« ZurückWeiter »
who made answer that the original letters had been duly considered by those lately Commissioners, and they knew of none which might now be of service, that such as contained instructions had been delivered to view, and were transcribed, and that most of the letters remained in his own custody with the assent of those to whom they were directed. It was at last agreed unanimously in the Council that attested copies of the letters and of the parts of private letters should be delivered.
Lloyd also claimed the right to refuse the great seal to documents which he deemed improper, a right which would have made him a chancellor or a court to declare acts unconstitutional or a superior governor, and which would have resulted in such confusion that Penn can not be supposed to have intended it. Lloyd's first refusal was in regard to a certain commission for Justices of the Peace and holding of a County Court for Philadelphia County, the form of the commission being disapproved of by him. On his intending to visit New York, the Council, six being present, asked him to leave the seal for the accommodation of public business, the Quakers on this occasion adopting Blackwell's motion, Simcock saying that the Keeper should not be allowed to go away. Lloyd, in writing, declared that the action of the Council was an arbitrary disposing of the most eminent estate for life yet given in the government, that he had been unkindly dealt with, and that, being done by a minority of the members, and by vote instead of ballot,—the Frame requiring ballot in the choosing of officers and all other personal matters, the act was unwarrantable by law and charter; and he asked that either the order be erased from the Council book, or his paper filed as a protest. Blackwell had gotten over the difficulty about the County Court by deciding to issue under the lesser seal the commissions in the form which he had chosen, and to refer the matter to the Proprietary. But it was not easy to do without Lloyd in the matter of the Supreme Court, or, as it was called, the Provincial Court, which alone could try capital crimes. The law passed while Penn was in the colony provided for five Judges appointed by the Governor under the great seal. There had been passed in 1685 a provision for a special commissioning, not requiring that seal, of three Judges by the Governor and Council, but, even if this was not abrogated by Penn's letter of 1686, it appeared to be an infringement of his right by the King's patent to appoint all Judges, and therefore void as within the exception to the power under which in 1685 the Council had represented Penn in making laws. Cooke asked that Lloyd's advice be sought, and, this being refused, Cooke left the meeting; Clark, Darvall, Jones, Coppock, Turner, and Markham remaining, it was carried unanimously to commission under the older law, and according to a form then read by Blackwell. This being sent to Lloyd, he declared it not proper for the seal, and “more moulded by fancy than formed by law, the style insecure, the powers unwarrantable, and the duration not consonant to the continuance of the laws upon which it should be grounded.” The Governor and Council having removed David Lloyd from the Clerkship for Philadelphia County, Thomas Lloyd, claiming the right to appoint the Clerk, commissioned David as such on 1mo. 1, 1688-9. It was resolved by the Council that this was an usurpation of the Governor's authority; and David surrendered the records in due time.
Richardson (ancestor of Gov. Samuel W. Pennypacker) offended Blackwell's punctiliousness by criticising both in and out of Council a resolution of the body, and his pride by repeated declarations that Penn's deputy was not Governor, for Penn could not appoint one. Cooke, expressing himself more mildly, scrupled at any title but Deputy-Governor. Blackwell moved that Richardson be ordered to leave while the Council debated the question. Richardson declared: “I will not withdraw, I was not brought hither by thee, and I will not go out by thy order; I was sent by the people, and thou hast no power to put me out." The others thought he should withdraw; and, when he had done so, it was agreed, seven members being present, that he should acknowledge his offence, and promise more respect in future, before he could be allowed to sit again.
The imperative business in the Spring of 1689 was the making of a new set of laws, the act of 3mo. 10, 1688, having provided that, except the fundamental laws, no law passed previously, or at that session, should remain in force longer than until twenty days after the end of the first session of the next Assembly. Accordingly, the Governor and Council were bound in duty to propose, as prescribed by the Frame, a code, to be published and affixed in the most public place in each county by the 20th of the 2nd month, i.e. twenty days before the meeting of the Assembly which was to accept or reject them. The election held in 1st month, 1688-9, resulted in the continuance of Simcock and Clark in the Council and the choice of John Eckley, Lloyd, William Stockdale, and John Curtis, in the place of Turner, Cooke, Cann, and Darvall, and the choice of John Hill for the vacancy from Sussex.
Questions as to right to seats prevented the Council from getting to work in time for legislation. On the ground that fifty or sixty inhabitants of the Welsh Tract had voted in Philadelphia, whereas that tract had been actually taken into Chester County, Eckley's election was declared void. The Lieutenant-Governor, pursuant to the suspension of Richardson, issued a writ for an election in his place, as well as for an election in Eckley's. As to Lloyd, Blackwell proposed articles of impeachment. Richardson came to the Council meeting to take his place, justifying his former language, and refusing to withdraw; so that the Governor adjourned the sitting until the afternoon. Then the question was raised whether the Council could exclude a member chosen by the people, Blackwell standing on the privilege of all courts and corporations to judge of the misbehavior of their members, and saying that he would not suffer such affronts from any person sitting at the board, and would so notify the Proprietary. Markham, the Secretary, writes this minute: “Many intemperate speeches & passages happend, fitt to be had in oblivion.” The question of Lloyd's impeachment being then taken up, there arose warm debates, his friends objecting to framing any charges. At the next meeting, Lloyd walked into the room, saying that he had come to take his seat. The Lieutenant-Governor told him that nothing was expected from him until he answered the charges. He, replying that he had as good a right to be there as Blackwell had to be LieutenantGovernor, accordingly refused to withdraw. Blackwell then asked the other members to follow him to his lodgings. Some stayed to reason with Lloyd, among them Markham, the Secretary, but such were the “sharp and unsavory expressions” used by Lloyd, which the Lieutenant-Governor heard, he having gone no further than outside the door, that Markham induced him to return. Lloyd was again commanded to depart, and the other members followed the Lieutenant-Governor to his lodgings. On arriving there, eleven members voted to proceed with the preparation of the laws for the Assembly's action: four Quakers, Carpenter, Growdon, Yardley, and Bristow, voted no, being apparently unwilling to act without Lloyd, Richardson, and Eckley. On the 8th of 2nd month, at the election ordered by the Lieutenant-Governor to fill Eckley's and Richardson's places, the freemen decided to take no ballot, although the Frame required it. In Chester and the Lower Counties, the ballot had been frequently by black and white beans in a hat. On this occasion, by majority vote or voice, Eckley and Richardson were sent back. On the same day, there was an agreement reached in Council as to what laws were fundamental: but, it having been pointed out that the laws, to be valid under the King's letters patent, were to be published by the Proprietary or his Deputy under the seal of the Proprietary or Deputy, and it not being clear that any but the Act of Union had been passed under the great seal, a question arose whether any of the fundamentals had been legally established.
The Councillors were turned from the subject the next morning by the Lieutenant-Governor finding fault with Growdon for promoting the printing of copies of the Frame of Government. It was this printing which caused the proceeding against Bradford, as before related. Blackwell expressed a fear that, if it were known outside of the province, that Penn had granted certain privileges, it might result in a questioning of the Proprietary title. Growdon declined to retire during the discussion, and demanded the admission of the three excluded members. Blackwell maintained the disqualification of Lloyd and Richardson, and the nullity of the second election of Eckley, although politely regretting that it was not legal to admit one so fit as the last named. Blackwell refused to let the Councillors ballot upon this point, declaring it unsafe to let men who were under such factional influence vote secretly. The Quakers generally being indisposed to go into the consideration of the laws with three representatives of their element of the population excluded, the Lieutenant-Governor, then excusing from attendance all the Councillors except those required for routine business, let all legislation fail.
After the adjournment on that day, Simcock, Growdon, Yardley, Curtis, Carpenter, Coppock, and Stockdale wrote a complaint to Penn-Bristow had gone