James Hamilton

ASSEMBLY: Lancaster Co.: 1734, 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738

b. c. 1710, Kent Co., Md. d. 13 Aug. 1783. Father: Andrew Hamilton* (c. 1676-1741). Mother: Anne Brown (Preeson) (d. 1736). Brother-in-law: William Allen.* Offices: Pa./LC: Lt. Gov., 1748-54, 1759-63; Pa.: provincial councilor, 1746-48, 1754-59, 1763-76; Phila. Co.: prothonotary, 1733-48, 1754-59, 1764-76; JP, 1738, 1741; city of Phila.: common councilman, 1739-42; alderman, 1741-45; mayor, 1745-46.

James Hamilton, a Maryland-born Anglican, settled in Philadelphia, where he became one of Pennsylvania's leading politicians. Serving as a representative from Lancaster County, as mayor of the city of Philadelphia, and as prothonotary of Philadelphia County, Hamilton achieved the apex of his political career with his two appointments as lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania and Delaware in 1748 and again in 1759.

Born about 1710 on his father's 600-acre estate, Henberry, in Kent County, Maryland, Hamilton was the last child born to Andrew Hamilton* and Anne Brown Hamilton; the elder Hamilton became one of Pennsylvania's most prominent colonial politicians. Although little is known about James Hamilton's childhood years, according to one source he accompanied his father on a trip to London from 1725 to 1727 possibly for his education. Born into wealth, Hamilton was introduced early into Philadelphia's elite society, where he because active. As an adult, he was elected a warden for the freemasons St. John's Lodge #1 in 1734, and in the following year he was elected grand master. He was also a member of the Library Company of Philadelphia, the St. Andrew's Society (where he served as president from 1750 to 1753), the St. Tammany Society, and the prestigious Mount Regale Fishing Company of Philadelphia. He served as a trustee of the College of Philadelphia and of the German charity schools, and in 1769 he served as president of the Philosophical Society before it merged with the American Society. Moreover, in 1750 he was appointed a member of the Old Revolution Club, a Scottish society in Edinburgh dedicated to the "memory of the happy Revolution" of 1688 and to the Protestant religion and civil liberties. He also was a generous contributor to the city's growing institutions. He subscribed £20 to the Juliana Library at Lancaster, and £50 each to the building of the Freemason's Lodge, to the College of Philadelphia, and to the construction of a new steeple for Christ Church (of which he may have been a congregant). Finally, he and Benjamin Franklin* were, respectively, the first and second subscribers to policies issued by the Philadelphia Contributionship, America's first home insurance company.

Hamilton's lofty position in colonial Pennsylvania society was reinforced by family ties. His brother, Andrew, married the daughter of William Till, a provincial councilor, justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and mayor of Philadelphia, while his sister, Margaret, married William Allen,* also a provincial councilor, chief justice of the supreme court, and assemblyman. In addition, his niece Anne Allen was the second wife of John Penn, twice governor of Pennsylvania and son of proprietor Richard Penn. Hamilton himself never married, prompting at least one rumor, in 1767, that he had brought a mistress with him from England, but that gossip proved to be unfounded.

Hamilton's advantageous kinship connections were complemented by early wealth, thanks to his powerful father. In his early 20s, for example, he became the proprietor of the borough of Lancaster as a result of a grant from his father in 1733. The town, located on approximately 500 acres, was organized into town lots that the younger Hamilton sold with the proviso that the purchaser would build "one substantial Dwelling-House" with "a good Chimney of Brick or Stone" on the premises usually within two years of the purchase. In addition, Hamilton collected from each of the purchasers a yearly quitrent usually ranging from 7 to 14 shillings sterling. By 1762 the quitrents alone for those deeds recorded in Lancaster County to that date amounted to about £215 sterling per annum. To protect his interests there, Hamilton twice purchased from potential competitors smaller tracts organized along the same principles and located near the town. In the first purchase Hamilton paid £400 in 1750 for 46 lots, known collectively as Adamstown, near the southeastern corner of Lancaster, that yielded an annual rent of £17 sterling. With some reluctance Hamilton also acquired another 30 to 40 lots near Queen Street in 1769. By then he had already regretted purchasing Adamstown, complaining that he would have accrued a greater profit with the purchase money "lying in one sum at 3 P[er] Cent interest." Not surprisingly then, Hamilton refused to purchase other similar endeavors.

Although the borough of Lancaster provided him with a considerable income, Hamilton at times had difficulty collecting the quitrents; by 1755, to eliminate rental arrears, he urged his Lancaster agent, Edward Shippen, to advise the purchasers to pay their quitrents. Three years later, however, he still complained of arrears, which by then had become "very considerable," and would become "every day more difficult to be recovered." An exasperated Hamilton ordered Shippen to have legal proceedings commenced against the delinquents. "I am clearly of Opinion," he stressed, "that a longer forbearance will be rather a prejudice, than otherwise, to the Defaulters, as well as to myself." Other problems occasionally plagued Hamilton as well. In 1757, for example, he wondered whether the county tax assessment for Lancaster was unfairly high, and in the following year he stated frankly that his tax appeared to him "very high." Yet, in both instances he refrained from pursuing the matter. Squatters and timber poachers, however, were more nettlesome. In 1758 Hamilton complained that locally stationed British soldiers were not only cutting down his trees but "for a dram extraordinary," were supplying "all the rascally Tavernkeepers & others in the Town" with his wood. He ordered Shippen to intervene. Hamilton was equally displeased many years later over the "imprudence" of trespassers seizing one of his estates in 1780. He angrily informed Shippen that the violators were to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, unless they vacated the property immediately. Nor would he negotiate with them: "I am determin'd," he assured Shippen, "never to grant or Confirm to them or their heirs, any part of the Lands."

Hamilton's other real estate holdings were also considerable, spanning Lancaster, Bucks, and Philadelphia counties in Pennsylvania; Kent and New Castle counties in Delaware; and throughout New Jersey. Much of that land he inherited from his father in 1741, while other properties he bought himself. Given the vagaries of eighteenth-century land records, an accurate analysis of Hamilton's landholdings is virtually impossible; nonetheless, he certainly had an impressive landed empire. In New Jersey, for example, he inherited from his father several town lots in Perth Amboy, over 2,600 acres on or near Assiscong Creek, 525 acres in Somerset County, 825 acres in Middlesex County, and a share in an East New Jersey proprietary; most, if not all, of those lands he sold by 1751. Hamilton also purchased 7,200 acres in Hunterdon County, which he still possessed at the time of his death. In Pennsylvania, he inherited over 500 acres in Bucks County (that he sold for £850 in 1745), and in 1741 he purchased 500 acres along Perkiomen Creek, in Philadelphia County (which he sold in 1761 for £1,250). In addition to his proprietorship of Lancaster Borough, Hamilton also owned during his lifetime at least 800 acres in Lancaster County (of which he sold about 300 acres), including tracts of 120 acres and 200 acres in Strasburg Township that he purchased in 1747 and 1751, respectively, and for which he paid a total of £2,001. In 1773 Hamilton paid £1,000 for slightly more than a 9 percent share in the Durham ironworks. With the partitioning in that same year of the property on which the ironworks stood, Hamilton received 717½ acres as his share.

Hamilton also held a considerable number of properties in the city of Philadelphia. From his father he inherited at least three bank lots along the Delaware River and on the northern end of Front Street, a number of lots on Walnut Street and Chestnut Street, and two lots on Third Street. He sold two of those Chestnut Street properties for £1,800 sterling to Israel Pemberton* (1715-1779) in 1746. Hamilton also acquired a lot on Sixth Street in 1754 (which he sold three years later), a lot on Minor Street in 1761, and 26 lots near the Schuylkill River at the northwest end of the city in 1774. He extended his holdings in that part of town with his 1775 purchase of a lot at the end of Sassafras Street for £75. Apparently, when he did not sell lots outright, he conveyed them cheaply but with a heavy rent charge. Thus, in 1758 he was owed £123 in rents from 7 city properties. Similarly, he conveyed a Chestnut Street property in 1782 for 5 shillings with a yearly rent of 121 Spanish milled silver dollars, although he agreed with the buyer to waive the rent charge forever for a payment of $2,022 within 7 years.

Hamilton also invested and loaned money; thus, for example, in a list of bonds and mortgages that were due, or for which interest was owed, in 1757 and 1758, he cited 10 bonds worth £3,420 and another 2 bonds valued at £1,535 sterling. From 1763 to 1775 Hamilton granted numerous mortgages to residents in Lancaster, Bucks, and Northampton counties that totaled £9,896. He had also invested £9,000 sterling in English public funds by 1768 and was receiving an annual return of £360 sterling in interest. Yet, by 1768 Hamilton had decided to transfer his English investments to Pennsylvania, where he believed they could be employed to "more advantage." By the following year he had withdrawn £4,000 from that fund, but in 1770 Hamilton was discouraged to learn that the English public funds, for apparently "no Cause," had dropped "so low" in price that he could not dispose of them "to so great a loss." He simply ordered his London agents to sell his remaining annuities whenever their value rose again.

Not surprisingly, in 1767 and 1770 Hamilton received the highest rating in the western portion of the Northern Liberties where his residence lay; the assessments also indicated extensive property holdings throughout the city and county of Philadelphia. In addition, he was also assessed for his position as prothonotary for Philadelphia County, and for his slaves.

Hamilton's introduction into the political sphere was also the work of his father. On 28 December 1733 Andrew Hamilton resigned as prothonotary for Philadelphia County but requested that his son James be appointed in his stead. Governor Patrick Gordon agreed and generously, but unwisely, allowed the commission to operate during Hamilton's good behavior rather than during the pleasure of the governor. The significance of Hamilton's good fortune was not lost on his father's enemies such as Isaac Norris* (1671-1735) who reported that "many Stood as in a maze at first" over Gordon's action, "and then talkd freely."

Despite the grumbling of the opposition, Hamilton continued his successful rise in politics, winning election to five consecutive assemblies beginning in 1734 as one of the representatives from Lancaster County. As a member of the Assembly, Hamilton was part of his father's political faction, and, with his fellow partisans, adroitly moved between the demands of the proprietary and those of the Quaker party. Throughout his five terms of service, however, Hamilton played only a modest role in the business of the House, probably because of his relative youth; in all, he received an average of 4.80 assignments per term, slightly above the averages of both the House (3.89) and the Lancaster County delegation (3.70) during those terms. Yet, some of his assignments were relatively significant, as he participated in work on some issues that helped define the politics of the 1730s. He also served on the committees that reviewed the minutes for the 1735 Assembly and that audited the public accounts for the 1738 Assembly, both of which were standing committees. During the 1734 and 1735 assemblies Hamilton participated in the controversy over proprietary rights and the establishment of ferries in the colony. Hamilton served on a committee that sought to transfer to the House through legislation the proprietor's control over licensing ferries and establishing their rates; the proposed bill, however, was referred to the next Assembly. In the following year the House resolved that granting licenses to keep ferries and fixing the rates without the concurrence of the legislature was "prejudicial" to the colony, and appointed Hamilton and four colleagues to write an address to Thomas Penn setting forth the Assembly's position on the matter. Hamilton was also a member of the delegation that delivered the address to Penn. Despite several compromise attempts, however, the issue of control over the ferries remained unresolved.

Hamilton was further called upon to assist in drafting a House address over the "unhappy Disturbances" that had been "set on Foot" by Marylanders seeking to dispossess about 60 Pennsylvania families along the disputed border between the two colonies. In the address the House agreed to join with the Provincial Council in a petition to King George II requesting him "to put an effectual Stop" to such "Violences." Hamilton also served on committees that investigated whether bounties should be set for the production of flax (1734), that drafted legislation, which was signed into law, exempting Presbyterians and others from kissing the Bible while taking oaths because of religious objections (1738), and that wrote the House's response to Governor George Thomas's opening remarks to the 1738 Assembly. In that address the House agreed to revise the flour act in order to insure the quality of Pennsylvania's chief export, and to consider the governor's suggestion of bounties on hemp, flax, and potash, in an attempt to create a favorable balance of trade. But the authors of the message warned Thomas that previous attempts "to encourage the Raising of some" of those commodities "had not altogether the desired Effect." Perhaps content with existing legislation and disinclined to pursue costly bounties, the Assembly chose to ignore granting subsidies or revising the flour act.

Hamilton was far more involved in the pivotal compromise over paper money and proprietary quitrents, twin issues that threatened to overturn the political supremacy of his father and his father's allies. In November 1738 Thomas Penn publicly demanded that all settlers who owed his family quitrents pay them by 1 March 1739, or be forced from their land. He further ordered Governor Thomas to veto any paper money bill that did not stipulate that the payment of quitrents had to be made according to the current exchange rate. The Assembly responded quickly to the crisis and appointed Hamilton to a committee that included prominent House leaders and friends of the proprietary, Joseph Kirkbride* (1690-1748), William Allen,* and John Kinsey.* The committee drafted an address asking Penn to postpone any legal action while the House prepared a possible resolution; Penn grudgingly agreed. Hamilton further informed Governor Thomas that a House committee had been appointed to discuss the paper money bill. Although Hamilton was not appointed to attend that conference, he was named, with Jonathan Robeson* and John Kearsley,* to assemble the papers relating to that meeting and have them published with the minutes. On 9 March 1739 Hamilton joined his Lancaster County delegation in casting their votes in favor of a proposed compromise that granted the proprietors compensation in exchange for their acceptance of quitrents in paper money pegged at a ratio below market value and that compensated the proprietors with a lump-sum payment for the losses they sustained. The measure passed the House 17 to 9, and on the following day Hamilton and Kirkbride presented Thomas with an address describing the proposed compromise. Penn and Thomas accepted the terms and on 19 May the Assembly passed into law two measures, the first compensating Penn for quitrents paid in paper money below the exchange rate, and the second for a new emission of £11,110 in paper money.

With the issues of the proprietor's quitrents and the new paper money emissions seemingly behind them, Andrew Hamilton and his pro-proprietary allies believed that they had completed their goals, and therefore the elder Hamilton, William Allen, and James Hamilton were among the members of the 1738 Assembly who declined participating in the 1739 Assembly elections. To their chagrin, however, the supposed era of good will quickly dissolved following Great Britain's declaration of war against Spain in 1739 and Governor Thomas's demands for defensive measures. The Quaker party immediately rebuffed Thomas's subsequent request and voiced the outrage of its constituents over the governor's permitting the enlistment of servants in 1740. Alarmed, James Hamilton and his former colleagues sought to return to the House in order to bolster support for the executive. But unlike his previous outings, Hamilton was no longer on solid political ground and was easily defeated in his reelection bid for one of the four Lancaster County seats. Hamilton polled only 103 votes in the 1740 election, 581 votes behind the fourth place finisher. He may not have been a candidate in 1741, but he and his former allies mounted another campaign effort to regain the House in 1742. In a bitterly fought contest, Hamilton again lost, that time falling short of the fourth candidate by a crushing 1,109 votes. In that election Hamilton fell victim to the ruthless campaign tactics of one of his Lancaster County opponents, Samuel Blunston,* who inflamed the prejudices of the voters with exaggerated charges that Hamilton had granted a Lancaster town lot "to a Roman Catholick Priest to build a Romish Chapel," and that Hamilton "was a great favourer of Jews & Roman Catholicks." While the smear was mean-spirited, in all likelihood it was more gratuitous than determinative. The sweeping victory of the Quaker party throughout the province revealed the depth of its support as well as the antipathy toward the governor and his supporters among the voters. In any event, Hamilton's Assembly career was finished.

Despite his resounding defeats at the hands of the Lancaster County voters, Hamilton was not out of public life. In November 1738 and again in April 1741 he was commissioned a justice of the peace for the city and county of Philadelphia, and in October 1739 he was elected to the largely pro-proprietary Philadelphia Common Council by its members. Two years later, as a sign of the "great Respect" held for the recently deceased Andrew Hamilton, the common council elevated James Hamilton to an aldermanship and elected his younger brother Andrew as a councilman. In October 1745 James Hamilton was elected mayor of Philadelphia by the common council, but only after two of his colleagues refused the post. He served as mayor for one year. A conscientious member of the city government, Hamilton attended about 66 percent of council meetings while a member of that board from 1739 to 1746. His reputation among proprietary circles continued to rise; in December 1745 he was appointed to the Provincial Council by Governor Thomas and took his seat there the following month. Hamilton did set limits to his ambitions, however; in 1741 he refused to accept the post of admiralty court judge when offered by Thomas Penn because his understanding of admiralty law was insufficient.

At the conclusion of his term as mayor, Hamilton finally resolved to leave for England, a voyage that he had been contemplating with considerable indecision for several years. He had previously admonished himself for having fluctuated "from resolution to resolution" on the matter, until glumly concluding in November 1745 that he should "give over the thoughts of rambling" and "be content with the home that Providence" had given him in America. Discouraged at such a prospect, the dejected Hamilton proclaimed: "Life's a Cheat." Yet, his resignation to a less adventurous life was not completely heartfelt; angling for an invitation, he informed Thomas Penn that, in fact, "one principal reason" for not embarking for England was the continued expectation that Penn was coming to Pennsylvania to take control of the government himself. With the proprietor in Philadelphia, Hamilton explained, he would have "lost" Penn's "Countenance and protection" and would not have had the necessary introductions into England's more genteel and polite society. In response, Penn gently chided his younger correspondent for surrendering his ambitions too readily; otherwise, observed Penn, why else would Hamilton have thought "five and thirty too great an Age for Action." The proprietor complained that Hamilton's delay was a "great disappointment" to him, and although he downplayed his own influence in London circles, he would welcome Hamilton's company. Armed with such assurances, Hamilton apparently left for Great Britain in November 1746 and arrived in northern Ireland by February 1747, where he remained for about two months before meeting Penn in England.

Unforeseen by Hamilton, the trip proved to be a turning point in his political career. While the visit was initially intended for pleasure, the resignation in May and arrival in England by October 1747 of Governor George Thomas, placed Hamilton in the center of Penn's revised plans for Pennsylvania. Many Pennsylvanians, including Hamilton, had assumed that Penn intended to take personal control of his colonial government, but as on previous occasions, the proprietor preferred to remain in London, that time to oversee his lawsuit in the English Court of Chancery against Lord Baltimore, of Maryland. Under those circumstances Hamilton on 17 March 1748 was prevailed upon by his mentor and friend to accept the vacated position of governor. Hamilton continued to live in England until late summer or early fall of that year, before setting out for Pennsylvania. He arrived in Philadelphia on 23 November and was greeted at the wharf by the members of the Provincial Council and later welcomed by Isaac Norris and John Kinsey.

Hamilton's return to Philadelphia initially proceeded smoothly. Although Bush Hill became his country seat, Hamilton resided on Walnut Street near Fourth Street when the Assembly was in session. In his opening remarks to the House, Hamilton expressed his "great pleasure" in meeting the members in their "Legislative Capacity" and hoped that all transactions between the two branches of government would be governed by "Candour & Moderation," believing that such methods avoided "disagreeable animosities" and promoted "the strict Bands of Friendship & mutual Confidence." The Assembly agreed, and, in a burst of optimism, voted Hamilton £600 in January 1749 as part of his support. Comfortable in his new station, Hamilton was described by Proprietary Secretary Richard Peters as "amazingly altered for the better," with a "judicious affability" sitting "gracefully upon him," and that he conducted business with "quick penetration & dispatch." The new governor even managed to enjoy those components of genteel society he apparently relished in England, encouraging and attending dancing assemblies held every two weeks during that winter, attended by about 160 ladies and gentlemen of Philadelphia.

In May 1749 Peters commented that Governor Hamilton enjoyed the "Esteem of everybody." Apparently, Hamilton was able to transform his popularity into a relatively peaceful relationship with the Assembly during the first two years of his administration. During that time he signed into law 14 measures, including the act establishing York County, and he received from the Assembly additional sums of £600 in August 1749 and £400 in August 1750 toward his support. Potential conflicts were essentially avoided, Hamilton either choosing to postpone disagreeable legislative measures or finding adequate compromises. Fortunately for the governor, the speaker of the House was Kinsey, who was willing, for selfish reasons, to find common ground with him. The two men therefore reached an understanding on two volatile issues, the appointment of trustees in a new General Loan Office bill and a controversial clause in a bill concerning the estates of intestates. In the first instance Hamilton overcame his misgivings and signed into law a measure that permitted Kinsey, who was quietly embezzling funds, an unprecedented second four-year term as one of the trustees of the loan office. In exchange, Kinsey guided the Assembly into dropping the clause requiring that proceedings before the register general involving contested estates be removed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which would have infringed on the proprietary's control over the register-general's position, although such a clause would have further enriched Kinsey, the chief justice of the supreme court. Both bills passed the Assembly on the same day, 4 February 1749. Hamilton also successfully negotiated with Kinsey and the House to drop clauses in a proposed poor relief bill that would have encroached upon the authority of the justices. In the following term Hamilton accommodated the Assembly and its new speaker Isaac Norris by signing into law a reform measure that prohibited shipowners from allowing substandard living conditions for German immigrants on board their vessels.

Hamilton also escaped the usual uproar that could have easily wrecked his administration over the 1749 Assembly's proposed paper money bill. The governor had informed both the 1748 and 1749 assemblies that a bill had been presented in Parliament for the prohibition of paper money in the colonies and suggested that until further information arrived from England, passage of any such measure might prove to be "highly imprudent." Hamilton assured the 1749 House that the proprietor had worked to negate the "mischievous Tendency" of Parliament's bill and would continue to act in the colony's best interest. The House agreed, which, according to Proprietary Secretary Richard Peters, threw the paper money issue "into a sound napp."

The nature of Hamilton's relationship with the Assembly, however, was, in large part, shaped by his relationship with his friend and employer, Thomas Penn. Hamilton, who genuinely liked Penn, was in basic agreement with him that the executive branch of the government, as well as the proprietor's interests, needed to be strengthened in a colony overrun, in Hamilton's view, by a "Vile levelling Spirit." In that respect Hamilton as governor was serving two masters, the people and the proprietor. Finding a comfortable balance between the two interests, however, often proved to be difficult. Despite his eagerness to please Penn, Hamilton was frequently criticized by the proprietor for his decisions. For example, Penn questioned why his governor sought fit to pass sections of the poor relief act, and complained over his passage of the German immigration act. He also lamented that Hamilton had not sent him for closer inspection the act barring estates tail which Hamilton had signed into law. Moreover, Penn was annoyed at the passage of the act for recovering legacies and pressed Hamilton to "be extreamly careful not to pass any Bill" that theoretically intruded upon the rights of a court of chancery. Penn insisted that such a court needed to be reestablished in Pennsylvania, in which the governor would sit as sole judge. A court of chancery, Penn stressed to Hamilton, was the proprietor's "only Security against injustice." Although he agreed that such a court was needed, Hamilton nonetheless informed Penn that lawyers would not present cases in a court unauthorized by the Assembly and that there was little likelihood of the House ever agreeing to such a proposition. Penn angrily queried the supposition that the Assembly had the "power to constitute a Court."

On another occasion Penn was angered that Hamilton signed into law the act incorporating Pennsylvania Hospital, rather than having it chartered with letters patent under the great seal. Penn was further annoyed that the act effectively placed all control of the hospital in the hands of the Quakers, the hospital's sponsors, who, he feared, were going to request from the proprietary a plot of land in the city for the building itself. Hamilton was instructed not to pass any such schemes in the future until the proposal was first approved by Penn, and he was further ordered to persuade the Assembly to repeal the act and charter the hospital by the great seal. The governor apologetically defended signing the hospital act. He was "sorry" to find the measure was so "disagreeable" to Penn and promised that his admonition would "be a lesson" to him "upon any future Occasion of the same nature." Nonetheless, Hamilton assured Penn that the Quakers would never have promoted the hospital unless it was authorized by the Assembly, and consequently his veto of the measure would only have defeated "a very useful and charitable design." In any case, Hamilton warned, there was not any possibility of the House repealing that legislation.

Hamilton faced additional difficulties as well. In May 1750 Speaker Kinsey had died, and the governor was suddenly bereft of any leading House figures with whom he could negotiate an end to legislative stalemates. Hamilton ironically failed to appreciate fully his changed circumstances, probably because he had become increasingly repulsed by the former speaker's unrelenting ambition. He was appalled at Kinsey's blatant aggrandizement of his personal political power as chief justice of the supreme court, charging that Kinsey, "for the sake of his vile popularity," deliberately skewed his judgments to appease German voters in order to be assured of their votes for reelection. When Kinsey's deception in the General Loan Office became public knowledge, Hamilton concluded that "the motives of his Conduct" were finally "discover'd." In fact, with Kinsey gone, the governor hoped that the Assembly would cease demanding an act circumscribing the powers of the register general. Hamilton may further have hoped that the new speaker, Isaac Norris, would prove to be as accommodating as Kinsey, but events soon disabused him of that notion. He pessimistically described the members of the 1750 Assembly as "some of the worst natur'd Men, and the veriest firebrands of the whole Province," and although that House did not prove to be as intractable as Hamilton had feared, there were signs of increasing tension.

The 1750 Assembly, for example, continued to insist that the Penn family undertake a share of the expenses arising from Indian treaties and presents, and the House requested that Hamilton "recommend to the Proprietors the Justice of their Joining" with the Assembly on that score. But Hamilton privately complained to Penn that the Assembly still harped "upon the Old String" of the proprietor "contributing to the Expence of those Indian presents," and he further claimed, at least to Penn, that he thought it unreasonable that the members would impinge upon the proprietor's private estate for public expenses. When the governor finally received Penn's official reply, he informed the Assembly that the proprietors did not "conceive themselves under any obligation to contribute" to those expenses, and that in any event the Penn family had already paid "considerable" sums "for the service of the Province, both in England" and in Pennsylvania. That same House also confronted Hamilton with three acts that appeared to him to challenge directly the authority of the executive branch of the government. He vetoed two of them because they encroached upon the power of those officers appointed by the governor, but signed the third, an act to establish a night watch in the city of Philadelphia, after receiving assurances from the city magistrates that the power entrusted to the elected wardens and assessors by the act did not affect their authority.

A discouraged Hamilton lamented that future assemblies would be little better because of an "inveterate spirit of Hatred against Magistracy" among the people, and because House members manipulated that spirit in order "to render themselves popular" with the voters. He complained that those bills of any consequence presented to him that year were "directly levelled against the Justices both of the City & the Counties." He also despaired of ever establishing a court of chancery as the proprietor had wished. To compound his difficulties, Hamilton did not have (according to Peters) "one soul" possessed with sufficient "Understanding or Judgment" with whom he could "consult on any Point at the Council Board" regarding the proprietary instructions. The "obstinate perverse Temper" of the Assembly began to have "an Effect on the Governors mind," Peters reported to Penn in early January 1751, and Hamilton began to contemplate resigning his post. The demands of the proprietor would also prove to be as taxing on Hamilton as those of the Assembly.

As Hamilton feared, the following year was worse. The "Cry for Paper Money" was once again raised, and, as the governor grimly noted, it could not "be Still'd again." At issue was a request by the 1751 Assembly for an emission of £40,000 in bills of credit, which it quickly reduced to £20,000 when Hamilton flinched at the proposed sum. But Hamilton's rejection of the earlier measure was based on a far more significant, albeit undisclosed, opposition from the proprietor. In July 1751 Penn had unofficially advised Hamilton to reject any paper money measure that did not allow the governor veto power over the excess revenues collected by the Assembly. The proprietor was infuriated that underlying every paper money act were excise taxes intended to "sink" the amount of money issued, but invariably more taxes were collected than money printed; moreover, the House collected interest from those individuals who actually borrowed the paper money. Penn believed that by stripping the Assembly of its private financial resources, he could, in turn, break its ability to oppose him.

Hamilton interpreted Penn's informal advice as a firm "expenditure," or "appropriating," instruction and was thus confronted by a host of new difficulties. If he insisted on that clause in future money bills, thereby raising "a great ferment," only to withdraw it later because he had "mistaken" Penn's intent, or because the proprietor had changed his mind, he would expose "the weakness of the Government and render the Proposer," that is, himself, "extreamly odious." He cautioned Penn that the Assembly would "bounce violently, and be very angry," and that the province would be "thrown into a Flame on that Account." He agreed that within four or five years the Assembly's private fund would end, and that it might be forced at that point to comply with the proprietor's demands. Yet to resist the call for paper money until that time would prove to be a "long time to carry on a Contest," during which the government would be "held in Bondage," leaving it "without either weight or adherents." Hamilton staggered from the instruction's implications and pressed Penn to be explicit, particularly asking him whether he ever intended to permit the House "to grant ... any paper Money? What Sum? and upon what Terms?" The governor dutifully promised a "punctual Complyance" with Penn's order, but in essence asked him to reconsider it, and to "form a Judgment" of what was "fit to be done." Feeling defeated, Hamilton informed Peters in March 1752 that he intended to resign. Despite Hamilton's reaction, Penn made the appropriation clause an official instruction and confirmed it to him on 30 May and again on 13 July, promising to "never consent" to the Assembly's paper money demands without the right to share in all of the money actually collected by the House.

Although he had postponed making a decision about paper money during the 1751 Assembly, Hamilton could no longer hold the House at bay. The following Assembly prepared legislation to extend the time of those bills of credit currently in circulation and to issue an additional £20,000. Hamilton rejected the measure in January 1753, citing Lord Halifax's former remarks discouraging any further paper money emissions. By February, however, Hamilton was inclined to brave the storm and inform the House of the proprietor's instruction and then order the members to amend paper money proposals accordingly. But his advisors William Allen and Tench Francis panicked at the thought of exposing the proprietary instruction and pressed Hamilton to reconsider. In an attempt to forestall what Francis predicted would be a "downright Civil War in the Province," Allen suggested that Hamilton revive a former instruction of the king-in-council that ordered all paper money legislation to contain a clause suspending the execution of the act until it was approved by the king. In that way the governor could avoid "Intestine Broils," by signing the measure and sending it to London, where the proprietor could urge the ministry to veto it until the appropriating clause was inserted. Hamilton balked at the deception, but, "seeing himself alone," agreed. Nonetheless, he delayed making a decision when again presented by the House with the £20,000 paper money bill in May of that year, hoping that the proprietor would alter his instruction. Hamilton's sense that Penn would have to bend was correct; on 28 March 1753 the proprietor yielded to the dire warnings from Hamilton, Allen, and Francis, and voided the appropriating instruction. Hamilton received the proprietor's revised order by mid-spring, granting him the leeway to pass the money bill during the August session.

Despite Penn's retraction, Hamilton inexplicably vacillated, losing his confidence as to whether he should pass or veto the bill and wishing that Penn had given him further instructions over paper money. His confusion perplexed Peters: "Sometimes he says he will pass it & sometimes he will never pass it, then again he says perhaps the Prop[rietor]s woud rather that he shoud pass it whilst they are in England," so they could "cause it to be rejected by Lord Halifax." Yet, ironically, Hamilton's indecision at such a critical juncture revealed a basic truth about the character of his government; he was clearly torn between two antagonistic forces, that exposed his own ambivalence and uncertainty toward both the proprietor and the people. Driven by a strong sense of duty, and a need to please those with whom he lived and worked, Hamilton found himself incapable of making a decision that he knew would offend one or the other of the combatants. He was furthered troubled by Penn's additional instruction not to grant an exemplification of the paper money act to the Assembly once he signed it into law, thereby preventing the House from submitting it to the king for approval before the proprietor could do so. Informing Penn that no legal authority existed for such action, and doubting whether Penn "had well considered that Point," Hamilton refused to honor the proprietor's demand. But Penn's motive behind the order was clear: he wished to present the law to the ministry himself and convince the ministers that the measure should be disallowed as an infringement of proprietary rights. Unsure and unhappy at his dilemma, Hamilton fell upon the subterfuge concocted by Allen; he informed the House that he would sign the bill, but only if it first inserted the royal "suspension" clause into the measure. Hamilton appears to have believed that the House would agree to his request, thus relieving him of his difficulties, but, unfortunately for him, the Assembly rejected inclusion of a clause the members viewed as "destructive" of the privileges of the people. The House also revealed its suspicions of Hamilton's true intentions by bitterly noting that he had "repeatedly" made "Objections of different Kinds" to paper money acts, but all to the same purpose of vetoing the measures. In any event, Penn changed his mind again, reinstating his appropriating clause on 1 November 1753.

While domestic concerns weighed upon him, Hamilton also had to contend with the on-going, and frequently delicate, negotiations with the Indians. In that arena, however, he was ably served by several well seasoned and highly respected Indian agents and experts, including Conrad Weiser, whose knowledge of Indian languages and personal rapport with the chiefs of the Six Nations made him invaluable. But despite that advantage Hamilton found that for most of his years as governor events along the frontiers were beyond his control. What he observed, but could not alter, was the fundamental shift in the balance of power among the French, the English, and the Iroquois, and like many of his contemporaries he could see the confusion of the times more readily than the ultimate outcome itself. Under those circumstances he reacted to events as they occurred, and with mixed results.

In 1749, however, Indian affairs appeared calm; thus, taking advantage of the harmonious relations between Pennsylvania and the Iroquois, and acting on behalf of the proprietors, Hamilton purchased from the Six Nations for £500 nearly two million acres lying north of the Blue Mountains and stretching from the Susquehanna River to the Delaware River. As part of the purchase agreement, Hamilton promised the Six Nations conclusive action against those settlers who had moved illegally into the hunting grounds of the Delawares and Shawnees located along the Juniata River. In a July 1749 proclamation Hamilton ordered the settlers removed, and in May 1750 he dispatched Weiser, Peters, and various local magistrates, including William Trent* (1715-1784), to oversee and execute his orders at the contested lands. Confident that all was well, Hamilton disregarded Governor George Clinton's ominous warning of French expansion into the Ohio Valley, including Pennsylvania. Hamilton reported to the Penns that the French in Canada were talking "very bigg" and were threatening hostilities, and he feared that they would attack if they could "carry with them a sufficient force," but he agreed with the prevailing sentiment in Philadelphia that the French would be unable to accomplish that goal.

Hamilton's view of the situation, however, quickly changed. In late 1750 he received confirmation that the French had made serious inroads among the Six Nations and among the Indians along the Ohio River. Moreover, there was a growing dissatisfaction with the English by some of the Iroquois nations and the tribes of western Pennsylvania. To compound the situation, the Mingoes, who had settled in the Ohio Valley and were subjects of the Six Nations, were claiming to be "as numerous & powerful as the Six Nations" centered in New York and would no longer "be content to take the Law from them." Hamilton feared that treating with the Mingoes independently would insult the Six Nations, but to ignore the Mingoes risked pushing them into a French alliance. Despite his reservations, Hamilton decided essentially to continue the policy established about a year before his arrival, and further strengthen the relationship between Pennsylvania and the Mingoes. As a step in that direction, he convinced the Assembly in 1750 to appropriate £600 in goods to be distributed among the western Indians. Nonetheless, Hamilton remained skeptical of the effectiveness of that strategy. Confiding to Penn that he was "well pleas'd with every opportunity" to contribute "presents to the Indians," he frankly admitted that it was "the only thing" the province had "in its power to do." As long as the colonies remained divided among themselves over land, trade, and Indian policies, he believed that the English interest with the Indians remained vulnerable. He further believed that Indian presents were not by themselves sufficient to the occasion: "Though they take our Money and make us a Friendly Speech," he stressed, "yet they value it but little." Unless the colonies, or the home government, discovered and rectified "any Grievances" the Indians had against the English and were able to "secure the Six Nations from their apprehensions of the French," then all else, concluded Hamilton, would be "in vain."

Hamilton's fairly sound grasp of the issues in that instance, however, did not result in any immediate action. His attempt to ease Indian fears of the French by a show of force in Pennsylvania, for example, came to naught. Aware that the French were building outposts in or near Pennsylvania territory, he tried to persuade Assembly leaders in 1751 to add to Penn's offer of £400 and to construct a fort near the Ohio in order to protect English traders and allied Indians. But the members balked, citing their religious principles as reasons against undertaking military ventures. In response, Isaac Norris and Israel Pemberton* (1715-1779) suggested that the governor seek the additional funds from the Indian traders themselves. That suggestion, however, was of little value, as Pennsylvania traders were locked in worrisome competition with Virginia for access to the rich fur trade of the Ohio. Hamilton repeated his request later, but the House at that point struck a more strident tone with the governor, insisting that a "sincere, upright Dealing with the Indians" was the "best Means of securing their Friendship," and that the House would rather have the proprietor contribute to the increasing cost of Indian presents. Hamilton's annoyance with the House's response quickly turned into embarrassment, when the Assembly heard testimony from one of the Indian agents refuting the advisability of building a fort. The "difference in the Accounts" of the Indian agents for and against the project, commented a chagrined Hamilton, "serv'd the Assembly" well, and allowed it to give the proposed fort "the go-bye." Hamilton concluded that the plan was dead, for the Assembly would not undertake it unless forced by "absolute necessity."

Nor did Hamilton's desire that the colonies would unite in a common policy of making amends, if necessary, with their Indian allies, and of providing a defensive front against the French, come to fruition, although there were opportunities. In 1751 Governor George Clinton of New York proposed a conference at Albany "to defeat the Designs and intrigues of the French" by renewing the alliance with the Six Nations. But Hamilton was concerned that Clinton failed to describe the purpose of the "projected Union," knowing that the Pennsylvania Assembly, because of its pacifist tendencies, would not support any kind of military alliance. Moreover, neither Hamilton nor the Assembly were eager to appropriate money on behalf of Governor Clinton, who, claimed Hamilton, "would expend the greatest share in procuring advantages to his own Province, without much regard to the others." In addition, the Assembly refused to participate, fearing that Pennsylvania would receive, at best, little credit with the Six Nations for any alliances of friendship made with them by New York. Hamstrung by his own suspicions of Clinton, and with the Assembly balking, Hamilton sent Conrad Weiser as his personal envoy to the meeting, while the Assembly provided him with £100 to be delivered as a present to the Onondagas. The meeting was a failure, and Hamilton, writing two years later, concluded that every effort by the governor of New York to unify the colonies had met "without Success." Leaving aside the differences among the various colonies, Hamilton noted that the officials of New York alone were filled with "mutual and injudicious Jealousies of Each Other"; consequently, no such effort would ever succeed "unless the Ministry at home" would "compel it."

The failure of the Albany conference left Hamilton devoid of any suitable alternative in dealing with the French crisis in the Ohio Valley. Although he assured the western tribes of Pennsylvania's continued "Friendship upon all occasions," he could not come to their assistance in case of war. He reminded his Indian agents that "the Principles of the People" who had "the disposition of the Publick Money," doubtless a reference to the Quakers in the Assembly, were "entirely averse" to any military measures. He would not, therefore, be able to fulfil any promises made on his behalf to provide for military assistance, and he urged his agents to avoid such a mistake. Rather, Hamilton turned to Virginia as the only remaining entity willing to defend the Ohio Valley; he hoped that in the process the Virginians would defend Pennsylvania's interests there as well. Despite his previous reservations concerning the potential expansionist aims of Virginia into western Pennsylvania by means of the Ohio Company, Hamilton shifted his position in the face of French threats and obtained the proprietor's approval to assist that company in building a fort near the Ohio River. Moreover, Hamilton spoke encouragingly about the company's prospects with Virginia Governor Robert Dinwiddie, who indicated his willingness to cooperate with Pennsylvania's governor, especially with Hamilton's sudden inclination to support the company. Dinwiddie agreed with Hamilton that it was "absolutely necessary for all the Colonies to join together in raising a proper Force to prevent the French settling on the Lands of the Ohio." Although he was eager to learn the outcome of the Pennsylvania Assembly's deliberations "on the present Situation of Affairs," Dinwiddie hoped that the Quakers, although pacifists, would not "silently submit" to "French Arbitrary Government." Hamilton, however, was not as sanguine.

By the time of the opening session of the 1753 Assembly, Hamilton was in a difficult position. Despite several years of agonizing over French advancements, little had been accomplished. His frustration was exacerbated by the notice of the earl of Holdernesse, Britain's secretary of state for the northern department, calling upon the colonies to repel force by force, but only if the French had actually encroached upon colonial territory. The author of the letter, from Hamilton's viewpoint, was misinformed about America, for the western boundaries of the colonies had never been "settled or ascertained." Furthermore, any expectation that the coastal colonies, or those colonies not immediately involved in an invasion, would "raise Money and march Forces to such a distance" was, at best, "doubtful." In fact, Hamilton realized that the ministry had not really formed "any plan" and had failed to understand that the colonies would never act together unless "Compell'd" to do so by the home government. Hamilton also foresaw that the French crisis would effectively undermine the proprietor's strategy against the Assembly and its demands for paper money. Assistance would have to be requested from the representatives to counter the French threat, with the obvious tradeoff being "a paper Money bill on their own terms." Hamilton, however, did not wish to face that prospect, reminding Thomas Penn that the House had bitterly denounced the previous effort to use a former royal instruction to stall passage of such a measure. The governor warned Penn that the probable reaction by the House to any proprietary instruction would be far worse, particularly as the House had "suspected for several years past" that he was bound by secret instructions from the Penn family regarding paper money. In effect, the representatives had "propagated a notion universally" that a Pennsylvania governor could not be "laid under Instructions, either from the Crown or the Proprietors." Hamilton therefore had no desire to continue in his office and remain subject to the Assembly's unrelenting hostility. "The sooner an End is put to my administration the better," he proclaimed to Penn, "before their hatred becomes riveted."

On 9 February 1753 Hamilton notified the proprietors that he would resign one year from the date they received his letter, by which time he assumed Thomas Penn would have arrived in the colony. Although he had hoped when taking the post to have been of service to the Penns and Pennsylvania, Hamilton admitted that during his four years as governor, he had "never received the least pleasure from it, but of the negative kind," resulting from the fact that "Every Session of Assembly" had "either been spent in trifles that Had no pleasure in the reflection, or in warding off attempts to encroach upon the Rights of the Government, or of the Magistracy." Nor was the Assembly the sole culprit, for the "mobbish and seditious temper of the people ... arising from an excess of Liberty," along with the "particularity" of Pennsylvania's constitution "so different from any Other," had played their part in his decision to resign. In July 1753 he followed those sentiments with even more telling observations to Thomas Penn: "I am firmly perswaded from Experience that it is not by any means proper that a Native of any of these Colonies should be placed at the head of it. ... I am allso convinced that it has been a misfortune to me, that my Friends have entertaind a better Opinion of me then perhaps I deserved, and upon a supposition that I should not easily be swayed from doing the thing that was right have left the whole burthen of any unpopular measure to be born by me alone." Hamilton also attacked the attorney general, Tench Francis, as a man "without any principles of honour or Gratitude and utterly incapable of Friendship for any Body," who was, moreover, an inveterate enemy of the proprietor. In another acute comment, Hamilton insisted that the post of attorney general was of extreme importance "in a Country where the least false step" was "laid hold on and severely censured." Hamilton assured Penn, however, that his resignation was not from a reluctance to undertake unpopular measures on behalf of the proprietor, or because of the appropriating clause, which had been "very agreable" to his own "Sentiments."

Yet, Hamilton was clearly anxious that Penn should more thoroughly consider his position on paper money. In September 1753 he pressed him again "to be very explicit" in defining the terms upon which a paper money bill could be enacted, including the question of the "mode of Appropriation," although he agreed to postpone further consideration of paper money until his arrival in the colony. But notwithstanding his protestations of support, Hamilton feared that if he, a native of Pennsylvania, attempted to enforce an appropriating clause, the "hates and resentments" of his fellow Pennsylvanians would follow him and his family and would be "as permanent as the injury they imagined themselves to have suffer'd." Although Hamilton postponed his initial retirement date at Penn's request, he was determined to vacate the office by the summer of 1754, even if he was forced to resign the government into the hands of the Provincial Council because his replacement had not arrived by then.

Until his actual retirement, however, Hamilton still had to contend with the 1753 Assembly. In graphic terms he warned the House of the impending French crisis, together with the "Outrages, Murders, Rapines, Cruelties" that would be visited upon the families of Pennsylvania's frontiers unless the colony raised a force "sufficient to repel" the "Invaders." The Assembly acknowledged the urgency of the situation, but to Hamilton's chagrin ignored the issue of defense and pressed forward with a £40,000 paper money bill. The governor quickly vetoed the measure, sharply informing the House that he had neither the inclination, the time, nor the health to engage in a new paper money controversy, and that the Assembly had sufficient private revenues to support the government. Hamilton again called upon the House to authorize the supplies needed to resist French aggression. With great reluctance, and after several false steps, the legislature passed an appropriation of £10,000 for the "king's use." At that juncture Hamilton unilaterally adjusted his instructions; he dropped the royal instruction, that is, the suspension clause, and agreed to pass the measure. But he insisted that the House reduce the number of years specified in the act to repay the amount. Hamilton calculated that the act's excise tax would yield nearly £35,000, of which only £10,000 would be used for the king. He demanded that the excise tax be limited to four years, which would be sufficient to repay the appropriated amount and still leave a surplus to the Assembly.

In his message to the House defending his proposed amendment, Hamilton came close to revealing the proprietor's private instruction. While agreeing that the "Publick Money," was solely at the disposal of the Assembly, without the participation of the governor, Hamilton reminded the representatives that the executive held "one Half of the Legislative Powers" in Pennsylvania; consequently, should a governor permit the House to have a sufficient independent income, the executive branch would be rendered "unnecessary," and would be subjected to "very disagreeable" terms. He would not, Hamilton informed the House, allow such a circumstance to exist either for himself or his successors. The import of Hamilton's message was not lost on the Assembly. In its response, the House rejected his demands and resolved that if he was "restricted by any Instruction from passing" that measure, he had failed to disclose it to the House. Nor was the House referring to the royal instruction, since Hamilton had "effectually invalidated" it by his earlier willingness to waive it. There the matter stood between the two branches of government, and remained unchanged even after the fall of Fort Necessity under George Washington to French forces in July 1754. Hamilton hastily reconvened the Assembly, which appropriated £15,000 for the king's use, although with the same extension of the excise as in the previous bill; Hamilton vetoed the measure.

To Hamilton's relief, having twice delayed his retirement under pressure from Penn, Governor Robert Hunter Morris arrived in October 1754 to take control of the government. When he was finally released from his executive responsibilities, Hamilton remained as a provincial councilor, and he was appointed prothonotary of the court in Philadelphia by Penn as a parting gift for his many years of service. Within two months of his new role, Hamilton found himself joining William Allen and Richard Peters in strongly advising Morris not to reveal the proprietor's appropriating clause instruction, despite, ironically, the reluctance of the new governor to enter into an apparent deception with the Assembly. With the outbreak of the French and Indian War, and doubtless concerned about his interests in the borough of Lancaster, where "matters were in the utmost danger and confusion," Hamilton traveled there in November 1755 on behalf of the Provincial Council which authorized him to issue military commissions and prepare defenses. He then went to Carlisle with about 60 men from York County and probably traveled to the upper part of Cumberland County with a force of men to establish defenses there. Later that month he was named as one of the commissioners for the execution of the Assembly's £60,000 military appropriation. Over the next couple of months, Hamilton traveled to Reading, Easton, Harris's Ferry, and a second time to Carlisle to oversee the organization of local militias and the distribution of arms, and to meet with Indian allies.

Hamilton urged upon Governor Morris a militia law that would provide discipline and structure for the enlisted men, as well as the officers, some of whom Hamilton considered "men of no Character." Clearly angered by the brutality of the conflict, he supported Pennsylvania's declaration of war against the Delaware Indians and called for the offering of large rewards for enemy scalps. He also attended the Lancaster and Easton meetings with the Indians in May and July 1757, respectively. At the July gathering, however, the proceedings at one point became confused and tense, and some of the Indians allegedly seized their guns and threatened to kill the governor and council, including Hamilton; fortunately order was quickly restored. Hamilton continued to serve as a provincial councilor, providing advice to Morris's replacement as governor, William Denny, and assisting in drafting messages to the Assembly regarding paper money and militia legislation. The demands of the war delayed Hamilton's intended return to England, despite Penn's pleas for him to come as quickly as possible to help refute the charges brought against the proprietary by Benjamin Franklin, then in London for that specific purpose. Not until 5 February 1758 did Hamilton sail for England.

While in England, Hamilton was once again pressed by Penn to assume control of the government. Although tensions had surfaced between the two men after Hamilton's 1754 retirement, Penn by 1758 had become disillusioned with Hamilton's two successors, and was eager to have the former governor return to his old post. But Hamilton was unmoved, not wishing to return to a situation that had given him nothing but anguish and heartache. "His fixed resolution, on that head," wrote a Penn acquaintance, was a "real disappointment" to the proprietor. Under continued pressure from Penn and from William Allen, however, Hamilton finally relented, but only after Penn agreed, in a major concession, that Hamilton could sign into law revenue measures that taxed the proprietary estates. Hamilton sailed for Philadelphia to begin his second administration as the colony's governor. He arrived on 17 November 1759.

The principal point of contention had not altered since Hamilton's departure, but the demands of the war had changed the debate over paper money and forced the executive and the legislature to compromise. By the time of Hamilton's arrival, the war in Pennsylvania was waning, but he was still forced to accept a £100,000 military appropriation bill in April 1760 that he ordinarily would have rejected because it failed to contain a separate appeals process for the proprietor over the assessments and taxation of his estates. Later that year, however, the British ministry threatened to void a 1759 appropriation act and future paper money measures as well, if the Assembly did not adopt a six-point policy that in effect provided equitable arrangements relative to taxation of proprietary land, payment of proprietary quitrents, and enactment of revenue legislation. The policy by the ministry was accepted by the Assembly's agents in London, Benjamin Franklin and Robert Charles, and in January 1761 Hamilton notified the House of the ministry's determination that the former appropriation measure was "fundamentally wrong and unjust" and needed to be amended as ordered.

But if Hamilton felt justified after years of struggle with the Assembly, he was quickly disillusioned. In April 1761 he could not persuade the House to pass a £30,000 military appropriation bill with the clauses demanded by the ministry. Hamilton chided the House, declaring that its bill was written "as if no such Censure or Disapprobation" had ever taken place and showed a clear disregard for "the judgment of the King and his Ministers." In the following year Hamilton was equally unsuccessful, despite letters from the earl of Egremont, the secretary of state for the southern department, and from Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America, requesting additional troops. Although the House, in response to Hamilton's pleas, had authorized an expenditure of £70,000 towards the king's use, the governor discovered to his "surprize and concern" that the measure contained the "very same Clauses" that were the source of the ministry's objections. Nor would the Assembly yield to Hamilton's insistence on amending the original 1759 appropriation act as ordered by London, the House insisting that the "Proprietors had never received the least injury from the Act."

Under the threat of a renewed Indian war, Hamilton urged the House in September 1763 to continue the pay for those provincial troops already in the field for the continued protection of Pennsylvanians and for "the Annoyance of the Enemy." The House promptly passed a £25,000 appropriation bill but refused to include any of the provisions insisted on by the crown. Hamilton again objected, pointing out, to the disgust of the assemblymen, that the royal government had found a similar measure "fundamentally wrong and unjust." An incredulous Hamilton rhetorically asked the House if it expected him to sign a measure "in direct contradiction" of the ministry's orders, or if it considered the confusion that would result if he did sign the act. "It can scarcely be doubted," he stressed, "that application would immediately be made for its repeal." As the emergency mounted, Hamilton was able to prevail upon the 1763 Assembly to provide £23,500 for the defense of the frontiers. As the funds were to be drawn from the money granted by Parliament to Pennsylvania in order to help offset the colony's war debts, the issue of proprietary rights was completely avoided; Hamilton hurridly signed the measure into law.

Although Hamilton never doubted that he was in the right in his confrontations with the House over paper money, he appeared perplexed at the continued opposition of that body. Despite his possession of publicly proclaimed royal instructions, something he did not have in his first administration, Hamilton could not persuade the legislature to yield any control over the revenues to the proprietor, even though ordered to do so by the crown. Yet Hamilton probably failed to fully appreciate that those instructions may have ironically stripped him of what little leverage he actually possessed with the House. Without doubt, Penn and Hamilton clearly miscalculated the effect of the ministry's demands, and all that they ultimately achieved was the elimination of the little room that was left for negotiation. Penn and, to a lesser extent, Hamilton never fully understood that the Assembly would never abrogate its fundamental right to control the purse strings of the government.

Nonetheless, Hamilton's relationship with the assemblies during his second administration was more cordial than during his first term; in fact, he passed 53 bills into law, out of 65 presented to him for approval. Indeed Hamilton apparently enjoyed a favorable reputation among the assemblymen, receiving praise from, among others, Isaac Norris and Benjamin Franklin, the latter complimenting him for enacting legislation "without any previous Stipulation of Pay for them," an "odious" practice followed by his precedessor William Denny. Moreover, Hamilton routinely received his full £1,000 salary from the assemblies of 1759 and 1760 while the 1761 House paid him £600, with the remaining £400 paid to him by the 1762 House. However, when the 1762 House had failed to pay him by July 1763 for that legislative year, he tactfully reminded the members of that fact. The House responded by paying him £500. Part of Hamilton's popularity undoubtedly rested with his ability to avoid unnecessary disputes with the House and to accommodate the Quaker party when possible. Thus, in February 1761 he dropped William Moore,* who was disliked by the Quaker party, from the commission of the peace for Chester County, and he publicly maintained a cordial relationship with Franklin, even though the proprietor hated him.

Hamilton was also aided by his having inherited a peace process with the Indians established by Conrad Weiser and former governor Denny. Following through on those peace conferences previously held with the Delawares, Hamilton focused on furthering that process with the other tribes at war with the English and on making provisions for the return of captives. From 1760 to 1763 he met frequently with representatives from both the Six Nations and the Indian tribes from the Ohio Valley to discuss both subjects, and he met as well with Teedyuscung, a prominent and controversial leader of the Delaware Indians, on at least eight occasions. In his discussions with Teedyuscung, Hamilton was able to bring to an end a bitter and long-simmering dispute by having that Indian leader formally renounce his oft-repeated charge that the proprietors had cheated the Delaware Indians in the land purchase of 1737. In exchange for that renunciation, the governor granted him £400, although Hamilton specifically denied that there was any relationship between the two transactions. Of perhaps greater significance to Teedyuscung, however, was the continued presence of illegal settlers in the Wyoming Valley, a situation that initially began during Hamilton's first term and remained unresolved by the time of his 1761 proclamation ordering those settlers to depart "immediately." The root of the problem lay with Connecticut, whose pretended claims to all the lands of northern Pennsylvania and beyond to the Mississippi River prompted private companies to sell warrants in northeastern Pennsylvania. Settlers from Connecticut then began establishing homes along the northern portion of the Susquehanna River in the Wyoming Valley, in open contempt of Pennsylvania and the Indians who resided there. Distance and a lack of resources, however, frustrated Pennsylvania's ability to deal effectively with the problem. Hamilton had expressed his concerns to Sir William Johnson, the British commissioner for Indian affairs in North America, but despite warning the governor of Connecticut that the settlements should cease, sending a report of the crisis to the Board of Trade, and discussing the matter with the Six Nations, Johnson remained "apprehensive" that the illegal settlements would continue. Discouraged, Hamilton informed Penn that Teedyuscung, "full of anger and resentment," was liable to descend on those settlers "and cut their throats on the least encouragement given him." Fearing the potential for "a new Indian War," Hamilton asked Penn to seek the armed intervention of the British government to prevent further settlements in the Wyoming Valley. Directives toward resolving the crisis apparently gained some momentum by January 1763, and in June Hamilton ordered Colonel James Burd at Fort Augusta to proceed to Wyoming and demand the immediate departure of the illegal settlers. Burd was literally mounting his horse in order to proceed to Wyoming, when he received word of an Indian attack along the western frontiers. Hamilton's orders, along with the Wyoming settlement issue, were quickly eclipsed by the Indian War of 1763-64.

Hamilton had also attended peace conferences held in Easton (1761) and Lancaster (1762) with the Indian tribes of northern and western Pennsylvania, and of the Ohio Valley. The Lancaster conference, of the two gatherings, had greater significance, for it reestablished the peace between the colony and the western tribes. In addition to discussing the return of prisoners, the reopening of trade routes, and the legality of previous land purchases by the government, Hamilton stressed that as governor, he was the only legitimate Pennsylvania authority to speak for the crown or the proprietors. Angrily, he insisted that for any other person to treat with the Indian nations without his permission was "great presumption, and an high Infringement of the rights of Government. Apparently, Hamilton had in mind some members of the Quaker party, who, for their own political purposes, had previously been in contact with the Indians. Despite the admonition aimed at his opponents, Hamilton reported to the Assembly that the Lancaster treaty had successfully "renewed ... the ancient Chain of Friendship" between the Indians and "his Majesty's Subjects."

That "friendship," however, was short lived; on 20 June 1763 Hamilton informed the Provincial Council that the frontiers had been attacked, and three days later he reported additional accounts of "new Murders & Depredations" allegedly committed by the western Indians. He hastily convened the Assembly, which passed two resolutions authorizing the immediate enlistment of 700 men for the defense of the frontiers. In September Hamilton informed the House of Colonel Henry Bouquet's victory over the Indians in a battle that occurred while he was marching to relieve Fort Pitt, but the governor correctly observed to the representatives that the enemy would be quickly reinforced and would "renew their Hostilities ... with redoubled Force." Later that month Hamilton received assurances from many of the western tribes that the peace between them and the English remained firm, but that the "great Western Nations" of the Hurons and Ottawas had formed an alliance against the English. In October he further learned that the Twightwees, Delawares, and Shawnees, had joined the enemy, and that the war had spread to northeastern Pennsylvania.

In the aftermath of those upheavals, and doubtless to his relief, Hamilton announced to the Provincial Council on 31 October 1763 the appointment of John Penn, son of Proprietor Richard Penn, as Pennsylvania's governor; for the second time in his career, Hamilton retired from the post. Although he continued in the government as a member of the council, attending about half of the meetings during 1764, he preferred not "to be call'd upon, except in matters of Consequence." His disinterest became apparent in September 1764 when, upon the request of Governor Penn to name potential candidates for a judicial appointment, Hamilton suggested Samuel Shoemaker and Samuel Rhoads.* Although he explained that he was not recommending them but was merely stating his belief that they were qualified for the position, Hamilton apparently surprised his friends by his selections. Shoemaker had, according to John Penn, "deserted the Council & when he attended never car'd to give his opinion upon any matters between the Government & Assembly," while Rhoads was "one of the most bitter quakers in the Assembly and as violent against the Propri[e]tary family as any man in the Province." John Penn was perplexed by the choices, but he may have regarded them as a result of Hamilton's continued bad health, for in that same month, the former governor had reexperienced "his old disorder," which John Penn described as "an intermitting fever." Then, in November 1764 Penn wrote his brother Thomas Penn that Hamilton had "for a long time past a pimple upon his nose," which had spread and was believed "to be of a Cancerous Nature," and that doctors had advised him to travel to England to consult with surgeons there. Hamilton apparently arrived in England in the spring of 1765 and by May of that year William Allen reported that Hamilton was recovering his health and that "his fears about the fatal consequences that were like to attend the sore on his nose," had been "in a great measure removed."

Hamilton returned to Pennsylvania on 23 October 1767 aboard the Pennsylvania Packet and resumed his activities on the Provincial Council, though his presence there was sporadic. From January 1768 to May 1771 he attended only about 13 percent of the meetings, partly because he valued his semi-retirement, and partly because he perceived that there was "a greater appearance of tranquility" in the province than in previous years, and that there was general satisfaction with Governor Penn's administration. Hamilton was concerned, however, over the imperial crisis gripping the colonies and Great Britain. He considered Parliament "indiscreet" for initiating the controversy by levying direct taxes on the colonies, especially as England already possessed "a Monopoly of the American trade." The increase in the colonial tax burden, he argued, was an "injustice." Yet he erroneously believed that the conflict could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, if the colonies, by their "own virtue & publick spirit," used economic persuasion to force the home government to repeal the duties, while simultaneously acknowledging "the right of parliament to tax them." But he was concerned that the legislatures of New England and Virginia had managed to raise the level of anger "all over the Continent," thereby ensuring that the turmoil would most likely continue. At the same time, however, Hamilton resented what he viewed as the British invasion of American rights, although to some extent he blamed the British people, whose ""repeated example of Riots upon every occasion" could not "fail to have a great effect on the minds of the people of the Colonies." Nonetheless, Hamilton correctly understood that Parliament would have to repeal the offensive measures which were ""neither more nor less than a tax" imposed on the colonists "without their own Consent."

Interestingly, Hamilton's response to the imperial crisis mirrored the actions that he took while serving as governor. In both instances he sympathized with his fellow colonists and appreciated their protests against restrictions imposed upon them from three thousand miles away, which were not always in their best interests. But his loyalty to authority, and his sense of duty, whether to the British government or to the proprietors, compromised his relationships with members of the Assembly and with those colonists protesting British colonial taxation. As Hamilton struggled to establish a position between the two extremes of royal and proprietary demands and colonial defense of rights and privileges, he consistently opted for what he considered reasonable compromises, in part to accommodate his own divided loyalties. He continued to pray that the two sides had more reason to agree than disagree, but such sentiments were, in fact, increasingly out of step with the maturing political sentiments of his neighbors and constituents. Although he identified himself completely as a Pennsylvanian and as an American, he ultimately did not fully appreciate that the disputes that had wracked his administrations and the protests against Parliamentary interference were emerging expressions of self-determination that were never, in retrospect, negotiable.

As senior member of the Provincial Council, Hamilton was called upon in May 1771 to serve as its president upon the temporary return of John Penn to England. His tenure as president was generally brief and uneventful; he finished his responsibilities on 16 October with the arrival of Richard Penn who assumed the governorship until his brother's return from England. Hamilton had, however, issued a proclamation commanding obedience to the laws of Pennsylvania by the ubiquitous and illegal Connecticut settlers in the Wyoming Valley, who were still claiming those lands as their own, and were assembling an armed force in order to back their claims. After John Penn's return, Hamilton attended council meetings on only 12 occasions from 1771 to 1775. He was present on 20 February 1775 when Penn requested the opinion of the board concerning whether he should ask the Assembly to petition King George III for a redress of grievances. The council, including Hamilton, agreed that he should make the request , but the Assembly politely refused, sensing that Joseph Galloway,* the governor, and the councilors were attempting to prevent Pennsylvania from acting in concert with the Continental Congress. Hamilton ceased attending the council after 28 June 1775.

With the overthrow of the Assembly and the proprietary early in the American Revolution, former officers of the crown and the colony were placed under arrest by order of the Continental Congress. Accordingly, on 1 August 1777 Pennsylvania's Supreme Executive Council ordered the arrest of Hamilton; two weeks later the council enlarged his freedom of movement to the entire state. With the British army marching on Philadelphia, Hamilton feared that he would be ordered to evacuate Bush Hill; he therefore petitioned the council to allow him to stay at his home, or at least to permit his nephew William Hamilton to reside there in order to conduct his business affairs. Hamilton cited his "large Concerns" that required "constant care & attention," his advanced age, his "Constitution much impair'd by frequent distempers," and his innocence of any crime, as the basis of his appeal. He had not, after all, been "charged with any Crime or suspicion of Crime against the present government, or the American Cause in general."

Despite his plea, Hamilton was informed that in his best interests (and perhaps to prevent his joining the English occupation force) he should leave the city quickly, perhaps for Easton, Bethlehem, Reading, or any place that he "might be comfortably accommodated." The council further decreed, apologetically but without explanation, that his nephew would not be permitted to stay at Bush Hill. Hamilton chose to reside in Northampton at the estate of another nephew, James Allen, and in March 1778 he requested permission to return to the city in order to engage "the very ablest Physicians" to remove the "unhappy disorder" that had reappeared on his nose which "if not speedily removed" would probably kill him. Hamilton could not resist, however, reminding the council members that because he had refused to align himself with the "party" they espoused, he had been unfairly confined to Northampton, and had thereby suffered "very great losses" to his personal estate. On 23 April the council restored to Hamilton complete freedom of movement and then on 4 May granted him a two-week pass to enter enemy-held Philadelphia for medical reasons. But Timothy Matlack, secretary to the council, also could not resist responding to Hamilton's remark, observing that what once might have been considered a "party," had become after 4 July 1776 "not a party but a national distinction," and he cautioned Hamilton that every citizen was duty-bound to support the Revolution; those who chose not to support that cause would be considered still a subject of Great Britain, America's enemy. Hamilton regarded the pass as insufficient for his purposes because of its severe time limitation, and he therefore opted to forgo the journey into the city at that time, despite the threat to his health.

Following the evacuation of Philadlphia by the British in June 1778, Hamilton had returned to the city by August. The war, however, was destroying Hamilton economically; he complained that he was short of money and that the heavy taxes, if continued, would bankrupt him. By 1781 he lamented that continental money was "annihilated," and that state money was "falling so fast in its Credit" that soon it would be as valueless as the continental money. He hoped that "future Legislators" by "embracing honester principles" than those that had prevailed to that point, would "remedy such flagrant Injustice." Despite his concerns, however, Hamilton survived the crisis, and in 1783 characterized his estate as one of the "better Estates" in America, although he was finding it virtually impossible to collect the "many thousands" of pounds owed to him by his American debtors.

Hamilton's last years may have been physically difficult; he was described by Richard Bache as an "invalid for some time preceding" his death. On 13 August 1783 Hamilton died, or, in the words of Bache, "slipped off," and was buried two days later at Bush Hill. His funeral was attended by about 100 people, and the ceremony was presided over by the rector of Christ Church, the Reverend William White, and included a 15-minute eulogy by the Quaker minister Samuel Emlen. In his will, dated 4 March 1776 and probated on 15 September 1783, Hamilton, a bachelor, divided his estate among some of the children and grandchildren of his late brother and sister, Andrew and Margaret, respectively. The bequests included the 154-acre residence at Bush Hill; the proprietorship of the borough of Lancaster; 32 acres in Wicaco, Philadelphia County; 7,200 acres in Hunterdon County, New Jersey; household goods; plate; and £8,000. He further ordered that a monument be constructed at the burial site of his father, a task that he had continually postponed because of his own indecision over the makeup of the monument itself. He left the residue of his estate to William Hamilton.

Initially, James Hamilton had included in his will the four sons of his sister, Margaret; however, two died and the other two joined with the British during the war, whereby they were declared Tories and thus ineligible to receive bequests. Therefore on 18 October 1780 Hamilton, in what must have been a painful moment, was forced for legal reasons to strike them from his will. Nonetheless, he presumably continued to care for those two nephews, for as late as 1783 he had provided one of them with a bond worth £1,000. Hamilton had also left £400 to his long-time servant Mathias Sandham, but revoked that as well by a codicil dated 2 March 1779. Hamilton disowned him for "his Treachery and base ingratitude," despite his having treated Sandham with "the greatest kindness," and more "like a friend than a Servant." Precisely what the transgression had been is not known. The value of Hamilton's estate is unknown, as an inventory has not been found, but James Pemberton,* who had known Hamilton throughout his life and had attended his funeral, estimated it to be worth the staggering sum of about £150,000. In a somewhat harsh assessment, Pemberton wrote to Robert Morton about Hamilton: "his intimate associate Jos[eph] Turner died a few weeks before him, and his burial attended by a small number. thus these men who had been great in power & Affluence outlived their honour & popularity & left a lesson of Instruction to others who value themselves on such inconstant & imaginary attainments."