me do governor Hamilton the justice to observe, that whether from
the uprightness of his own disposition, or from the odious light the
practice had been set in on Denny's account, or from both; he did not
attempt these bargains, but passed such laws as he thought fit to
pass, without any _previous_ stipulation of pay for them. But then,
when he saw the assembly tardy in the payment he expected, and yet
calling upon him still to pass more laws; he openly put them in mind
of the money, as a _debt_ due to him from custom. "In the course of
the present year (says he, in his message of July 8, 1763) a great
deal of public business hath been transacted by me, and I believe as
many useful laws enacted, as by any of my predecessors in the same
space of time: yet I have not understood that any allowance hath
hitherto been made to me for my support, as hath been customary in
this province." The house having then some bills in hand, took the
matter into immediate consideration, and voted him five hundred
pounds, for which an order or certificate was accordingly drawn:
and on the same day the speaker, after the house had been with the
governor, reported, "That his honour had been pleased to give his
assent to the bills, by enacting the same into laws. And Mr. Speaker
farther reported, That he had then, in behalf of the house, presented
their certificate of five hundred pounds to the governor, who was
pleased to say, he was obliged to the house for the same." Thus we
see the practice of purchasing and paying for laws is interwoven
with our proprietary constitution, used in the best times, and under
the best governors. And yet, alas! poor assembly! how will you steer
your brittle bark between these rocks? If you pay _ready money_ for
your laws, and those laws are not liked by the proprietaries, you are
charged with bribery and corruption: if you wait a while before you
pay, you are accused of detaining the governor's customary right, and
dunned as a negligent or dishonest debtor, that refuses to discharge
a just debt!
But governor Denny's case, I shall be told, differs from all these;
for the acts he was induced to pass were, as the prefacer tell us,
"_contrary to his duty, and to every tie of honour and justice_."
Such is the imperfection of our language, and perhaps of all other
languages, that, notwithstanding we are furnished with dictionaries
innumerable, we cannot precisely know the import of words, unless
we know of what party the man is that uses them. In the mouth of an
assembly-man, or true Pensylvanian, "contrary to his duty and to
every tie of honour and justice" would mean, the governor's long
refusal to pass laws, however just and necessary, for taxing the
proprietary estate: a refusal, contrary to the trust reposed in
the lieutenant-governor by the royal charter, to the rights of the
people, whose welfare it was his duty to promote, and to the nature
of the contract made between the governor and the governed, when the
quit-rents and licence-fees were established, which confirmed what
the proprietaries call our "undoubted right" to necessary laws. But
in the mouth of the proprietaries, or their creatures, "contrary to
his duty, and to every tie of justice and honour" means, his passing
laws contrary to proprietary instructions, and contrary to the bonds
he had previously given to observe those instructions: instructions
however, that were unjust and unconstitutional; and bonds, that were
illegal and void from the beginning.
Much has been said of the wickedness of governor Denny in passing,
and of the assembly in prevailing with him to pass, those acts.
By the prefacer's account of them, you would think the laws, so
obtained, were _all_ bad; for he speaks of but _seven_, of which,
six, he says, were repealed, and the seventh reported to be
"fundamentally _wrong_ and _unjust_," "and ought to be repealed,
_unless_ six certain amendments were made therein[60]." Whereas
in fact there were _nineteen_ of them, and several of those must
have been good laws, for even the proprietaries did not object to
them. Of the eleven that they opposed, only six were repealed; so
that it seems, these good gentlemen may themselves be sometimes as
wrong in opposing, as the assembly in enacting laws. But the words,
"fundamentally _wrong_ and _unjust_," are the great fund of triumph
to the proprietaries and their partizans. These, their subsequent
governors have unmercifully dinned in the ears of the assembly on all
occasions ever since; for they make a part of near a dozen of their
messages. They have rung the changes on those words, till they worked
them up to say, that the law was fundamentally wrong and unjust in
_six several articles_ (Governor's Message, May 17, 1764) instead
of "ought to be repealed, _unless_ six alterations or amendments
could be made therein." A law, unjust in six several articles, must
be an unjust law indeed. Let us therefore, once for all, _examine_
this unjust law, article by article, in order to see, whether our
assemblies have been such villains as they have been represented.
The _first_ particular in which their lordships proposed the act
should be amended was, "That the real estates to be taxed, be
_defined with precision_; so as not to include the unsurveyed waste
land belonging to the proprietaries." This was at most but an
_obscurity_ to be cleared up. And though the law might well appear
to their lordships uncertain in that particular, with us, who better
know our own customs, and that the proprietaries waste unsurveyed
land was never here considered among estates real, subject to
taxation; there was not the least doubt or supposition, that such
lands were included in the words "all estates, real and personal."
The agents therefore, knowing that the assembly had no intention
to tax those lands, might well suppose they would readily agree to
remove the obscurity. Before we go farther, let it be observed, that
the main design of the proprietaries in opposing this act was, to
_prevent their estates being taxed at all_. But as they knew, that
the doctrine of proprietary exemption, which they had endeavoured to
enforce here, could not be supported there[61], they bent their whole
strength against the act on _other_ principles to procure its repeal,
pretending great willingness to submit to an equitable tax; but that
the assembly (out of mere malice, because they had conscientiously
quitted quakerism for the church!) were wickedly determined to ruin
them, to tax all their unsurveyed wilderness-lands, and at the
highest rates: and by that means exempt themselves and the people,
and throw the whole burden of the war on the proprietary family. How
foreign these charges were from the truth, need not be told to any
man in Pensylvania. And as the proprietors knew, that the hundred
thousand pounds of paper-money, struck for the defence of _their_
enormous estates, with others, was actually issued, spread through
the country, and in the hands of thousands of poor people, who had
given their labour for it; how base, cruel, and inhuman it was to
endeavour, by a repeal of the act, to strike the money dead in those
hands at one blow, and reduce it all to waste paper, to the utter
confusion of all trade and dealings, and the ruin of multitudes,
merely to avoid paying their own just tax--Words may be wanting
to express,--but minds will easily conceive,--and never without
abhorrence!
The _second_ amendment proposed by their lordships was, "That the
located uncultivated lands, belonging to the proprietaries, shall
not be assessed higher than the _lowest_ rate, at which any located
uncultivated lands belonging to the inhabitants shall be assessed."
Had there been any provision in the act, that the proprietaries'
lands, and those of the people, of the same value, should be taxed
differently, the one high, and the other low; the act might well have
been called in this particular fundamentally wrong and unjust. But
as there is no such clause, this cannot be one of the particulars
on which the charge is founded; but, like the first, is merely a
requisition to make the act _clear_, by express directions therein,
that the proprietaries' estate should not be, as they pretended to
believe it would be, taxed higher in proportion to its value than
the estates of others. As to their present claim, founded on that
article, "that the best and most valuable of their lands, should be
taxed no higher than the worst and least valuable of the people's,"
it was not _then_ thought of; they made no such demand; nor did any
one dream that so iniquitous a claim would ever be made by men, who
had the least pretence to the characters of honourable and honest.
The _third_ particular was, "That all lands, _not granted_ by
the proprietaries _within boroughs and towns_, be deemed located
uncultivated lands, and rated accordingly; and not as lots." The
clause in the act that this relates to is, "And whereas many valuable
lots of ground within the city of Philadelphia, and the several
boroughs and towns within this province, remain unimproved; Be it
enacted, &c. That _all_ such unimproved lots of ground within the
city and boroughs aforesaid, shall be rated and assessed according to
their situation and value for, and towards raising the money hereby
granted." The reader will observe, that the word is, _all_ unimproved
lots; and that _all_ comprehends the lots belonging to the people,
as well as those of the proprietary. There were many of the former;
and a number belonging even to members of the then assembly; and
considering the value, the tax must be proportionably as grievous to
them, as the proprietary's to him. Is there among us a single man,
even a proprietary relation, officer, or dependant, so insensible of
the differences of right and wrong, and so confused in his notions of
just and unjust, as to think and say, that the act in this particular
was fundamentally wrong and unjust? I believe not one. What then
could their lordships mean by the proposed amendment? Their meaning
is easily explained. The proprietaries have considerable tracts of
land within the bounds of boroughs and towns, that have not yet been
divided into lots: they pretended to believe, that by virtue of this
clause an imaginary division would be made of _those_ lands into
lots, and an extravagant value set on such imaginary lots, greatly
to their prejudice. It was answered, that no such thing was intended
by the act: and that by lots was meant only such ground as _had_
been surveyed and divided into lots, and not the open undivided
lands. If this only is intended, say their lordships, then let the
act be amended, so as _clearly_ to express what is intended. This is
the full amount of the third particular. How the act was understood
here, is well known by the execution of it before the dispute came
on in England, and therefore before their lordships' opinion on the
point could be given, of which full proof shall presently be made.
In the mean time it appears, that the act was not on _this_ account
fundamentally wrong and unjust.
The _fourth_ particular is, "That the _governor's consent_ and
approbation be made necessary to every issue and application of the
money, to be raised by virtue of such act." The assembly intended
this, and thought they had done it in the act. The words of the
clause being, "That [the commissioners named] or the major part of
them, or of the survivors of them, _with the consent_ or approbation
of the governor or commander in chief of this province for the time
being, shall order and appoint _the disposition of the monies_
arising by virtue of this act, for and towards paying and clothing
two thousand seven hundred effective men," &c. It was understood
here, that as the power of disposing was expressly to be with the
consent and approbation of the governor, the commissioners had no
power to dispose of the money without that approbation: but their
lordships, jealous (as their station requires) of this prerogative of
the crown, and being better acquainted with the force and weakness
of law expression, did not think the clause explicit enough, unless
the words, "_and not otherwise_," were added, or some other words
equivalent. This particular, therefore, was no more than another
requisition of greater _clearness_ and precision; and by no means a
foundation for the charge of fundamentally wrong and unjust.
The _fifth_ particular was, "That _provincial_ commissioners be
named, to hear and _determine appeals_, brought on the part of
the inhabitants, as well as the proprietaries." There was already
subsisting a provision for the appointment of _county_ commissioners
of appeal; by whom the act might be, and actually has been (as we
shall presently show) justly and impartially executed with regard to
the proprietaries; but _provincial_ commissioners appointed in the
act it was thought might be of use, in regulating and equalizing the
modes of assessment of different counties, where they were unequal;
and by affording a second appeal, tend more to the satisfaction both
of the proprietaries and the people.--This particular was therefore
a mere proposed improvement of the act, which could not be, and was
not, in this respect, denominated fundamentally wrong and unjust.
We have now gone through five of the six proposed amendments, without
discovering any thing on which that censure could be founded; but the
_sixth_ remains; which points at a part of the act wherein we must
candidly acknowledge there is something, that, in their lordships'
view of it, must justify their judgment. The words of the _sixth_
article are, "That the payments by the tenants to the proprietaries
of their rents, shall be according to the terms of their respective
grants, as if such act had never been passed." This relates to that
clause of the act by which the _paper-money_ was made a _legal
tender_ in "discharge of all manner of debts, rents, sum and sums
of money whatsoever, &c. at the rates ascertained in the act of
parliament made in the sixth of Queen Anne." From the great injustice
frequently done to creditors, and complained of from the colonies, by
the vast depreciation of paper bills, it was become a general fixed
principle with the ministry, that such bills (whose value, though
fixed in the act, could not be kept fixed by the act) ought _not_ to
be made a legal tender in any colony at those rates. The parliament
had before passed an act, to take that tender away in the four New
England colonies, and have since made the act general. This was what
their lordships would therefore have proposed for the amendment. But
it being represented, That the chief support of the credit of the
bills was the legal tender; and that without it they would become
of no value, it was allowed generally to remain; with an exception
to the proprietaries' rents, where[62] there was a special contract
for payment in another coin. It cannot be denied but that _this_ was
doing justice to the proprietaries; and that, had the requisition
been in favour of _all other_ creditors also, the justice had been
equal, as being general. We do not therefore presume to impeach their
lordships' judgment, that the act, as it enforced the acceptance of
bills for money at a value which they had only nominally, and not
really, was in that respect fundamentally wrong and unjust. And yet
we believe the reader will not think the assembly so much to blame,
when he considers, that the making paper-bills a legal tender had
been the universal mode in America for more than threescore years;
that there was scarce a colony that had not practised that mode
more or less; that it had always been thought absolutely necessary,
in order to give the bills a credit, and thereby obtain from them
the uses of money; that the inconveniences were therefore submitted
to, for the sake of the greater conveniences; that acts innumerable
of the like kind had been approved by the crown; and that if the
assembly made the bills a legal tender at those rates to the
proprietaries, they made them also a legal tender to themselves and
all their constituents, many of whom might suffer in their rents,
&c. as much in proportion to their estates as the proprietaries. But
if he cannot, on these considerations, quite excuse the assembly,
what will he think of those honourable proprietaries, who, when
paper-money was issued in their colony, for the common defence of
their vast estates, with those of the people, and who must therefore
reap at least equal advantages from those bills with the people,
could nevertheless wish to be exempted from their share of the
unavoidable disadvantages. Is there upon earth a man besides, with
any conception of what is honest, with any notion of honour, with
the least tincture in his veins of the gentleman, but would have
blushed at the thought; but would have rejected with disdain such
undue preference, if it had been offered him? Much less would he have
struggled for it, moved heaven and earth to obtain it, resolved to
ruin thousands of his tenants by a repeal of the act, rather than
miss of it[63]; and enforce it afterwards by an audaciously wicked
instruction; forbidding aids to his king, and exposing the province
to destruction, unless it was complied with. And yet,--These are
_honourable_ men[64].
Here then we have a full view of the assembly's injustice; about
which there has been so much insolent triumph! But let the
proprietaries and their discreet deputies hereafter recollect
and remember, that the same august tribunal, which censured some
of the modes and circumstances of that act, did at the same time
establish and confirm the grand principle of the act, viz. "That
the proprietary estate ought, with other estates, to be taxed:" and
thereby did in effect determine and pronounce, that the opposition
so long made in various shapes to that just principle, by the
proprietaries, was fundamentally _wrong_ and _unjust_. An injustice
they were not, like the assembly, under any necessity of committing
for the public good, or any other necessity but what was imposed on
them by those base passions, that act the tyrant in bad minds; their
selfishness, their pride, and their avarice.
I have frequently mentioned the _equitable intentions_ of the house
in those parts of the act, that were supposed obscure, and how they
were understood here. A clear proof thereof is found, as I have
already said, in the actual execution of the act; in the execution
of it before the contest about it in England; and therefore before
their lordships' objections to it had a being. When the report came
over, and was laid before the house, one year's tax had been levied:
and the assembly, conscious that no injustice had been intended to
the proprietaries, and willing to rectify it if any should appear,
appointed a _committee_ of members from the several counties to
examine into the state of the proprietaries' taxes through the
province, and nominated on that committee a gentleman of known
attachment to the proprietaries, and their chief justice, Mr. Allen;
to the end that the strictest inquiry might be made. _Their report_
was as follows: "We, the committee appointed to inquire into, and
consider the state of the proprietary taxation through the several
counties, and report the same to the house, have, in pursuance of
the said appointment, carefully examined the returns of property,
and compared them with the respective assessments thereon made
through the whole province; and find, _first_, That no part of the
_unsurveyed_ waste lands belonging to the proprietaries have, in any
instance, been included in the estates taxed. _Secondly_, That some
of the _located uncultivated_ lands belonging to the proprietaries
in several counties _remain unassessed_; and are not in any county
assessed higher, than the lands under like circumstances belonging
to the inhabitants. _Thirdly_, That all _lands_; _not_ granted by
the proprietaries, _within boroughs_ and towns, remain _untaxed_;
excepting in a few instances, and in those they are rated as _low_,
as the lands which are granted in the said boroughs and towns. The
whole of the proprietary tax of eighteen pence in the pound amounts
to 566_l._ 4_s._ 10_d._ And the sum of the tax on the inhabitants for
the same year amounts, through the several counties, to 27,103_l._
12_s._ 8_d._ And it is the opinion of your committee, that there has
not been any injustice done to the proprietaries, or attempts made to
rate or assess any part of their estates higher than the estates of
the like kind belonging to the inhabitants are rated and assessed;
but, on the contrary, we find that their estates are rated, in many
instances, below others.
Thomas Leech, George Ashbridge,
Joseph Fox, Emanuel Carpenter,
Samuel Rhoads, John Blackburn,
Abraham Chapman, William Allen."
The house communicated this report to governor Hamilton, when he
afterwards pressed them to make the stipulated act of amendment;
acquainting him at the same time, that as in the execution of the act
no injustice _had_ hitherto been done to the proprietary, so, by a
yearly inspection of the assessments, they would take care that none
_should_ be done him; for that if any should appear, or the governor
could at any time point out to them any that had been done, they
would immediately rectify it; and therefore, as the act was shortly
to expire, they did not think the amendments necessary. Thus that
matter ended during that administration.
And had his successor, governor Penn, permitted it still to sleep,
we are of opinion it had been more to the honour of the family, and
of his own discretion. But he was pleased to found upon it a _claim_
manifestly unjust, and which he was totally destitute of reason to
support. A claim, that the proprietaries best and most valuable
located uncultivated lands, should be taxed no _higher_ than the
worst and least valuable of those belonging to the inhabitants: to
enforce which, as he thought the words of one of the stipulations
seemed to give some countenance to it, he insisted on using those
very words as sacred; from which he could "neither in decency or in
duty," deviate; though he had agreed to deviate from words [in] the
same report, and therefore equally sacred in every other instance. A
conduct which will (as the prefacer says in governor Denny's case)
for ever disgrace the annals of _his_ administration[65]. Never did
any administration open with a more _promising_ prospect [than this
of governor Penn]. He assured the people, in his first speeches,
of the proprietaries' paternal regard for them, and their sincere
disposition to do every thing that might promote their happiness. As
the proprietaries had been pleased to appoint a son of the family
to the government, it was thought not unlikely, that there might be
something in these professions; for that they would probably choose
to have his administration made easy and agreeable; and to that
end might think it prudent to withdraw those harsh, disagreeable,
and unjust instructions with which most of his predecessors had
been hampered: the assembly therefore believed fully, and rejoiced
sincerely. They showed the new governor every mark of respect and
regard that was in their power. They readily and cheerfully went into
every thing he recommended to them. And when he and his authority
were insulted and endangered by a lawless murdering mob, they and
their friends took arms at his call, and formed themselves round him
for his defence, and the support of his government. But when it was
found, that those mischievous instructions still subsisted, and were
even farther extended; when the governor began, unprovoked, to send
the house affronting messages, seizing every imaginary occasion of
reflecting on their conduct; when every other symptom appeared of
fixed deep-rooted family malice, which could but a little while bear
the unnatural covering that had been thrown over it, what wonder
is it, if all the old wounds broke out and bled afresh? if all the
old grievances, still unredressed, were recollected; if despair
succeeded of [seeing] any peace with a family, that could make such
returns to all their overtures of kindness! And when in the very
proprietary council, composed of staunch friends of the family, and
chosen for their attachment to it, it was observed, that the _old
men_ (1 Kings, chap. xii.) withdrew themselves, finding their opinion
slighted, and that all measures were taken by the advice of two or
three _young men_ (one of whom too denies his share in them) is it
any wonder, since like causes produce like effects, if the assembly,
notwithstanding all their veneration for the first proprietor, should
say, with the children of Israel, under the same circumstances, "What
portion have we in David, or inheritance in the son of Jesse? To your
tents, O Israel!"
Under these circumstances, and a conviction that while so many
natural sources of difference subsisted between proprietaries and
people, no harmony in government long subsist (without which neither
the commands of the crown could be executed, nor the public good
promoted) the house resumed the consideration of a measure that had
often been proposed in former assemblies; a measure, that every
_proprietary province in_ America had, from the same causes, found
themselves obliged to take, and had actually taken, or were about
to take; and a measure, that had happily succeeded, wherever it was
taken; I mean the recourse to an immediate _royal government_.