USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 45
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
524
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[524
fact called forth a remonstrance from the assembly, in which the request was made that not only should no more of those persons be enlisted, but those already in the service should be discharged. Still it agreed to vote £3000 to the king's ser- vice, but stipulated that the money should not be paid till its wishes were granted." Thomas said in reply, that to discharge the servants would cause a mutiny and eventually the dis- bandment of the militia.2 When, therefore, the assembly threatened to appeal to the king against him, the governor de- clared that he was only too willing for his majesty to be in- formed of the condition of affairs.3 To anticipate any action on the part of the assembly he determined to send to the Board of Trade a representation of the case. The occasion for his tak- ing this step seems to have been the wrathful rejection by the assembly of a somewhat importunate petition for defense which intimated that, unless the demands of the petitioners were com- plied with, an appeal would be made to the king. The as- sembly characterized the petition as extraordinary in nature, untruthful in its insinuations, a gross insult to the house, and a breach of its privileges.4 Thereupon, October 20, Thomas
the servants. But on the ground that it would involve an action on his part which would be extra-judicial in character, the request was denied. To make the matter obvious, Gen. Shirley said, in reply to a letter from the council, that, in order to prevent any injury to the service, he could not countermand his instruc- tions to the recruiting officers to enlist all persons who offered themselves, and threateningly added that, unless the magistrates ceased to interfere with the duties of those officers, the consequences would be unpleasant for the province. Votes, iv, pp. 458, 535-542; Pa. Arch., Ist series, ii, pp. 578, 587 et seq. But, in 1756 and 1757, acts were passed which forbade the enlistment of servants, and which provided for the reimbursement of masters who had suffered in this respect.
1 It appears that the money was later paid into the English treasury. Votes, iii, pp. 409, 492. " The assembly," wrote Mr. Peters to Thomas Penn (Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, Oct. 24, 1741) might better have paid the charges for raising the levies than sent the money on a wild-goose chase to England." Pennsylva- nia Gazette, Aug. 21, 1740.
2 Col. Rec., iv, p. 467.
3 Votes, iii, pp. 390-392, 395-422.
+ Ibid., pp. 433-4.
.
525]
IN PENNSYLVANIA
525
dispatched to the Board of Trade a letter in which the history of his controversy with the assembly was carefully reviewed. The greater part of the letter was devoted to a severe arraign- ment of the Quakers for their refusal to obey the orders of the crown. He declared that, in spite of the exertions of himself and others to persuade the Quakers not to serve in assembly, that sect immediately put forth all its strength to control the elections, and informed its opponents that, since Pennsylvania had been given to a Quaker for the benefit of Quakers, all who did not like their system of government might go elsewhere. The bitterness of the messages sent him from the assembly, the governor said, was very inconsistent with the meekness and humility commonly ascribed to Quakers. He asserted further that, notwithstanding insinuations of the Quakers to the contrary," he had not ordered the recruiting officers to allow indented servants to enlist. He suggested, therefore, that measures be taken to make the assembly more obedient to the commands of the king.
By some means Richard Partridge, the agent of the assembly in England, secured a copy of this letter and sent it to the as- sembly. An outburst of wrath was the result, and petitions were sent to the king and to the proprietors requesting that Thomas be removed from office.2 This expedient failing,3 the opponents of the governor resorted to other means to complicate his re- lations with the assembly. Their opposition was increased by a rumor that all Quakers would be removed from office.4 Hence, to carry out their schemes against Thomas, they per- suaded many of the Germans who had never voted before to
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, Address to the Germans, Sept. 29, 1741.
2 Ibid., Gov. Thomas to F. J. Paris, May 14, 1741 ; to John Penn, July 14 and Oct. 27, 1741; T. P. to Paris, March 27, 1741; R. Peters to T. P., Oct. 24, 1741; W. Allen to T. P., Oct. 24, 1741 ; Votes, iii, p. 446; Pa. Arch., Ist series, i, p. 628; Pennsylvania Gazette, June 10, 1742.
3 Pennsylvania Gazette, June 17, 1742.
+ Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, R. Peters to John Penn, April 4, 1741.
526
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[526
cast their ballots for candidates who were known to be opposed to the establishment of a militia and to the expenditure of money for military purposes. As the Germans had been ac- customed to a military government in their native country, it is easy to see how an argument based on this fact must have carried with it great weight.' In 1742 the struggle be- tween the friends and enemies of the governor culminated in an election riot at Philadelphia in which both parties were guilty of considerable violence.2 But the Quakers and their adherents were victorious in the election, and an assembly hostile to Thomas was returned.
About a year after Gov. Thomas had sent his letter to the Board of Trade it seems that a petition from Pennsylvania was dispatched to the king describing at some length the un- protected condition of the province, and complaining that the Quakers by maintaining their majority in the assembly had prevented any measures for defense from being adopted. Therefore the petitioners "encouraged by his majesty's gracious and paternal care for the remotest part of his sub- jects," did "most humbly pray and beseech his majesty, as the only resource left, that he would be pleased to order " for the safety of the province "what in his great wisdom" should be " thought meet and convenient." The petition was referred to the Board of Trade with direction, "to inspect the charter granted to the proprietors, together with the laws of the province, and to procure such other lights as might enable them to report to the Committee [of the Privy Council for Plantation Affairs] "whether the said province " was " not obliged to provide for its own security and defense." Coun- sel on behalf of the petitioners and of the assembly was
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, W. Allen to John Penn, March 27, 1741 ; Pa. Arch., Ist series, i, p. 633 ; Watson, Annals of Phila., i, p. 474.
2 Votes, iii, pp. 497-502, App., pp. 564-589 ; Watson, Annals of Phila., i, p. 721; Col. Rec., iv, p. 620 et seq .; Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, W. Allen to T. P., July 8, Nov. 20, 1742.
527
IN PENNSYLVANIA
5277
then heard before the Board. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board reported that, from both the nature of society and the terms of the royal charter, Pennsylvania was obliged to provide for its own defense. The Board further saw no reason why "this colony should be exempted from the general custom of all other colonies in America," especially as there was no law in existence that gave it any such right of exemption. Judging somewhat super- ficially the tenets of the Quakers, the Board declared that the law concerning liberty of conscience related "merely to matters of religion, and not to affairs of government." In reply also to the contention of the counsel for the assem- bly that, from the clause in the royal charter which granted them the powers of a captain general the proprietors were obliged in the case of emergency to undergo the expense of defending the province, the Board asserted that they were no more obliged to be at that expense than were the gov- ernors of any other colony who by their commissions were en- trusted with similar powers. Hence the Board recommended that the king should instruct Gov. Thomas to inform him of what might be necessary for the security of the province ; and, in spite of the opposition of the counsel for the assembly, this. report was accepted and the instruction duly sent.I Then Thomas requested the assembly to draw a bill providing for a compulsory militia and for a supply of arms and accoutre- ments. In reply the assembly curtly said that, since former assemblies had given decisive opinions on this subject, there was no reason for repeating them.2 The governor thereupon issued a proclamation calling upon all persons capable of bearing arms to prepare for war,3 but, as the assembly still declined to furnish any assistance, the proclamation accom- plished practically nothing.
1 Pa. Arch., Ist series, i, pp. 633-5; Votes, iii, P. 537.
2 Votes, iii, 537-47.
3 Ibid., p. 553; Col. Rec., iv, p. 696; Pennsylvania Journal, June 14, 1744 ..
528
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[528
The increasing urgency of the petitions for defense,' as well as the instructions he had received from the crown, caused Thomas, soon after the beginning of King George's war, to send to his majesty a representation similar to that he had dispatched to the Board of Trade in 1740. This was immediately referred to the Board, but the attorney-general and solicitor- general now gave it as their opinion that, although it was the duty of the assembly to make provision for the support of troops and the building of fortifications, that body as then con- stituted was the immediate judge of the methods to be em- ployed, and therefore could not, except by an act of parliament, be forced to do otherwise than it might see fit.2 While Thomas, somewhat disheartened at this opinion, was considering the advisability of raising another voluntary militia, a request came from New England to send men, ammunition and pro- visions for the garrison at Louisburg. When the governor urged the assembly to comply with the request it refused to grant money to buy POWDER, for that was an article of war ; but it did vote £4,000 to be expended by him for the purchase of " bread, beef, pork, flour, wheat or other grain." Some of the council advised Thomas not to accept money to be spent for provisions, as not being what was really desired; but he re- plied, "I shall take the money, for I understand very well their meaning ; other grain is gunpowder," which he accord- ingly bought and no opposition was made to it.3 By a conces- sion to the advocates of paper money he also succeeded, the fol- lowing year, 1746, in persuading the assembly to grant £5,000
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, Gov. Thomas to John Penn, Sept. 27, 1743; Votes, iv, p. 25. One of these petitions was sent to the king from the mayor and commonalty of Philadelphia. Hazard, Register of Pa., i, p. 271.
2 Penn MSS., P. L. B., ii, T. P. to Thomas, March 7, 1745.
3 Franklin, Works, i, p. 154; iii, p. 10; Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, Dec. 8, 1745. "The Case of the Inhabitants in Pennsylvania," 1746; Col. Rec., iv, p. 769.
529
IN PENNSYLVANIA
529]
to be used in a projected expedition against Canada.' About the same time rumors of an attack by the French caused him to raise by enlistment another body of 400 men, who for a while were held in readiness for this expedition,2 but were eventually disbanded.
With ill-concealed anxiety Benjamin Franklin had witnessed the failure of the governor to secure the co operation of the Quaker assembly in establishing a permanent militia.3 See- ing the danger of attack from the French and Spanish, in November, 1747,4 he published a pamphlet called “ Plain Truth." In it he pictured the utter helplessness of the province, sharply criticised the Quakers for their unwillingness to relinquish their power in the assembly, and accused of sel- fishness and inconsistency the rich men of the opposite party, who, while themselves not contributing toward a military organization, censured the Quakers for their shortcomings in this respect. He then made a powerful appeal for a militia, and assured the Quakers that, although they themselves might be " resigned and easy under this naked, defenseless state of the country," it was "far otherwise with a very great part of the people," who had no confidence that God would protect those who neglected rational means for their security.5 In spite of replies from the Quakers6 a plan of association7 was
1 Votes, iv, pp. 38-9; Hazard, Register of Pa., iii, p. 20; Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, Gov. Thomas to T. P., June 23, 1746.
2 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, Gov. Thomas to T. P., July 28, Nov. 3, 1746; P. L. B., ii, T. P. to Thomas, Sept. 16, 1746. "The Case," etc. Col. Rec., v, p. 40.
3 Franklin, Works, i, p. 144.
4 Ibid., iii, pp. 1, 3; Pennsylvania Gazette, Nov. 12 and 19, 1747.
3 Ibid., iii, pp. 4-21.
6 One pamphlet called " Necessary Truth," called upon the people to improve their moral and religious character, and declared " that rectitude of life and con- trition of soul would procure the salvation of the whole, and not dependence on arms." Another of the same general nature was called, " A Treatise showing the Need we have to rely on God as sole Protector of this Province."
7 Rev. Gilbert Tennent, by his vigorous sermons in support of defensive war, greatly encouraged the movement.
530
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [530
drawn, chiefly by Franklin himself, and was signed by over 1,200 persons. Before long 10,000 people in the province and Lower Counties were under arms, formed themselves into companies and regiments, chose their own officers (except field officers, who since the resignation of Gov. Thomas were appointed by the president and council of the province), elected a military council, the orders of which were binding until the king should command otherwise, and met at stated periods for drill. A lottery to defray the expenses of building a battery and of purchasing cannon was also very successful.I The organization lasted for some time after the war closed.
How did the proprietors view this somewhat bold procedure? Writing to Mr. Peters, March 30, 1748,2 Thomas Penn said, "I am greatly concerned that, when there were both a gov- ernor and a constitution, a military commonwealth should be formed. It strongly resembles treason. The people should have desired the president and council to appoint officers for their training, and put themselves under their direction, and not presume to establish any military council to whom they should be accountable. This is erecting a government within a government, and rebelling against the king's authority." At the same time the chief proprietor admitted that, were he in the position of the colonists, he would certainly have joined the association.3 Later, however, the favorable light in which Mr. Peters represented the association caused the proprietors to become more favorable toward it, and even to send contri- butions of cannon.4
1 Franklin, Works, i, pp. 145-148; iii, pp. 2-3; vii, pp. 20-24; Pennsylvania Gazette, Dec. 12 and 29, 1747, January to September, 1748; Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., R. Peters to the proprietors, Feb. 1, 1747 ; Watson, Annals of Phila., i, pp. 272-3.
2 P. L. B., ii.
$ Ibid., Aug. 31, 1748; to the council, March 30, 1748.
4 Franklin, Works, i, pp. 149-50, note ; P. L. B., iii, T. P. to Hamilton, Aug. 27, 1750.
531
IN PENNSYLVANIA
531]
In 1754, shortly before the beginning of hostilities with the French and Indians, the proprietors ordered Gov. Morris to procure the passage of an act providing for compulsory mili- tary service, and for the adoption of all measures necessary to defend the province. But the governor was also instructed to inform the assembly that the proprietors wished all measures taken to be as little burdensome to the people as possible, and in no case to violate the principles of any person who was con- scientiously opposed to participation in military operations.I In the following October the orders of the proprietors were confirmed by the secretary of state, who informed Morris that, to aid the other colonies in their efforts against the French, Pennsylvania was expected to furnish as its quota 3,000 men and the supplies necessary for them.2 The governor immediately laid these directions before the assembly. While he was argu- ing with that body over its claims concerning the issue of bills of credit, the taxation of the proprietary estates, and the dis- posal of public money, Gen. Braddock, the recently appointed commander-in-chief of the military forces in the colonies, called upon him for aid in the proposed expedition against Fort Duquesne. The governor then told Braddock how earn- estly he had tried to persuade the assembly to follow a course of action that would not conflict with his instructions from the king and from the proprietors. In reply Braddock sharply censured the assembly for its "improper and pusillanimous behavior." He declared that faction and opposition existed while " liberty and property were invaded." He also criticised the assembly for its encroachments on the prerogatives of the crown, and hinted that "he would repair by unpleasant methods what, for the character and honor of the assembly, he should be happier to see cheerfully supplied." In other words he threatened that, unless the assembly afforded the aid re- 1 Pa. Arch., Ist series, ii, p. 189.
2 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., vi, Sir Thos. Robinson to Gov. Morris. July 5 and Oct. 26, 1754.
532
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[532
quired, the home government would take stringent measures to force it so to do.I
On account of Gen. Braddock's criticism of the assembly, it has been generally supposed that Pennsylvania did not give him the assistance he desired. But it is quite probable that, from public and private sources taken together, he received more aid from that province than he did from Maryland and Virginia combined. True, in the minutes of the proceedings of the assembly there is no evidence that that body, by assent- ing to the amendments of the governor to its bills, gave up any of its claims in order to render any direct aid to Braddock. Still, the accounts at the close of the session, as well as state- ments made in February, 1757, show that nearly £8,000 was expended in the relief of French deserters, in presents to friendly Indians, in provisions, in support of the families of soldiers, and in cutting a road toward the Ohio.2 From other sources also it appears that the assembly contributed 400,000 lbs. of flour for Braddock's army.3 In addition to this, be- sides the efforts of Gov. Morris, Franklin established an army post between Philadelphia and Winchester, and in a variety of ways was of great service to Braddock. These facts will show that, as Braddock himself later admitted, although Virginia and Maryland " had promised everything, they had performed nothing," while Pennsylvania, "which had promised nothing, had performed everything." 4
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., vii, Braddock to Morris, Feb. 28, March 10, and May 24, 1755.
2 Votes, iv, pp. 481, 699.
3 Penn MSS., P. L. B., iv, T. P. to Peters and Morris, Aug. 13, 1755, Supp. Proc., to Peters, Aug. 14, 1755.
4 Pa. Mag. Hist., xvii, p. 272; xi, p. 96; Franklin, Works, iii, pp. 405-7 ; Pa. Arch., Ist series, ii, p. 368; Col. Rec., vii, p. 254 ; Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., vii, letter from Braddock to Morris, June 11, 1755, acknowledging the receipt of pro- visions. Ibid., letter from R. Hockley to Thomas Penn, June 23, 1755, stating that in their promises and contracts Virginia and Maryland had disappointed Braddock. Ibid., letter from Thomas Penn to Mr. Gordon, Aug. 3, 1755, stating that the
533
IN PENNSYLVANIA
533]
Many petitions, chiefly from the inhabitants of the frontier, were now sent to the assembly. In them were harrowing de- . scriptions of Indian atrocities and of the desolate condition of that section. The assembly was earnestly desired to remember that all persons in the province were not of the Quaker per- suasion, and that many believed, as did Franklin, that rational means of defense were far wiser than supine dependence on the intervention of Providence. Gradually the petitions grew bolder in tone and demanded that the assembly cease its con- tinual contention with the governor, and no longer make the religious scruples of the majority of its members a bar to the passage of measures for the proper defense of the province." At the same time several petitions were sent to the king, requesting that some action be taken to force the assembly to provide for the safety of the country. The defeat of Braddock encouraged the opponents of the Quakers, and Franklin, who for a while appears to have been somewhat disgusted with their unreasonable behavior in clinging to their seats in the assembly,2 seized the opportunity to bring in a bill for the establishment of a voluntary militia.3 After a preamble con- taining the usual apology for the unwillingness of the Quakers to be concerned in military affairs had been added, the bill was passed, and the governor, seeing that nothing better could be obtained, signed it, November 25, 1755. But as soon as the act was laid before the Board of Trade the disapproval of that body was expressed in strong terms. It declared that the petitions for defense which had been sent to the king had been examined, and that it believed the need of fortifications
assembly, besides giving £10,000 for Shirley's expedition against Canada, had paid for cutting a road, for provisions, and for the maintenance of army posts. "The ministers seem very well satisfied with what has been done by the assembly, and I believe will not take into consideration the method taken by the assembly for raising the £15,000 on their own notes. * The supply of provisions, forage and wagons which the Virginians failed in is very acceptable here." Ibid., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, Aug. 14, 1755.
1 Votes, iv, p. 495. 2 The Friend, xlvi, p. 162. 3 Votes, iv. p. 509.
534
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[534
and of an adequate military organization in Pennsylvania was very great. It criticised the neglect of public safety that seemed to be so characteristic of an assembly composed largely of Quakers. Whatever might be the military powers granted by the royal charter to the proprietors, said the Board, they were ineffectual and inoperative without the concurrence of the legislature in framing penal and compulsory militia laws by a proper and constitutional appropriation of money for military purposes. The counsel for the assembly then asserted that in their exercise of the military power the proprietors had been supported by the militia law under consideration, and an act granting £55,000 to be raised by taxation. By the pro- visions of the last named act the money raised should be expended by a committee of the assembly for the support of friendly Indians, the relief of distressed settlers, and for "other purposes." It might be argued that the words "other pur- poses " referred to military operations, but, since the majority of the committee of the assembly were Quakers, the Board thought that such a construction was absurd. The Board de- clared further that the law for establishing a voluntary militia was improper and inadequate. As a basis for this opinion the Board said that, because no methods were provided to compel persons to organize for defense or to oblige those who were conscientiously opposed to the practice of arms to find substi- tutes, the act appeared rather to encourage exemption than to promote a satisfactory military service. The Board also char- acterized as improper and ineffectual the following provisions of the bill: That the officers should be elected by ballot; that no persons under age should be enlisted, and that the militia should not be forced to march more than three days beyond the inhabited portions of the province, or be detained in a gar- rison against its will longer than three weeks. Little benefit, asserted the Board, could be derived from an act the preamble .of which declared the principles of the assembly to be opposed to the bearing of arms, and compulsion to be a violation of the
535
IN PENNSYLVANIA
535]
constitution and a breach of the privileges of the people. Moreover the Board said that no steps could be taken to make adequate provision for the defense of Pennsylvania while a majority of the assembly was composed of a people who, though not one-sixth of the population of the province, and antagonistic to the principles and policy of the mother country, were nevertheless permitted to hold offices of trust and profit and to sit in the assembly without their allegiance being secured by oath. To correct this and similar evils, the Board thought that an act of parliament was the only remedy. The militia law was accordingly repealed by the king in council.I
The proposition to exclude Quakers from sitting in the as- sembly, a proceeding which the Board of Trade appears to have believed absolutely necessary for the security of the province, had been urged for many years by the opponents of that sect. As early as 1707 Quary had made to the Board a suggestion of this character, but at the time no action was taken on it. In 1740, when Gov. Thomas was trying to per- - suade the assembly to establish a militia, the subject came up again for discussion. A few months after he had sent to the Board the letter to which allusion has been made, he again complained about the behavior of the Quakers, and cen- sured them for "thrusting themselves into the assembly." He admitted that, if they assented to an act for establishing a compulsory militia, they would be inconsistent with their prin- ciples. But, said he, if they did not have the boldness to pass an act exempting themselves from service and from contribu- tion, they should at least refuse to serve in assembly. He intimated also that he might find it necessary to send to the king a further representation of the circumstances of the province, implying thereby that stringent measures should be taken to provide for the defense of Pennsylvania, even to the extent of excluding the Quakers from the assembly
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.