USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 47
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
.
548
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[548
tion,1 were permitted to elect not quite half that number. It is true that the charter of privileges of 1701 provided that the assembly should consist of four persons from each county, and that, whenever the separation of the province from the Lower Counties took place, Philadelphia, Chester, and Bucks counties should be entitled to double their representation. But there is no evidence that William Penn intended thereby to exclude from the same representation other counties which might be formed. The Quakers, however, were too fond of power ? to give to the charter anything but the narrowest construction.
this action occasioned so much bitterness within and without the house that it had to be abandoned, for no officer would dare to incur the enmity of the rioters and their sympathizers. Ibid .; Hazard, Register of Pa., vi, pp. 297, 358 ; vii, p. 255 ; ix, pp. 114-15 ; Rupp, History of Lancaster County, pp. 356-66; Mombert, Authentic History of Lancaster County, pp. 180-96; Franklin, Works, vii, p. 293; Gordon, Hist. of Pa., 405-10; Shippen Fapers, p. 204; Votes, v, pp. 311-319 ; Col. Rec., ix, pp. 100-148; Pa. Arch., Ist series, iv, pp. 151-156; Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., T. P. to John Penn, March 17, 1764, and v. v. June 16 and Sept. 1, 1764; The Plain Dealer, or a Few Remarks upon Quaker Poli- tics ; A Looking Glass for Presbyterians ; A Serious Address to such of the Inhabitants of Pennsylvania as have connived at or do approve of the Late Massacre of the Indians at Lancaster ; An Historical Account of the Late Disturbance between the Inhabitants of the Back Settlements of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphians, etc., etc, See Hildeburn, Issues of the Pennsylvania Press, ii, pp. 5-29. A short time later a petition was sent from Cumberland county, which complained that, although the people of that and of other sections of the frontier had no desire to meddle with the principles of others, they " suf- fered by the influence of those (Quaker) principles which were prejudicial to the province in general and oppressive to them." They believed also that the " design and letter of the charter, the right of British subjects, reason and common sense," demanded a more equitable representation for the frontier counties. The petition was promptly tabled. Votes, v, pp. 332-3, 340. But in 1770 a concession was made whereby the representation of Berks and Northampton counties was slightly increased. Ibid., vi, pp. 212-13.
1 Pa. Mag. Hist., x, p. 287.
? " That wealthy and powerful body of people who have ever since the war gov- erned our elections, and filled almost every seat in our assembly." Franklin, Plain Truth, 1747. " The Quakers are not a majority in the province, but by their union they have a great influence in public affairs." Gov. Thomas to the Board of Trade, Oct. 20, 1740. The Quakers even went so far as to make up their party ticket at their yearly religious meetings. Shippen Papers, p. 64.
549
IN PENNSYLVANIA
549]
Opposed to the Quakers, moreover, were the Episcopalians, the majority of whom lived in Philadelphia, and who with the Quakers formed the bulk of the aristocracy. Differences in religion led also to strained social and political relations. All these facts will serve to show what was the composition of the two great political parties, the proprietary or Presbyterian, and the anti-proprietary or Quaker, as they were usually called." To the former belonged the Episcopalians and most of the Presbyterians,2 not because they had any particular regard for the proprietors personally, but because they held religious and political views with which the Penns were more or less in sympathy. To the latter, ever after the days of David Lloyd, belonged by far the greater number of Quakers. Owing to their fear of compulsory military service the Germans, whose religious opinions were similar to those of the Quakers, were also found generally on the anti-proprietary side, or against the "governor's men," as they called the members of that party,3 but skilful maneuvring on the part of the proprietary adherents occasionally brought about a different state of affairs.
For a number of years after the founding of Pennsylvania the Quaker element in the community was largely preponder- ant. The Episcopalians did not make their presence felt till about 1700, when a church of that denomination was estab- lished in Philadelphia. About this time, also, we have seen that, on account of the accusations against the province, the Episcopalians came out boldly in favor of royal government. When the Quakers in the assembly refused to allow money to be appropriated or a militia to be established for the defense of the province against the French, and insisted that an affir- mation should have the force of an oath, the churchmen declared that no matter if the Quakers did want a government without the use of arms and of oaths, they themselves felt con-
1 Penn MSS., P. L. B., viii, T. P. to John Penn, Dec. 14, 1765.
2 Ibid., T. P. to Allen, Nov. 10 and Dec. 8, 1764.
$ Watson, Annals of Phila., i, p. 474.
550
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [550
scientiously bound to protect their lives and property by force against open violence, and by oaths against insidious fraud.I Every little cause for offense they were careful to exaggerate as much as possible in England. In the hope also that the resulting confusion would hasten the proposed royal govern- ment, they delayed the accession of Andrew Hamilton as gov- ernor in 1702, embarrassed his administration in the Lower Counties, and fomented disputes between him and the assem- bly. On the other hand, in June, 1707, the Quakers them- selves threatened Penn that, unless he dismissed from office Logan, who was, of course, the chief obstacle in the way of David Lloyd's ambition, and redressed a number of other grievances, the assembly would apply to the crown for these favors.2
As the actual authority of the proprietor weakened, the grow- ing power of the assembly caused a suggestion, made a few years after his death, that the crown should assume the government to be received with unqualified aversion, the Quakers asserting that such a step would be inconsistent with the promises Penn had made to the first colonists.3 But when the dispute about paper money was in progress, Sir William Keith, the ex- governor, declared that, if Gov. Gordon did not make satis- factory concessions to the advocates of the currency, he and his partisans would endeavor to prevent the assembly from granting any supplies. It was hoped that this would force Gordon to give up his position and return to England.4 Then the proprietors might be put to so much trouble to appoint another governor that they would be compelled to surrender the government to the crown, at which time Keith might offer
1 Cf., Penn and Logan Corresp., ii, pp. 430-431.
2 Votes, i, pt. ii, p. 182.
3 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., i, J. Logan to John Penn, Feb. II and Nov. 24, 1725.
4 Ibid., ii, Barclay to T. P., Oct. 27, 1728; Gordon to John Penn, May 16 and Oct. 6, 1728.
55I
IN PENNSYLVANIA
551]
his services as the king's representative. In fact Keith, in 1728, sent to the king a paper showing how injurious to his majesty's interest were all proprietary governments ; but the schemes of himself and partisans came to nothing.
As soon as the young proprietors took charge of the govern- ment the Episcopalians noticed that not much cordiality existed between the Quakers and the sons of William Penn, and, owing to their dislike for the former, most of them, as has been stated, espoused the cause of the latter. Their allegiance to the Penns, of course, became all the stronger after the death of John Penn, the only proprietor at all consistent in his Quaker principles. On the other hand, the dissatisfaction of the Quakers with the proprietors was deep-rooted, and took on additional strength as the conflicts between the governor and the assembly continued.2 In 1741 it was evident that the ene- mies of the proprietors were endeavoring to place the govern- ment in the hands of the king. Especially was this the case when the opinion of the governor concerning the granting of supplies, and the establishment of a militia, was found to differ from that of the majority of the assembly. A few Quakers declared that a royal government might be oppressive to the sect. They were answered by the statement that Quakers were allowed to sit in both the council and assembly of New Jersey. On this point, however, it may be said that in New Jersey the Quakers were a small minority, while in Penn- sylvania they stubbornly held fast to their political control.3 Indeed it became a common practice for the Quakers and their sympathizers to say that the proprietors were merely private individuals, and when any carefully concocted political
1 Burk, History of Virginia, iii, p. 144, et seq. ; Votes, iii, pp. 55-56. In 1717 Keith wrote to the Board of Trade that he hoped the home government would as- sume jurisdiction over Pennsylvania. Mem. Pa. Hist. Soc., iv, pt. ii, p. 383.
2 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., ii, J. Logan to the proprietors, April 30, 1729; iii, Gov. Thomas to John Penn, June 4 and Nov. 5, 1739, March 1, 1740.
3 Ibid., iii, T. P. to F. J. Paris, March 27 and April 24, 1741.
552
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[552
schemes were balked, to threaten to petition the king to as- sume the government. The first petition of this character ap- pears to have been sent in 1742, but the Board of Trade reported against it.I
Again in 1751, when the proprietors were requested to con- tribute to Indian expenses, their answer was printed at length in the journal of the assembly, two years later, with a running commentary written by a committee of which Franklin was the most active member. In this it was asserted that for several years the proprietors had had no " formidable share of the people's love and esteem." The Penns, it was also said, were represented by the governor who ought to be empowered to pass all laws necessary for the welfare of the province ; but, before the assembly could secure the passage of such acts, money for which they as proprietors were more properly re- sponsible must be paid, or some other concession made to suit their particular interest. As the assembly, said the committee, had an undoubted right to the acts it presented to the governor for his approval, it would be able to obtain them " from the goodness " of the crown "without going to market for them to a subject." In reply to the proprietors' reminder of the deference due to their position, the committee declared that the crown had given the assembly as well a rank which it held not by hereditary descent, but as it was the "voluntary choice of a free people, unbribed and even unsolicited." The request of the proprietors, further, that the assembly would be satisfied with the opinion of the governor alone on its meas- ures, the committee criticised as a denial of the right of appeal. "No king of England," said the committee, " has ever taken on himself such state as to refuse personal applications from the meanest of his subjects, where the redress of a grievance could not be obtained of his officers. * Are the proprie-
1 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., iii, T. P. to F. J. Paris, April 24, 1741; Gov. Thomas to John Penn, June 4, 1742; W. Allen to T. P., July 8 and Nov. 20, 1742, Oct. 3, 1743; Ibid., P. L. B., i, John Penn to Gov. Thomas, Aug. 16, 1742.
r
553
IN PENNSYLVANIA
553]
taries of Pennsylvania become too great to be addressed by the representatives of the freemen of their province? If they must not be reasoned with because they have given instruc- tions, nor their deputy because he has received them, our meetings and deliberations are henceforth useless; we have only to know their will and to obey." * * If this province, concluded the committee, " must be at more than £2,000 a year expense to support a proprietary's deputy who shall not be at liberty to use his own judgment in passing laws, * * * but the assent must be obtained from chief governors at three thousand miles distance, often ignorant or misinformed of our affairs, and who will not be applied to or reasoned with when they have given instructions, we cannot but esteem those colonies that are under the immediate care of the crown, in a much more eligible situation ; and our sincere regard for the memory of our first proprietor must make us apprehend for his children that, if they follow the advice of Rehoboam's counsellors, they will like him absolutely lose-at least the affection of their people, a loss which, however they affect to despise, will be found of more consequence to them than they seem at present to be aware of."I
It is thus evident that the assembly, by threatening to make the force of instructions to the governor the basis of petitions to the crown with regard to the civil and religious liberties of the people, was trying to wrest the government from the hands of the proprietors. Indeed, the policy of Franklin in sending, independently of the governor and even without his knowledge, arms and ammunition into the country districts, as well as presents to friendly Indians, caused many of the people to look for protection rather to the assembly than to the gover- nor. Election harangues were printed and circulated, and the belief steadily gained ground that a change of government was necessary. In fact, such a bitter spirit against the pro- prietors existed, that all sorts of associations were formed to
1 Votes, iv, pp. 362-7.
554
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[554
oppose them.' The proprietors, however, well informed by their friends of the existing state of affairs, were often requested by them to ask the ministry to check, if possible, the angry tirades against the government. The proprietary adherents claimed that the various statements of grievances were intended solely to blind and irritate the people, "who were only too ready to hearken to calumny directed against superiors, hop- ing thereby to bring all to a level with themselves." Every officer, they declared, who held a commission from the pro- prietors was regarded with hatred and aversion, and any attempt to exercise the repressive power of the government was met with menacing movements toward insurrection.2
In 1756, when the assembly was unable to tax the estates of the proprietors, it bitterly inveighed against the use of in- structions, and lamented its unhappy situation, in that it was forced to enact a law against its better judgment. Still it as- serted its confidence in the justice of the king and parliament, and that they would destroy the tyranny of the proprietors, which had so long violated the constitution and liberties of the province. To this end it purposed to make an immediate ap- plication to his majesty. But Gov. Denny advised it first to grant supplies in a manner conformable to his instructions, and then to lay before the king in council any grievances it might have.3
1 In 1753, Gov. Hamilton declared that, as he could find very few persons of ability and integrity who would dare to support him, and, as the slightest misstep was sharply censured, he found it needful to consult a lawyer on his governmental policy. Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., vi, J. Hamilton to T. P., July 7, 1753. This lawyer, however, was not the attorney general of the province, for that officer asserted that, as the proprietors withheld compensation, which he claimed was due him for services rendered, they ought to be burnt in effigy in every square in town. Ibid., Corresp. of the Penn Family, R. Hockley to T. P., Aug. 22 and 25, 1755.
2 Ibid., Corresp. of the Penn Family, R. Peters to R. Hockley, Dec. 19, 1755 ; R. Hockley to the proprietors, Oct. 1, 1754, Oct. 25, Nov. 23, and Dec. 18, 1755, Feb. 23 and June 3, 1756.
3 Ibid., Offic. Corresp., viii, R. Peters to T. P., Sept. 4, 1756; Votes, iv, pp. 603-612.
555
IN PENNSYLVANIA
555]
No further outbreak of prominence appeared till January, 1764, when a member of the assembly complained that they wore " that servile piece of furniture called a neck yoke," and had their "necks under the tyrant's foot " * * * till it should please their " gracious sovereign to interpose, and take the gov- ernment out of the hands of the proprietaries," * * which was the wish of every one who retained a "just sense of freedom."I Two months later, when the assembly presented to Gov. John Penn the bill for the issue of £55,000 in bills bills of credit, as well as a bill for the establishment of a militia to defend the province against the Indians, it appointed at the same time a committee, of which Franklin was chairman, to draw up resolutions concerning the circumstances of the province, and the grievances of the people. The refusal of the governor to assent to the bills as drawn called forth a wrathful protest from the assembly. It concluded with these words : " If any ill consequences ensue from the delay, they will un- doubtedly add to that load of obloquy and guilt the proprietary family is already burdened with, and bring their government- a government which is always meanly making use of public distress to extort something from the people for its own private advantage-into, if possible, still greater contempt. For our own parts we consider the artifices now using and the steps taking to inflame the minds of unthinking people and excite tumults against the assembly as concerted with a view to awe us into proprietary measures. And, since the governor will not pass the * * * militia bill * but upon
terms of great addition to proprietary power, we must for the present depend upon ourselves and our friends, and on
such protection as the king's troops can afford us, * * * till his majesty shall graciously think fit to take this distracted province under his immediate care and protection."2 Then the committee, March 24, 1764, presented to the assembly a series of twenty-six resolutions in which the grievances 1 Pa. Mag. Hist., v, p. 69. 2 Votes v, 336-7.
556
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[556
originating from the tyranny of the proprietors were thoroughly rehearsed. It was stated that all the misfortunes experienced by the province were due in some way to the proprietors, and that the conduct of the assembly in granting supplies for the service of the king had been grossly misrepresented by them. Instructions were also bitterly denounced. The pro- prietors were declared to be private individuals, who, when they had appointed their deputy, had absolutely no powers of government. They had held large tracts of land for specu- lative purposes, greatly to the impoverishment of the province. To exempt any of their estates from taxation was "dishonorable, unjust, tyrannical and inhuman." The power claimed by the governor over the militia, as e. g., the right to appoint officers and by them to hold courts martial, however safe it might be in the hands of a royal governor, would be an addition to the present powers of the proprietors which could not safely be entrusted by the people to their keep- ing. The assembly had long shown an affectionate regard for the proprietary family, and the deputy governors had received from it in forty years nearly £80,000. In return the proprietors had endeavored to "diminish and annihilate the privileges granted by their honorable father."I The reso- lutions also stated that, as the immense territorial and gov- ernmental powers of the proprietors would be dangerous both to the prerogatives of the crown and to the liberties of the people, and that, as "it was high presumption in any subject to interfere between the crown and the people," the powers of government ought to be exercised directly by the crown. Therefore, since " all hope of any degree of happiness under the proprietary government " was at an end, it was re-
1 The anti-proprietary party further characterized the proprietors as monsters of arbitrary power, "swelled to an enormous size by the possession of immense wealth, and perpetually stimulated to acts of oppression by the most sordid ava- rice, * * * preying upon the vitals of that excellent and salutary constitution of government established by their father." Pa. Mag. Hist., v, p. 73.
557
IN PENNSYLVANIA
557]
solved that an address should be drawn and sent to the king.I The assembly then agreed to adjourn in order to consult its constituents on the advisability of petitioning his majesty to as- sume direct jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, either by fulfilling the contract made with William Penn for the sale of the gov- ernment, or otherwise "as to his wisdom and goodness " might seem best. Before any definite action was taken, however, Isaac Norris, the aged speaker of the assembly, resigned. He pleaded poor health, as an excuse, but it is probable that his unwillingness to venture so far was his real reason. His place was taken by Franklin.
The publication of these resolutions in Franklin's paper, "The Pennsylvania Gazette,"2 started a bitter factional struggle. The anti-proprietary party headed by Franklin and Joseph Galloway, a prominent lawyer and member of the assembly, worked assiduously, haranguing the people on the necessity of shaking off the chains of proprietary injustice and slavery, and making strenuous efforts to secure signatures to petitions pray- ing the king to take the province under his benign protection. On the other hand the proprietary party, headed by Rev. Dr.
1 Votes, v, p. 337 et seq.
2 In a pamphlet entitled, " Explanatory Remarks on the Assembly's Resolves published in the Pennsylvania Gazette, No. 1840," is the following powerful appeal to excite the jealousy of the crown : " Power united with great wealth is all that is necessary to make its possessor absolute, and great riches in a private person are dangerous to the prerogatives of the crown. It enables him to form too great a number of dependents -- much greater than is consistent with the safety of either. They place the subject too near a level with his sovereign. They form in the mind. ambitious designs, and not only give the hope but create the power of carry- ing them into execution. * If this be the case of great wealth alone, how much more must the addition of all the powers of government in the same persons, three thousand miles distant from the eye of the sovereign, render the rights of the crown and the privileges of the people precarious and at the disposal of the proprietaries ?" The people were therefore requested to inform their representa- tives whether they had rather submit to the unjust proprietary instructions, "sub- versive and effectually destructive of their essential privileges, and of course become slaves to the usurped and arbitrary power of private subjects," or " implore the immediate protection " of the crown.
,
558
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[558
William Smith, Richard Peters, Benjamin Chew, William Allen, Richard Hockley, and other prominent officers and friends of the proprietors, strove just as earnestly to turn the current of popular opinion in their favor; while John Dickinson, who, however, was no friend of the Penn family, by his endeavors to maintain a conservative policy, proved to be an important ally of the proprietary cause. The proprietary party also pre- pared and distributed pamphlets and petitions denouncing the resolutions, and requesting the proprietors to represent in be- half of the people of Pennsylvania, that the present constitution of the province, as based on the charter of privileges, was a sacred inheritance, and that the action of the assembly was contrary to the charter and unauthorized by the people.ª
Immediately after its resumption of sessions, the assembly appointed a committee to prepare the address which was to
1 The following is an extract from a pamphlet of the proprietary party, entitled, " The Plain Dealer, or A Few Remarks upon Quaker Politics:" "The proprietaries are no more. By twenty-six very decent and very modest resolves of the house, you conceive them as dead as Harry the Eighth. So the helm must be clapped hard at lee, and we shall be about in a jerk. Nothing else than a king's govern- ment will now suit the stomach of a Quaker politician. Not that you all love his majesty, for some of you would not willingly give sixpence to support his cause. * * * We are all this time taking it for granted that the proprietaries are to be kicked off the stage, but let us see what has been their fault. They desire that their lo- cated uncultivated lands be taxed at 5 %. There was a decree for this purpose of the king in council, and approved of by the agents. Suppose that the proprietaries have done wrong in selling their lands too dear, or in reserving some of the best to themselves. How will the matter be mended by getting a king's governor ? Shall we force the proprietaries to take up more land, or sell their property at whatever price we choose to give, or prevent them from letting their friends have land, or force them to refund the £80,000 we gave to their governors, or refund the thousands Denny received as bribes? The king will judge loyalty according to substantial proofs in time of danger, not idle talk. * * * The proprietaries are the governors under the king, and they nominate a lieutenant governor. Even in a king's government we must expect to have a governor whom somebody has recommended to his majesty. My Lord Somebody has a friend, who has a cousin who needs a place, or stands in somebody's way, and so we may come by a gover- nor."
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.