USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 46
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
1 Col. Rec., vii, pp. 272-278.
2 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, p. 363.
536
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [536
by act of parliament.1 With this opinion the proprietors agreed .? In fact John Penn wrote to his brother that he believed the mother country " by expelling the Quakers or by enacting severe laws against them would make Pennsylvania serviceable to her."3 The same proprietor wrote also to the speaker of the assembly that, unless that body enacted a law for the defense of the province, the Quakers would " lose some of the privileges they now enjoyed, for it could not be expected that a whole province would be allowed to remain exposed without defense when England was engaged in war.", The opposition which had been shown by the Quaker majority in the assembly toward any plans for the security of Pennsylva- nia was, in his opinion, contrary to their principles. For, said the senior proprietor, one of these principles was an abhor- rence of persecution ; but there was no greater persecution " than to tie a man's hands so that his enemies may rob him." He then called the attention of the assembly to the fact that a number of people in Pennsylvania had petitioned the king+ for protection in case of invasion by the French. To prevent the passage of an act of parliament of the nature indicated, he therefore recommended the enactment of a law similar to one recently passed in the Lower Counties, which, for a " reason- able consideration paid for the use of the poor," exempted the Quakers from military service and from direct contributions for military purposes.5 But, as we have seen, the Quakers refused to accede to the demand for a compulsory militia law. Indeed, when a rumor that all Quakers would speedily be removed from office became current, they redoubled their efforts "to prevent
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, Gov. Thomas to John Penn, November 5, 1739 ; to F. J. Paris, May 14, 1741.
2 Ibid., T. P. to Paris, March 27, 1741.
3 Ibid., P. L. B., i, John Penn to T. P., December, 1740.
+ " To the Freeholders of the Province of Pennsylvania," 1743.
5 Penn MSS., P. I .. B., i, John Penn to J. Kinsey, March 2, 1742.
537
IN PENNSYLVANIA
537 ]
churchmen and dissenters from being put into the assembly."1 There is, however, some extenuation for the policy of the Quakers. " Were there a sufficient number of men of under- standing, probity, and moderate principles proposed for our representatives, in whose resolution we could confide to pre- serve our liberties inviolate," said the Quarterly Meeting in Philadelphia in an address to the Meeting for Sufferings in London, May 5, 1755, "we should be well satisfied to have the members of our society relieved from the disagreeable contests and controversies to which we are now subjected. But, while arbitrary and oppressive measures are publicly avowed by those desiring to rule over us, * * we must be faithful to our trust."2 Although the Quakers, particularly the younger members of the sect, were fond of political power, still, as this address seems to indicate, they feared lest a dimin- ution of that power might result in a corresponding increase in the formation of projects to violate their religious principles. Hence, they felt that, if even by their tacit acquiescence a compulsory militia should be established, not many years would elapse before their protests against other infringements on their religious opinions would be drowned in cries of in- consistency and partiality.
Early in 1755, when Gov. Morris and the assembly were disputing about the methods for raising supplies, the ministers informed the proprietors that, unless the Quakers acted a more " rational and dutiful part," they would not be allowed to " continue in stations to perplex the government."3 In fact the Board of Trade had under its consideration a bill to be intro- duced into parliament, one clause of which should forbid Quakers from sitting in the assembly of Pennsylvania.4 To avoid this stringent measure the Quakers in England sug-
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, R. Peters to John Penn, April 4, 1741.
2 Ibid., Phila. Land Grants.
3 lbid., P. L. B., iv, T. P. to Peters, March 26, 1755.
+ Ibid., to Morris, Feb. 14, 1756.
538
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[538
gested that parliament pass an act to dissolve the assembly which was then in session; when this should have been done, they would request the Quakers in Pennsylvania to with- draw from the assembly, at least until the close of the war. But the proprietors did not favor the scheme. They told the ministers that the Quakers in the province would not neces- sarily heed any requests or directions sent from the London Meeting for Sufferings. They suggested therefore that, by the use of some qualification which the Quakers could not take, the members of that sect in the province should be ex- cluded from the assembly. But, since the Quakers in Eng- land were much respected, the ministers were unwilling to make them enemies by the use of a permanent disqualification. Indeed, the proposition was made that, in case the Quakers did leave the assembly, and those who had accused them of failure in duty should themselves fail to make suitable pro- vision for the defense of the province,' parliament should pass a law for the establishment of a colonial militia, and levy a tax to defray the expenses of it.2 By the militia law then in force in England, however, Quakers were individually ex- empted from service. It was therefore suggested that, if an act of similar character were passed in Pennsylvania, a cer- tificate from the Meeting would be sufficient to designate the
1 In a letter to Mr. Peters, May 25, 1758 (Ibid., Supp. Proc.), Thomas Penn declared that, in his opinion, many persons who were averse to granting supplies for the service of the king sheltered themselves by laying all the blame on the Quakers.
2 Ibid., March 13, 1756. In 1745 Gov. Thomas had suggested the necessity of an act of parliament to determine the quota of men each colony should furnish for the service. Ibid., P. L. B., ii, T. P. to Gov. Thomas, Feb. 2, 1746. In 1754 Gov. Hamilton wrote to Gov. De Lancey, of New York, " The progress of the French * will never be effectually opposed, but by means of an act of parliament com- pelling the colonies to contribute their respective quotas for that service, independ- ent of assemblies, some of which * * * are either so ignorant as not to foresee danger at the smallest distance, or so obstinate as to pay no regard to it, but upon terms incompatible with all governments." Hazard, Reg. of Pa., iv, p. 316. A similar opinion was expressed by Gov. Denny in 1757. Pa. Arch., Ist series, iii, p. 106.
539
IN PENNSYLVANIA
539]
persons who were subject to exemption. But, as the proprie- tors pointed out, such a certificate might prove too great an encouragement to proselyting, and, by thus lessening the num- ber of persons fit for service, lay too heavy a burden on the other inhabitants. For this reason they believed that the method of exemption by name would be wiser. However, the ministers finally expressed themselves as satisfied with the proposition of the Quakers in England.2 The request of the London Meeting had a suitable effect, for, in 1757, only a small proportion of the assembly was still composed of Quakers.3
Although the members of that sect did not again secure a posi- tion of prominence in the assembly till early in the following decade,4 their temporary departure from power made very little difference in the relations between that body and the governor. With the exception of the passage of two acts regulating the military forces which had been raised, the disputes concerning the issue of bills of credit, the taxation of the proprietary estates, the disposal of public money, and the validity of proprietary instructions, continued with unabated force. The history of these disputes has been traced in the preceding chapters. It need not here be mentioned further than to recall the fact that between November, 1755, and September, 1766, the assembly of Pennsylvania granted nearly £600,000 for military operations. This statement will serve to show that, after all, in the period of real emergency Pennsylvania was not lacking in the meas- ures necessary for its welfare and security.
1 Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, July 5, 1758.
2 Ibid., P. L. B., iv, T. P. to Morris, March 22, 1756; to Hockley, April 7, 1756.
3 Votes, iv, pp. 564, 626; The Friend, xlvi, p. 162.
4 Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., R. Peters to T. P., Jan. 13, 1761.
CHAPTER XIII
ROYAL OR PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
IN the introduction to this work we have observed that Pennsylvania was a huge fief held of the crown by the proprie- tors. In theory they were feudal lords. In fact they were the executives of a democracy. The two characters were incompatible with each other. The vesting of government and of the absolute ownership of land in the same individuals was inconsistent with the spirit of the age and the course of politi- cal development. This was the ultimate cause of all the strug- gles between the proprietors and the people, and even between the proprietors and the home government. With this fact in mind we can better understand the character of the efforts made to sever governmental powers from territorial rights, and to place the former where they properly belonged, namely, in the hands of the crown. In the previous chapter the attempts of the home government to accomplish this result have been discussed ; now we are ready to consider how far the conflicts between the proprietors and the people tended toward the resumption of control by the crown.
Less than eighteen months after his return to England, Wil- liam Penn determined to release himself from the cares of government.1 The apparent causes which led him to take this
1 About this time James Logan wrote to the proprietor : " I cannot advise thee against a bargain with the crown, if to be had on good terms for thyself and the people. Friends here, at least the generality of the best informed, think govern- ment at this time so ill fitted to their privileges that it renders them very indiffer- ent on that point. Privileges, they believe, such as might be depended on for a continuance both to thee and them, with a moderate governor, would set thee much
[540
540
54I
IN PENNSYLVANIA
541]
step may be easily ascertained. In the first place, although his "holy experiment" had been a success, his own participa- tion therein as its originator and promoter had not been fit- tingly recognized, nor his influence as the paternal head of the community satisfactorily maintained.1 His financial embar- rassments moreover opened before him the gloomy prospect of ruin. On the other hand the accusations against the pro- vince for its complicity in the violation of the navigation acts he saw furnished the home government with a strong argu- ment in favor of its assuming direct control over Pennsylvania. Hence, in May, 1703, he proposed to the Board of Trade the surrender of his powers of government.2 Among the condi- tions stipulated was a ratification of all the privileges he had given the colonists. But on the ground that, if the govern- ments were purchased on such conditions, the crown would pay dearly for much trouble and little dominion, the Board refused to consider the proposition.3 Penn was then advised to add to his offer of the government the greater portion of the terri- tory of Pennsylvania, and for both to ask £20,000. With this end in view he presented to the Board the draft of a new terri-
more at ease and give thee a happier life as proprietor-besides, that it would ex- empt them from the solicitude they are under, both from their own impotency and the watchfulness of enemies." Watson, Annals of Phila., i, p. 43.
1 " The error of William Penn," wrote James Logan in February, 1726 (Penn. MSS., Offic. Corresp., i), " was in heaping things called privileges on a people who neither knew how to use them nor how to be grateful for them." Again, in November, 1729 (Ibid., ii), Logan said : “ He granted to his friends such privi- leges as might be suitable to those individuals at that time without considering strangers or what disposition his successors might make. He did not preserve the true balance between liberty and power." See Hazard, Register of Pa., xv, p. 182.
2 " I am actually in treaty with the ministers for my government, and so soon as it bears you shall be informed of it. I believe it repents some [in Pennsylvania ] that they began it, for now it is I that press it upon pretty good terms." Watson, Annals of Phila., ii, p. 43.
3 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, pp. 337-9; Chalmers, Revolt of the American Colonies, i, p. 380; Penn and Logan Corresp., i, p. 163; Passages from the Life of William Penn, p. 480. See also Watson, Annals of Phila., i, pp. 43-4.
542
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[542
torial charter, upon the granting of which he was willing to surrender his interests in Pennsylvania, subject, however, to the stipulations he had previously made. But the Board again refused to enter into any negotiations. Thereupon the pro- prietor requested Isaac Norris to give him full information concerning the commerce of Pennsylvania, and its advantages to the crown.2
While engaged in incorporating this information into a new memorial to the Board, Penn was constantly urged to make every effort to rid himself of the government.3 Logan especially besought him to surrender his authority, as thereby his enemies would be punished and his financial troubles alleviated.4 At the same time he advised the pro- prietor that, in case no other method could be found, the sur- render should be effected by an act of parliament.5 Moreover the friends of the proprietor felt it was to their advantage to have a change of government while he was yet in the posses- sion of his faculties and capable of making conditions, rather than to leave it till his death or mental decay, when attempts might be made in various ways to exclude Quakers from control over the administration. They thought good terms should be obtained for those who in love and confidence ven- tured their lives and fortunes with him in settling Pennsylvania, and that care should be taken to guard against the extension
1 Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, pp. 352-4.
2 Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 203.
3 In 1707 and 1709, Robert Quary wrote to the Board of Trade that the assem- bly so opposed the proprietor that it would be advisable for him to give up his powers of government. N. Y. Col. Doc., v, pp. 17, 116.
+ " When it is made to appear that, to thy ruin, thou hast been continually fighting the quarrels of the honest people here, and are turned upon and bit by the viperous spirit that poisons the bosom 'tis warmed by, a few recrements of the profession (Quakers) gathering other filth to them, and misleading some honest meaning men with false * * * pretenses, I say * * * I would proceed vigorously in the surrender." Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 190. See also pp. 119, 179, 182, 225, 227, 351; Pa. Arch., 2d series, vii, p. 15.
" Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, p. 196.
543
IN PENNSYLVANIA
543]
of the power of the crown, the caprice of governors, and the payment of tithes. They believed also that, in addition to the usual privileges of Quakers, they should be allowed to serve on juries, to hold office, and to give testimony in all cases by the use of an affirmation in lieu of an oath.I
To these requests Penn readily acceded, and incorporated the substance of them in his memorial. He called the atten- tion of the Board of Trade to the fact that, " by his own per- sonal interest, indefatigable industry and vast charge, and through many difficulties he [had] settled a considerable colony there, and improved a savage wilderness into a civil- ized and flourishing country." He asserted also that the attempts of the home government to take out of his hands the control of affairs in Pennsylvania had rendered him insecure in his possession thereof, and that the opposition and disappointment with which he had met induced him to surrender his powers of government. But he insisted that the Quakers should be protected in their civil and religious liberty. The Board desired to know what were the annual expenses of the government, the revenues by which they were defrayed, and for what length of time these revenues were granted. Penn replied that the expenses of government were less than those of any other colony, and declared that the assembly would readily grant duties on exports and imports which, together with the fines and forfeitures resulting from the pun- ishment of illegal trade, would handsomely support a royal governor.2
After several reports on the subject had been made, on February 13, 1712, the Board recommended that the offer be accepted. It stated that such a proceeding would establish the authority of the crown more immediately over Pennsylva-
! Penn and Logan Corresp., ii., pp. 348, 435-6; Pa. Arch., 2d series, vii, pp. 28-30.
2 Penn MSS., Ford vs. Penn; Calendar of Treasury Papers, 1714-1719, pp. 41-2; Chalmers, Opinions of Eminent Lawyers, i, P. 33.
544
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[544
nia, and that a more speedy and impartial administration of justice would thereby result. It believed that the acts of trade would be better enforced, and the people of the province better protected in their lives and property. As the nature of government did not admit of any method of valuation, the price to be paid and the profit to be purchased being the only pecuniary considerations, the Board left to "her majesty's grace and goodness " the amount to be paid, which, however, was to be looked upon as a bounty, not as a bargain. It suggested also that the surrender of the government of both the province and the Lower Counties should be unconditional. Although Penn demanded £20,000, the amount was fixed at £12,000, of which he received £1,000 on account.I But a bill, ordered by the queen in council to be introduced into the House of Commons, to confirm the sale was opposed by the mortgagees of the province,2 and the ministers were too much busied in public affairs to pay much attention to anything that did not affect their own continuance in power.3 In 1719 it was suggested that an account should be drawn up of all the revenues of the province, which might be made use of whenever the ministers were again consulted with reference to the completion of the contract., When, however, the pro- prietors saw that, in spite of its action with regard to the Carolinas in 1729, there was no probability that the crown would insist upon the fulfillment of the contract, they de- termined to keep the government in their own hands.5 No further efforts, therefore, were made to surrender it voluntarily.
1 Penn MSS., Ford vs. Penn, and Offic. Corresp., i; Chalmers, Opinions of Eminent Lawyers, i, pp. 32-33.
2 Calendar of Treasury Papers, 1714-1719, pp. 41-2. Chalmers, Opinions, etc., i, pp. 351-2.
3 Chalmers, Revolt of the American Colonies, i. p. 381.
4 Pa. Arch., 2d series, vii, p. 65. For further negotiations relative to the sale of the government see Calendar of Treasury Papers, 1720-1728, pp. 14, 55-6, 393.
5 In making this resolution the proprietors were influenced by Logan, who de- clared that not only were the people at that time strongly opposed to the sale of
545
IN PENNSYLVANIA
545]
Let us now see what efforts were made by the people to accomplish the same result, though contrary to the wishes of the proprietors. In order to understand what were the politi- cal parties in the province it will be necessary to notice briefly the character and distribution of the population. The liberal offers of land and the promise of religious freedom furnished great incentives to immigration. Most of the immigrants were members of German religious sects, such as the Moravians, Mennonists, Dunkards, and Schwenckfelders, who at first set- tled in the vicinity of Philadelphia and founded Germantown.2 Gradually they established settlements at various points, par- ticularly in the eastern part of the province. By 1755 it was estimated that out of 220,000, the entire population of Penn- sylvania, 100,000 were of foreign birth, and of these the great majority were of German parentage.3 Indeed for some time grave fears were entertained lest the Germans who, especially in the frontier counties, were ignorant of both the English lan- guage and the constitution of the province, might become powerful enough to overthrow the government.4 But these fears proved groundless,5 for as a rule the conduct of the Germans was quite satisfactory.
the government to the crown, but, even granting that a royal governor were in- structed to guard against encroachments on their territorial rights, little advantage could be gained from this fact, for cases involving disputes about land would have to be tried before a jury, which, in Logan's opinion, might be productive of par- tiality, if not of positive injustice. Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., i, J. Logan to John Penn, Nov. 24, 1725; ii, Nov. 17, 1729; to the proprietors, Nov. 14, 1731.
1 Proud, Hist. of Pa., ii, pp. 341-55.
? See Pa. Mag. Hist., iv, p. I et seq. 8 N. Y. Col. Doc., vi, p. 993.
$ Watson, Annals of Phila., i, pp. 472-4. See also Löher, Geschichte und Zustände der Deutschen in Amerika, p. 194.
5 The proprietors believed that the fears of the Germans overturning the govern- ment were without real foundation ; but they cautioned their officers to discourage any criticism of the Germans by pamphlets or otherwise, unless good provocation therefor could be shown. Penn. MSS., P. L. B., iii, T. P. to Peters, July 17, 1752; iv, Feb. 21, 1755.
546
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [546
As the eighteenth century progressed, another class of im- migrants appeared. This class was composed of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, who settled principally in Lancaster, York and Cumberland counties.1 They were a hardy, thrifty people who speedily became inured to frontier life, and whose impatience of control early made itself known.2 Because in time of war they strenuously insisted upon defending the province by force of arms against the French and Indians, they became exceed- ingly disagreeable to the Quakers. But, aside from their religious differences, there was a natural antipathy between these rough backwoodsmen and the highly cultured Quakers. The latter lived in Philadelphia and the adjoining counties. By reason of their birth and education they regarded them- selves as the superiors of their rough opponents, and exerted every effort to maintain their political supremacy. To this end they resisted all attempts to secure at least proportionate rep- resentation in the assembly.3 The three old counties, Phila-
1 Pa. Mag. Hist., x, p. 285.
2 Watson, Annals of Phila., i, pp. 477-8.
3 Soon after the population on the frontier counties began to exceed that of Philadelphia, Bucks and Chester, the demands, particularly of the Scotch-Irish, for an increase in representation were answered by petitions to the assem- bly requesting that additional members should be admitted from the older counties. Votes, iv, p. 211. The chief complaint of the frontiersmen of course was, that the Quakers, by continuing to sit in the assembly and by refusing to allow them an equitable representation, prevented military operations from being undertaken. In their contention, moreover, they were strongly supported by the proprietors. P. L. B., iv, T. P. to Morris and Peters, March 22, 1756 ; v, to Chew, Dec. 12, 1757. On another subject, too, the frontiersmen and the Quakers disa- greed, and that was the Indian relations. The former had an intense dread and hatred of the savages, while the latter were always kindly disposed toward them. The frontiersmen felt it to be their duty, like Joshua of old, to slaughter the heathen. Indeed, Indian atrocities had made them in turn so ferocious that the murder of of a savage, innocent or guilty, was usually believed to be justifiable, and rarely would a jury in the outlying counties condemn any one for the perpetration of such a crime. This hatred of the Indians led to a serious outbreak in 1764. It seems that since early in the century a number of more or less Christianized Indians had been colonized on Conestogoe manor. In 1730 a band of Scotch-Irish immigrants
547
IN PENNSYLVANIA
547]
delphia, Bucks, and Chester, and the city of Philadelphia, had altogether twenty-six representatives in the assembly, while all the other counties, though representing a much larger popula-
forcibly appropriated the 15,000 acres in the manor, declaring that "it was against the laws of God and nature that so much land should remain idle while so many Christians wanted it to labor on and raise their bread." But the sheriff with a posse ejected them and burnt their cabins. Watson, Annals of Phila., i, pp. 452, 478. They did not forget this fact, and in December, 1763, a party of ruffians from Pax. ton and Donegal townships descended upon the little settlement of Indians, and mercilessly slaughtered a number of men, women and children. The majority of the Indians, however, were away at the time of the attack, and were later placed in the jail at Lancaster under the protection of the magistrates. But the ruffians broke down the doors, butchered all the miserable wretches they found cowering within, and rode off unharmed. Upon the news of this proceeding the Moravian Indians were removed to a place near Philadelphia. Frightened at the possibility of their own destruction, they petitioned the assembly to send them to England. This being impracticable, an attempt was made to send them to New York, where they might put themselves under the protection of Sir William Johnson. The governor and council of that province, however, refused to allow them to enter. Hence they were locked up in the barracks at Philadelphia. The news that a number of their hated foes were apparently within easy reach prompted a mob of several hundred men, bound by an oath and compact, to advance on Philadelphia with the sworn purpose of destroying the Indians, and, if necessary, even the Quakers themselves. The city was in consternation. Pamphlets were issued and spread broadcast throughout the streets, some defending the action of the ruffians, others denouncing their inhumanity. The assembly passed the riot act. At the request of Gov. Penn, moreover, a military association under Frank. lin was formed. As the "Paxton Boys" neared Philadelphia many of the Quakers, particularly the younger members of that sect, became terror-stricken. A number of them shouldered muskets and hastened to the place of muster, or lent vigorous efforts toward building fortifications. Stille, Life and Writings of John Dickinson, i, pp. 352-3; Coll. Pa. Hist. Soc., i, no. 2, pp. 73-7 ; Hazard, Regis- ter of Pa., xii, pp. 9-12; Watson, Annals of Phila., i, pp. 452-3; Letter from a Gentleman in one of the Back Counties to His Friend in Philadelphia ; The Quaker Unmasked. Learning that extensive preparations to repulse them had been made, and that, if necessary, the king's troops would be called into requisition, the rioters halted at Germantown, and sent to the assembly a message recounting their grievances, demanding the enactment of a compulsory militia law, and call- ing for a proportionate representation. A committee of the council and several influential men, among whom was Franklin, went to Germantown, and after con- siderable discussion, the " Paxton Boys" were persuaded to return home. The assembly then prepared a bill to apprehend the murderers of the Indians. But
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.