00000426 |
Previous | 426 of 597 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
ONE-SIDED AGREEMENT. 397
Governor Gordon in his answer to Lord Baltimore, dated Philadelphia,
March 28th, 1732, denies the allegations set forth in the letter of Lord
Baltimore, and ridicules the idea of selecting Joppa as the place of meeting. It is stated, however, that at the first meeting of the commissioners
at Newcastle, disputes arose as to the application of the terms of the agreement, and the manner of carrying it into execution. And as Lord Baltimore
no doubt soon found out that the Penns had taken advantage of his ignorance
of his rights, and did not really desire a fair adjudication of the controversy,
he'withdrew from this attempt at a fair settlement.
Lord Baltimore was now uneasy at learning what unfair advantages the
Penns had obtained, and sought to relieve himself from all further controversy, by obtaining from King George II. a confirmation of his charter, non
obstante the language of description contained in it, which represented it " as
uncultivated and inhabited by strangers." "These unfortunate words," says
Mr. McMahon, " which the sagacity of Penn had turned to good purpose, in
his objections to the charter as obtained by misrepresentation, at least as to the peninsular territory, had
been the source of his most serious difficulties, and
they now suggested an expedient which it would
. have been well for the Proprietary of Maryland to
have adopted in the very origin of the controversy.
To adopt this expedient, was indeed to admit the
force of the objection, and hence the tardy resort to
it; yet it is probable, that if instead of relying with
entire confidence upon the efficacy of the charter,
the proprietary had, upon the first appearance of
this objection, petitioned for this confirmation, it george ii.
would have been at once accorded by the justice of the crown, and thus in
all future contests, his claims would have rested upon an unquestionable
chartered right. Fortified by this right, whatever might have been the result
during the reign of James, the principles of political liberty and the respect
for chartered rights, which rose in triumph when he fell, must ultimately
have restored Baltimore to the full enjoyment of his original grant. As it
was, the Proprietaries of Maryland had suffered difficulty to accumulate upon
difficulty, and objection to spring upon objection, until it was too late to
retrace their steps. Had the confirmation been sought and obtained in
the first instance, it would have been a preventive; but now it was applied for
as a remedy, and only when all else had failed. The application thus made
was strenuously opposed by the proprietaries of Pennsylvania, who interposed
Baltimore's voluntary agreement and surrender of territory as a bar to his
application."1
The result was that John, Eichard and Thomas Penn filed in 1735 a Bill
in Chancery against Lord Baltimore, praying for a decree of specific perform-
1 History of Maryland, p. 39.
| Title | History of Maryland - 1 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000426 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | ONE-SIDED AGREEMENT. 397 Governor Gordon in his answer to Lord Baltimore, dated Philadelphia, March 28th, 1732, denies the allegations set forth in the letter of Lord Baltimore, and ridicules the idea of selecting Joppa as the place of meeting. It is stated, however, that at the first meeting of the commissioners at Newcastle, disputes arose as to the application of the terms of the agreement, and the manner of carrying it into execution. And as Lord Baltimore no doubt soon found out that the Penns had taken advantage of his ignorance of his rights, and did not really desire a fair adjudication of the controversy, he'withdrew from this attempt at a fair settlement. Lord Baltimore was now uneasy at learning what unfair advantages the Penns had obtained, and sought to relieve himself from all further controversy, by obtaining from King George II. a confirmation of his charter, non obstante the language of description contained in it, which represented it " as uncultivated and inhabited by strangers." "These unfortunate words," says Mr. McMahon, " which the sagacity of Penn had turned to good purpose, in his objections to the charter as obtained by misrepresentation, at least as to the peninsular territory, had been the source of his most serious difficulties, and they now suggested an expedient which it would . have been well for the Proprietary of Maryland to have adopted in the very origin of the controversy. To adopt this expedient, was indeed to admit the force of the objection, and hence the tardy resort to it; yet it is probable, that if instead of relying with entire confidence upon the efficacy of the charter, the proprietary had, upon the first appearance of this objection, petitioned for this confirmation, it george ii. would have been at once accorded by the justice of the crown, and thus in all future contests, his claims would have rested upon an unquestionable chartered right. Fortified by this right, whatever might have been the result during the reign of James, the principles of political liberty and the respect for chartered rights, which rose in triumph when he fell, must ultimately have restored Baltimore to the full enjoyment of his original grant. As it was, the Proprietaries of Maryland had suffered difficulty to accumulate upon difficulty, and objection to spring upon objection, until it was too late to retrace their steps. Had the confirmation been sought and obtained in the first instance, it would have been a preventive; but now it was applied for as a remedy, and only when all else had failed. The application thus made was strenuously opposed by the proprietaries of Pennsylvania, who interposed Baltimore's voluntary agreement and surrender of territory as a bar to his application."1 The result was that John, Eichard and Thomas Penn filed in 1735 a Bill in Chancery against Lord Baltimore, praying for a decree of specific perform- 1 History of Maryland, p. 39. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B |
|
| C |
|
| G |
|
| H |
|
| M |
|
| T |
|
| U |
|
| Y |
|
|
|
