« ZurückWeiter »
had given, and the right to elect officers and fill vacancies had made the new as well as the old a close corporation, the body was independent, and the members appointed by the charter of the new to serve at first, except Shippen, the Mayor, and Story, the Recorder, and one or two others, could hardly be called Penn's close friends. Not so, however, as to province and county. Logan wrote some years later that Penn, at a time not specified, was inclined for an aristocracy, and had designed to give to an upper element control, but was thwarted by some individuals. If this was the case at the preparation of the Frame of 1701, it is to be inferred that David Lloyd was the chief obstructor. Far from being democratic, what Logan says was made republican, was made monarchic. Under the Frame of 1683, and even under that of 1696, the free men of Pennsylvania and Delaware after a short residence or at least those who had a little property, had been able not only to force or retard legislation, but, except within the sphere of the City charter of 1691, to control, by their delegates in the Provincial Council, the management of all public affairs. Under the Frame of 1701, the Governor had an absolute veto upon laws, and there was no Upper House elected to participate in executive business. All the power left in the People was that a part of the People could choose an Assembly, like the English House of Commons, to do only what the House of Commons at that time could do, viz: propose laws, and offer money. The acting Governor or the Governor-in-Chief behind him was to be supreme, like a local king—that is, a king of that day, no mere figure-head, like a modern constitutional monarch. Furthermore, the advisers of the acting Governor, like the contemporary cabinets of kings, and unlike to-day's Parliamentary ministries, were to be independent of the voters. It also can be said that, beginning with the first Hamilton, and until the close of this history, the Lieutenant-Governors personally had less in common with the inhabitants than those appointed before 1700. Of those earlier ones, Blackwell, to be sure, had been a stranger, but Markham was the leader whom the purchasers from Penn had followed to their new home, and Thomas Lloyd had the respect of the majority of the settlers as a preacher and sufferer for their religion, while the other Commissioners of State and the Assistants were such as the planters, left to their own judgment, might have elected.
One explanation of the change in the constitution, or a contributing motive for it, may have been the idea that only a ruler independent of the People can preserve the liberties of the minority, and Penn must have foreseen that the Quakers, for whose enjoyment of privileges his colony had been started, were about to become the minority in it. He left the government well organized against the Churchmen, likely to include the poorer immigrants of the future, and to bring into coalition with themselves the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Baptists on the question of war and oaths. With the Quaker landholders preponderating in the Assembly, and with the judiciary filled as he had chosen, nothing contrary to the consciences of his fellow religionists could be imposed, except by the government in London, and, being in England, he might influence those officials to be considerate.
The active Churchmen wished the Province and Territories put under a Governor selected by the Cabinet ministers, and holding directly under the Crown. Quary carried over to England two addresses, one, dated Oct. 25, from eight representatives of the Lower Counties, Yeates, Halliwell, Adam Pieterson, Luke Wattson Jr., William Rodeney, John Brinckloe, John Walker, and John Donnaldson, complaining of Penn's giving no satisfaction about defence. Yeates at least was a Churchman, and in the Lower Counties the nonQuakers were strong. The other address was from the Minister and some of the Vestry of Christ Church, dated Oct. 27, setting forth certain failures of justice under Quaker control of the judiciary. Rather ungratefully, we should say, John Moore signed this: he was both Register-General of Wills and Attorney-General by Penn's appointment, and was drawing, as Attorney-General, a salary directly from Penn.
Except in the case of Moore and of two or three persons sent over by Penn to hold office, the political circumstances of an Episcopalian residing in the Upper Counties at this time were not pleasant. In more cases than among the Quakers, he was one of the poor disqualified from voting, yet obliged to pay a tax. If, however, he had the ability and standing fitting him for office, he was discriminated against by the voters. Everybody was taxed for a gratuity to William Penn, to help pay for his having been a great man at Court, and other parts of his career which did not interest, or were disapproved of by Churchmen, and the net result of which was the maintenance on the Delaware of the political power of men who would not administer, much less require, an oath, and would not authorize, much less take part in, the defence of the colony. It may be said that the Quakers had a right to the country which they had planted, and that the dissatisfied minority should have left: but that course naturally did not commend itself even to such as could afford to remove: they were adhering to the ecclesiastical organization and customs adopted by the Anglo-Saxon race, and Pennsylvania comprised an extensive region, one of the best under the English Crown.
Penn had intended the superseding of Moore as Attorney-General, but the commission for that purpose to Paroculus Parmiter, if signed, was not made use of, it being learned that Parmiter, who was one of Penn's kindred, had been convicted at Bristol, England, of the capital crime of forgery, but pardoned. Penn commissioned Markham on 5, 27, 1703, as Register-General, but Moore claimed a freehold in the office, withheld the official seal, and sued Markham, but, after the latter's death, abandoned or lost the case.
Quary, who remained in England until July, 1702, suggested, but did not succeed in having taken up, the following solution of the problem of defence, viz: that in every colony all freemen and all immigrants be obliged to enroll themselves in a company of militia, the poor as foot soldiers, the rich as dragoons: but that Quakers and others with scruples against bearing arms were to certify their opinion in writing, and, in place of bearing arms, to do an equivalent in some public work, and to furnish their quota agreeable to their estates, said quota to be laid out in providing arms, ammunition, and all warlike stores.
Andrew Hamilton, who met the Council on November 14, 1701, and to whom Logan was instructed to make up an allowance of 2001. per annum until royal approbation of the appointment, and 3001. thereafter, was a native of Scotland, and had acted as Governor of one or both of the provinces of New Jersey at different times since 1689, and is mentioned in another chapter as having started an inter-colonial postal service. When Quary, before the Board of Trade, made the point against Penn of his leaving Hamilton as acting Governor without the royal approbation, Penn pleaded the necessity of the case. He had obtained the opinion of William Attwood, Chief Justice at New York, that the deputizing by a Governor-in-Chief was good until the King could be informed, Penn explained that he had chosen Hamilton because there was no other nonQuaker at hand fit for the position except Markham, whom the Crown had so lately ordered to be removed from it. Quary said that there were several others, who were, moreover, less liable to objection. Hamilton had been careful of Quaker interests in New Jersey, but was not personally disliked by the Churchmen. He had probably adhered to the episcopally governed clergy both in Scotland and in London, where he is said to have been a merchant.
In the late years of his life, he befriended a young Scotchman, said to have been born in Edinburgh about 1676, who took the name of Andrew Hamilton while residing in the Virginia or Maryland “Eastern Shore,” and with such name appears in history, being the greatest lawyer of his day in Pennsylvania. He is said to have emigrated from Scotland in such needs as to have his time sold to a planter, because fleeing from an actual or impending charge of murder, as the result of a fight. Despite all that has been surmised, there was probably nothing interesting about the paternity of the fugitive. He had sufficient education to assist his second employer in teaching school, and, as he at one time bore the name of Trent, he may have been related to William Trent, the Pennsylvania Councillor, or more closely to Maurice Trent, who was early in New Jersey, and afterwards of Leith, Scotland.
Without raising the objection of Hamilton's appointment not having been confirmed, Halliwell, Moore, and Yeates, three of those authorized by a document known as a “dedimus potestatem” to administer to the Gov. ernor of Pennsylvania the oath required by the Act of 7 & 8 Wm. III, very captiously refused to administer the oath to Hamilton, unless the dedimus potestatem were surrendered to them. The Council thought the Secretary or the Master of the Rolls the proper custodian, and, as the document gave to any five of the Council with the Collector of the Port the same power as to those particularly named, Councillors Guest, Samuel Finney, and John Finney with John Bewley, Collector of the Port, administered the oath in presence of