USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 48
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
2 Penn MSS., Autograph Petitions.
559
IN PENNSYLVANIA
559]
accompany a number of private petitions to the king for a change of government. This committee of eight was headed by Franklin and Galloway. Several members of the assembly, among whom was Dickinson, moved an adjournment for further consideration of the matter. Failing in this, they de- sired to have their protest against the action of the assembly en- tered on the minutes. This request also was denied," and the ad- dress, as submitted by the committee, was sent with the peti- tions to the agents of the province, to be laid before the king.
While the address was in preparation four pamphlets con- taining speeches supposed to have been delivered by Dickin- son and Galloway in the assembly, May 24, 1764, were dis- tributed among the people. Those of the former were pre- faced by Rev. Dr. Smith, and those of the latter by Franklin.2 They are worthy of some examination. In the case of Dick- inson they show the views of a man who, as already observed, was not friendly toward the proprietors,3 but who saw that the growth of the democratic spirit would be aided by a con- tinuance of the proprietary system.+ In the case of Galloway, conversely, we see the opinions of an able lawyer, a thorough sympathizer with the interests of England, and an advocate of the progress of democracy, but only to the extent of opposing
ยท 1 Votes, v, p. 349.
2 See Franklin's "Cool Thoughts on the Present Situation of Our Public Affairs," Works, iv, p. 78.
3 " Mr. Dickinson's speech no doubt opened the eyes of many people, and the more as he did not appear by it to pay any regard to us, but confined himself to the only point for the people to consider, whether they would be most happy under the one or the other government." Penn MSS., P. L. B., viii, T. P. to Smith, Feb. 15, 1765. "Cultivate the good disposition of Mr. Dickinson," wrote Thomas Penn to Mr. Chew, Dec. 7, 1764 (Ibid.), " as we have not so great a number of men able to assist government that we can afford to lose the help of any one."
4 Thomas Penn, writing to Gov. Penn, June 8, 1765, said, " Lord Hillsborough says that you should write to the ministers on any extraordinary occasion. But whenever you do, don't say a word of the weakness of government, but that you have taken every legal method to do the business." Ibid.
560
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [560
the proprietors, not of interfering with the supremacy of the crown. Dickinson acknowledged that strict adherence to pro- prietary instructions was inconvenient, and that to show loyalty and affection to the king without indulging the pro- prietors by a partial method of taxation was almost impossible. But, since effects might be produced that would be worse than the injuries already received, he thought resentment should be proportional to the actual provocation given. If the change from proprietary to royal government could be brought about without the violation of any rights the people at present en- joyed, such a course of action might be wise; but, "in the blaze of royal authority," too much would be paid for a slight addi- tion to the taxation of the proprietary estates. Since the province, moreover, by reason of its conduct during the recent war, as portrayed in the letters of the secretary of state, was under the ban of royal and ministerial displeasure, such a movement would be ill-judged. Especially would this be true were it known that the application for a change of government came from the assembly after it had refused to grant supplies, and because the governor had adhered to the amendments made by the Board of Trade to the tax bill of 1759, and the stipulations agreed to by the agents, Franklin and Charles. For the assembly to insert in its address to the crown, " We will not allege this dispute with the governor on the stipula- tions, but the general inconveniences of proprietary govern- ment," was therefore a piece of artifice, as the messages to the governor distinctly showed. All these reasons led Dickinson to urge that, since innovations in government should be duly considered, and the consequences thereof carefully weighed, a proper time and a proper method for attempting them were absolutely necessary. The influence of the proprietors, he thought, was so great that they could either prevent a change of government, or make it on terms which would enable the ministers to carry out any designs they might have on the liberties of the people. The prejudice of the ministers might
*
561
IN PENNSYLVANIA
561 ]
wear off. Hence to make an application to the crown at that time was clearly injudicious. Furthermore, Dickinson de- clared that the real cause of a desire for a change of govern- ment was anger against the proprietors or weariness of con- stant contention, rather than "reverence to his majesty from an appreciative sense of paternal goodness." The people of Pennsylvania did not now obey the royal commands, yet they were trying to place themselves more directly under royal con- trol. If they faintly asked for the preservation of their privileges, a petition would be of no consequence to the king, and would betray the liberties of the province; but, if they insisted on the preservation of their privileges, a petition of that character, which asks a favor and then prescribes the method of granting it, would be unprecedented. They must either "renounce the laws and liberties of their ancestors, or submit without condi- tions to the protection of the king." He asserted also that, as the assembly had not been elected for the express purpose of changing the government, it could not do so without the con- sent of its constituency. The majority of the people, said he, did not sign the petitions against the proprietors." Because the proposed address of the assembly, further, had depicted Penn- sylvania as a scene of confusion and anarchy, Dickinson de- clared, "that it was scarcely becoming to disclose to the king and ministry the folly and crimes of countrymen," for an Eng-
1 In the Penn MSS,, Autograph Petitions, are preserved a large number of petitions containing in all 2,100 names, and protesting against royal government. Furthermore, the proprietors received from the province petitions the aggregate of the signatures of which amounted to upwards of 10,000 (P. L. B., viii, T. P. to Chew, Dec. 7, 1764; to Shippen, April 10, 1765). Among these petitions was one from the corporation of Philadelphia (Hazard, Register of Pa., ii, p. 190; Min- utes of the Common Council, pp. 704-5; P. L. B., viii, T. P. to John Penn, Dec. 7, 1764), and another from the assembly of the Lower Counties (P. L. B., viii, T. P. to Chew, Jan. 1I, 1765). See also Votes, v, pp. 382-3. As very few of the petitions in favor of the immediate jurisdiction of the king are known to be extant, it is probable that the real purpose of the demonstration against the proprietors was rather to frighten them into agreement with the wishes of the as- sembly, than to alter the existing form of government.
562
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [562
lish army might be established in the province. He suggested, therefore, as the wisest plan, that the matters in dispute between the assembly and the proprietors should be left to the decision of the king, and thought that his decision, accepted by both parties, would conduce far more to the real welfare of the province than a purely royal government could do.I
In reply Galloway entered upon a formal refutation of the statements of Dickinson. He described at length how the proprietors had destroyed the rights and privileges of the people, and declared that the only remedy was immediate re- course to the crown. He denied that the proprietors had any influence with the Privy Council. He thought the ministry would be too cautious to awaken opposition "by restraining a free people from the exercise of their just liberties," and he criticised Dickinson's portrayal of the ministry as irreverent and disrespectful to the king. He then proceeded to dilate on the virtues of that monarch, his tenderness, his willingness to redress all grievances, and his abhorrence of any designs to deprive the people of their rights. He believed that, since the increasing power of the proprietors, caused by their possession of both the government and vast territorial domains, gave them greater opportunity for doing evil, the liberties of Penn- sylvania would not improbably be sacrificed to proprietary injustice and ambition. He asserted that all obstructions to the king's service and to the welfare of the people were due to proprietary instructions, which violated the royal charter and subverted the rights of the legislature, whereas the assembly had always obeyed the wishes of the crown. He declared further that, as the prejudice of the ministry against the pro- vince was due entirely to the misrepresentations of the pro- prietors, the present was the best time to remove it. The growth of vice and crime, and the lack of a military force ade- quate to suppress tumult and insurrection, were in his opinion necessary characteristics of the proprietary system. The ad-
1 " A Speech * by John Dickinson," etc., Philadelphia, 1764.
563
IN PENNSYLVANIA
563]
vantages of a royal government, he thought, were religious toleration, freedom from impediments to the king's service, proper protection against internal disorder, perfect administra- tion of justice, and absence of the practice of granting indis- criminately licenses to keep taverns. For the crown to deprive the people of their just privileges would not only be an act of injustice and a violation of the royal faith, but the welfare of the English nation as a whole would be seriously affected. He judged, therefore, that such a proceeding would be impossible. Again, since the petition to the king related to grievances arising from the nature of government, and since the purpose in sending them was to secure the enjoyment of all privileges granted by the crown in 1681, freed from the inconveniences incident to proprietary government, he believed that under a royal government there was no danger that the charter of 170I would be set aside. In fact he declared that, if the people lost all the privileges given by charter, and en- joyed only those possessed by their neighbors in the royal provinces, they would be better off than they then were. In reply to Dickinson's statement in regard to the powers of the assembly to alter the constitution, Galloway asserted that the consent of its constituents was not necessary for any changes in the government, and that the charter of 1701 expressly pro- vided that amendments and alterations of the constitution should be made by six-sevenths of the assembly. But he was careful to ignore the fact that the charter also provided that, before any alterations of it could be effected, the consent of the governor, as well as that of six-sevenths of the assembly, must be obtained. He believed, moreover, that a representa- tion of the confusion and insecurity to which the province was subject from the inhabitants of the frontier counties ought to be a source of joy, as its present safety was due to the king's troops. To establish a military force permanently in the pro- vince would therefore prove a great blessing. Finally, he stated that, as the contract of William Penn with the crown
564
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[564
was yet unfulfilled, an equitable right to the government was still vested in the crown, and might be sustained by a suit in chancery, and by paying the rest of the money.1
Let us now see how the proprietors received the news of the attempts to supersede their government. They naturally looked upon Franklin as their greatest opponent, and en- deavored to have him dismissed from the office of postmaster- general. "We are not in fear of your mighty Goliath," wrote Thomas Penn to James Hamilton, June 13, 1764,2 "whose schemes of government are not approved of here, and who may lose the government of a post office by grasping at that of a province." Thereupon they complained to several of the ministers that Franklin, though an officer of the crown, was the leader of the opposition to their government. The secre- tary of state assured them that, unless Franklin very soon altered his conduct, he would not be allowed to retain his position.3 . Not long after the proprietors were informed that respectable people did not favor Franklin.4 Thereupon they wrote to two prominent Presbyterian members of the proprie- tary party,5 " You may be assured we shall never consent to run the least hazard of depriving the good people of Pennsyl- vania of any of their privileges, nor of resigning the govern- ment of Pennsylvania at the motion of factious, vindictive men."
While the proprietors waited to see what further efforts their opponents would make, the elections of October, 1764, approached. The bitterness between the political parties be- came intensified. In reply to attacks and insinuations of the anti-proprietary faction, the friends of the proprietors declared that the whole scheme was intended to embarrass the govern- ment, so that the Quaker politicians might have a longer lease of power. Some hinted that certain deficiencies in the ac- counts of public money might be conveniently forgotten in the
1 " The Speech of Joseph Galloway," etc., Philadelphia, 1764.
2 P. L. B., viii. 3 Ibid., T. P. to Chew, June 8, 1764.
4 Ibid., T. P. to Smith, Aug. 10, 1764. 5 Ibid., T. P. to Allison and Ewing.
565
IN PENNSYLVANIA
565]
confusion incident to a change of administration. Others urged Gov. Penn, when granting commissions for justices of the peace, to strike out every one who had openly opposed the proprietors.1 Anything to defeat Franklin and Galloway, was the cry of the proprietary party.2 Every effort was made to cause a split in the ranks of the Quakers. Emissaries were sent among the Germans, promising them two seats in the as- sembly from Philadelphia county if they would support the proprietary ticket.3 They were told how the anti-proprietary partisans sneered at the German vote, and how Franklin had said that "the great number of German boors herding together had a tendency to exclude the English language."+ His ene- mies further intimated that he was aspiring to the governor- ship5 under the royal administration, which might soon be
1 Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., W. Plumstead to T. P., Nov. 19, 1764. The pro- prietors, it may be said, ordered the governor not to appoint to office a member of the council who refused to sign a petition against royal government. P. L. B., viii, T. P. to John Penn, Nov. 10, 1764. John Lukens, the surveyor-general, who had petitioned for royal government, was dismissed from office. Ibid., Dec. 14, 1765.
2 Shippen Papers, pp. 204-206.
3 " To the Freeholders and Electors of the City and County of Philadelphia."
4 The friends of Franklin, while not expressly denying that he might have made such a statement, desired to obtain the German vote, and therefore made the fol- lowing explanation : "'Tis well known that boor means no more than a country farmer, and herding signifies flocking or gathering together, and is applied by the best English writers to harmless doves and to ladies in distress !" " Freeholders and other Electors of Assemblymen for Pennsylvania."
5 In an election address entitled, "To the Freeholders and Electors of the Province of Pennsylvania," printed in Philadelphia the following year, was the following: "You have seen how the faction in the assembly from being chosen servants have aspired to become masters. You have seen their corruption while the country became burdened with debt. * You have seen how the same faction have gratified an ambitious man in frequent embassies to England under pretense of extinguishing a flame designedly kindled by himself; and * * * how this man, although he originally crept into confidence under the character of a commonwealth's man with the cry of our ' constitution and charter rights' in his mouth, returned from England an arrant courtier and state tool, in order to secure
566
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[566
established.I On the other hand, the anti-proprietary party was just as zealous. Nothing was done in the campaign without the advice and approval of Franklin and Galloway, who mapped out in advance each day's proceedings. Frank- lin's son, William, the royal governor of New Jersey, kept open house in Philadelphia, and personally canvassed the German vote.2 Vigorous replies were made to the attacks on Franklin, and the proprietary party, because it now "courted the Germans whom before it had affected to despise," was charged with inconsistency. The advantages of the royal government were in every outburst of campaign eloquence pictured in the most glowing colors; while, of course, the proprietors received equally emphatic condemnation. But the efforts of the proprietary party were to a degree success- ful, and nine of the anti-proprietary assemblymen, among whom were Franklin and Galloway, failed of re-election.
The new assembly, in which anti-proprietary opinion still
to himself and son lucrative offices from home, determined to maintain himself and his associates here in power by a total change of our government and a surrender of our admirable charter, in open defiance of the general voice of an injured people."
1 Had the proprietary government been overthrown, it is probable that the anti- proprietary partisans would have done their best to obtain for Franklin the appoint- ment as governor. See Franklin, Works, vii, p. 443. Writing to Dr. Smith, Feb. 15, 1765 (P. L. B., viii), Thomas Penn said : " I believe you are in no danger of having the governor turned out to make room for Mr. Franklin, and the people in general may be assured I shall use all the means in my power to prevent it, which, they may be pretty well assured, cannot be effected without my consent. * *
* Though I have met with bad treatment from many people, yet all the money in the treasury would not incline me to abandon those that look upon us as able and willing to give them the necessary protection." The proprietors nevertheless were very much afraid of Franklin's power as a speaker, and as a most astute politician. " Franklin is certainly destined to be our plague," wrote the senior proprietor to Gov. Penn, Dec. 7, 1764 (Ibid.), " and we must deal with him here as we can. I fear nothing from any public contention, but, if his lies are believed, and I have no opportunity to remove the impressions they may make, it will be injurious to us."
2 Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., ix, W. Allen to T. P., Sept. 25, Oct. 21, 1764; John Penn to T. P., Oct. 19, 1764; B. Chew to T. P., Nov. 5, 1764.
567]
IN PENNSYLVANIA
567
prevailed, determined to complete the work its predecessor had begun, and, much to the disgust of his political opponents, appointed Franklin special agent to assist Mr. Jackson, the provincial agent, in presenting the address and petitions to the king.I As certain restrictive clauses had been introduced into the first orders to Jackson, a motion to modify them was made. This gave rise to a violent debate. Norris, who had again been elected speaker, declared that, although he did not favor the recall of the petitions, he thought that the assembly had no right to delegate its powers to any man or set of men to arrange for a change of government. But he did favor an in- struction to forbid the agents presenting the petitions, unless they received for that purpose positive directions from the as- sembly. By a vote of twenty-two to ten the house resolved that the petitions should not be recalled, and the commit- tee of correspondence was ordered to instruct the agents to present the petitions, but at the same time to take every pre- caution against any infringement of the privileges of the people. It was also resolved, the following year, that the agents should obtain from the records of the Privy Council a copy of the royal assent to the " act to ascertain the number of members of assembly and to regulate elections,"2 wherein all the rights
1 An earnest protest was sent from Philadelphia to the assembly, declaring that, since it was aware how parliament was devising measures injurious to all the col- onies, it should not allow the liberties of the province to be subject to the discretion of agents. The petititioners remonstrated against the appointment of Franklin, who had been so energetic in promoting the scheme to change the government, and asserted that the aid of the proprietors to ward off the proposed taxation by parliament ought rather to be requested. Votes, v, p. 382. William Allen also wrote to Thomas Penn, Dec. 19, 1764, (Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., ix) that it was rumored that Franklin, in pursuance of directions from the anti-proprietary party, intended to request Springett Penn, grandson of William Penn, Jr., to assume the governorship of Pennsylvania. But, as Allen himself admitted, there was very little, if any, foundation to the rumor. Ibid., P. L. B., viii, T. P. to Allen, Feb. 15, 1765. Franklin's chief object in going to England was to oppose the Stamp Act. Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, Dec. 13, 1764.
2 Provincial Act, 4 Anne, chap. 23.
1
568
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[568
granted by the charter of privileges were confirmed and secured.I
When Franklin arrived in England he found Mr. Jackson very much opposed to laying the petitions before the king. He was told that for the government of Pennsylvania to con- tinue in the hands of the proprietors would be far more advan- tageous to all parties. Granting that the king rejected the petitions, the agent declared that the momentary triumph of the proprietors would mean nothing, since the probability was strong that the crown would eventually resume the govern- ment, not only of Pennsylvania, but of Maryland. "A man must know little of America," said Jackson, "to suppose such a superiority would last long, and little of England to hope" that the proprietors could keep much longer a possession held by a tenure so different from that of other subjects.2 Franklin, therefore, determined to find out whether, in case the king granted the petitions, the ministry would allow Pennsylvania to retain the privileges granted by the charter of 1701.3 Meanwhile Thomas Penn wrote to Mr. Chew,4 that, as the petitions for royal government had not yet been laid before the king, he had not thought it wise to present those he had received against it. "All the worthy inhabitants that have signed them," said he, "may be most sure that no fear of trouble will ever induce us to hearken to proposals that may be injurious to them. I should think we were very unfit to be entrusted with the government of a people, could we be forced by any such application as that of the assembly to give up one of those rights granted to us for the benefit of the inhabitants of Pennsylvania." Several persons
1 Votes, v, pp. 379-80, 433-4.
2 Franklin, Works, vii, pp. 272-3.
3 " I am very well pleased," wrote Thomas Penn to Mr. Allen, Nov. 10, 1764 (P. L. B., viii), to find Mr. Jackson is to be satisfied as to the allowing all charter privileges before he presents the petition."
+ Ibid., Jan. II, 1765.
569
IN PENNSYLVANIA
569]
in England who sympathized with the anti-proprietary party then tried to persuade the proprietors to agree to a compro- mise of the differences existing between them and the assembly. But the proprietors refused to give up any of the rights of government," and Franklin saw that the only alternative was to present the petitions. The proprietors had been well assured by some of the ministers2 that nothing would be done to en- courage their enemies, hence they awaited the outcome with comparative indifference.3 In November, 1765, Franklin laid before the king in council the address of the assembly, and the several private petitions accompanying it. On the ground chiefly that the king had no power to grant such a request the Privy Council decided to postpone indefinitely any con- sideration of the petitions.4 But the following year the min- istry tried to persuade the proprietors to surrender the govern- ment.5 Lord Shelburne wrote to Gov. Penn that the king desired to have an exact estimate of the annual expense of the
1 P. L. B., viii., T. P. to Allen, July 13, 1765 ; to John Penn, Nov. 30, 1765.
2 Ibid., T. P. to John Penn, Jan. II, 1765 ; to Chew, July 20, 1765.
3 " I do not find anything to alarm me, and think, instead of injuring me, will make the petitioners appear very ridiculous." Ibid., T. P., to John Penn, Nov. 9, 1765. " I have sounded some respectable members of the Privy Council about them, and think I may be very easy as to any consequences attending them. I shall endeavor to get them rejected without a hearing." Ibid., to Peters, Nov. 15, 1765.
+ " The petitions have been considered by the king in council, and resolved not to be proper for further consideration, and postponed sine die, that is (to use my lord president's expression) for ever and ever. This is the most easy way of reject- ing, and which they make use of when any considerable bodies of people petition, so that you may be assured we shall not have any further trouble about them. Not any of the council thought them proper to be referred to a committee, as they prayed for a thing not in the king's power to grant, nor in the least in his will, and not giving any good reason for their request." Ibid., T. P. to John Penn, Nov. 30, 1765 ; to Allen, Dec. 15, 1765.
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.