual; and this in our humble opinion is a further reason why
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.