Chapter CDXLII: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (39)

The earliest attempts at European settlement (as distinct from
exploration) within the present limits of the United States
were made by French Huguenots, under the patronage of Admiral
Coligny; first at Port Royal, on Beaufort River, Florida,
where Jean Ribaut, in 1562, placed a few colonists who soon
abandoned the spot, and, two years later, at Fort Caroline, on
St. John's River, in the same peninsula. The second colony,
commanded by René de Laudonnière, was considerable in numbers
but unpromising in character, and not likely to gain a footing
in the country, even if it had been left in peace. It was
tragically extinguished, however, by the Spaniards in
September, 1565. The Spaniards had then established themselves
in a fortified settlement at St. Augustine. It was surprised
and destroyed in 1567 by an avenging Huguenot, but was
promptly restored, and has survived to the present day,—the
oldest city in the United States. (See FLORIDA.)—The first
undertakings at colonization from England were inspired and
led by Sir Walter Raleigh. After unsuccessful attempts, in
conjunction with his elder half-brother, Sir Humphrey Gilbert,
to establish settlements in Newfoundland, Raleigh obtained a
grant from Queen Elizabeth, in 1584, under which he planted a
colony of 108 settlers, commanded by Ralph Lane, on Roanoke
Island, within the boundaries of the present State of North
Carolina. In honor of the virgin queen of England, the name
Virginia was given to the region at large. Lane's colonists
had expected to find gold, silver and pearls, and lost
interest in the country when none could be discovered. In
June, 1586, they persuaded Sir Francis Drake, who had touched
at Roanoke with his fleet, to carry them home. Soon
afterwards, several ships, sent out by Raleigh with
reinforcements and supplies, arrived at the island, to find it
deserted. They left fifteen men to hold the ground; but a year
passed before another expedition reached the place. The fort
was then found in ruins; the fifteen men had disappeared, and
nothing of their fate could be learned. The new colony
perished in the same way—its fate an impenetrable secret of
the savage land. This was Raleigh's last venture in
colonization. His means were exhausted; England was absorbed
in watching and preparing for the Spanish Armada; the time had
not come to "plant an English nation in America." Sir Walter
assigned his rights and interests in Virginia to a company of
merchant adventurers, which accomplished nothing permanently.
Twenty years passed before another vigorous effort of English
colonization was made. In 1606 King James issued a royal
charter to a company singularly formed in two branches or
divisions, one having its headquarters at London, and known as
the London Company, the other established at Plymouth and
known as the Plymouth Company. Between them they were given
authority to occupy territory in America from the 34th to the
45th degree of latitude; but the two grants overlapped in the
middle, with the intention of giving the greater domain to the
company which secured it by the earliest actual occupation.
The London Company, holding the southward grant, despatched to
Virginia a company of 105 emigrants, who established at
Jamestown, on the northerly bank of James River (May 13,
1607), the first permanent English settlement in America, and
founded there the colony and the subsequent State of Virginia.
The colony survived many hardships and trials, owing its
existence largely to the energy and courage of the famous
Captain John Smith, who was one of its chief men from the
beginning. Its prosperity was secured after a few years by the
systematic cultivation of tobacco, for which the demand in
England grew fast. In 1619, negro slavery was introduced; and
by that time the white inhabitants of Virginia had increased
to nearly 4,000 in number, divided between eleven settlements.

See VIRGINIA.

{3166}

Meantime, the Plymouth Company had done nothing effectively in
the northward region assigned to it. Bartholomew Gosnold, in
1602, had examined the coast from Maine to Cape Cod, and built
a lonely house on the island of Cuttyhunk; Martin Pring, in 1603,
had loaded two ships with sassafras in Massachusetts Bay; a
colony named in honor of the chief justice of England, Sir
John Popham, had shivered through the winter of 1607-8 near
the mouth of Kennebec River and then gone home; Captain John
Smith, in 1614, had made a voyage to the country, in the
interest of London merchants, and had named it New England;
but no lasting English settlement had been made anywhere
within the bounds of King James' grant to the Plymouth
Company, at the waning of the year 1620, when Virginia was
well grown. It was then by chance, rather than by design, that
the small ship Mayflower landed a little company of religious
exiles on the Massachusetts coast, at Plymouth (December 21,
1620), instead of bearing them farther south. Driven from
England into Holland by persecutions, twelve years before,
this congregation of Independents, or Separatists, now sought
liberty of conscience in the New World. They came with a
patent from the London, or South Virginia Company, and
expected to plant their settlement within that company's
territorial bounds. But circumstances which seemed adverse at
the time bent their course to the New England shore, and they
accepted it for a home, not doubting that the proprietors of
the land, who desired colonists, would permit them to stay.
The next year they received a patent from the Council for New
England, which had succeeded to the rights of the Plymouth
Company. Of the hardships which these Pilgrim Fathers endured
in the first years of their Plymouth Plantation, who does not
know the story! Of the courage, the constancy and the prudence
with which they overcame their difficulties, who has not
admired the spectacle! For eight years they remained the only
successful colony in New England. Then came the memorable
movement of Puritans out of Old England into New England,
beginning with the little settlement at Salem, under John
Endicott; expanding next year into the "Governor and Company
of Massachusetts Bay"; founding Dorchester, Roxbury,
Charlestown, Watertown, and Boston, in 1630, and rapidly
possessing and putting the stamp of the stern, strong Puritan
character on the whole section of America which it planted
with towns. In the Puritan colony of Massachusetts Bay a
cleavage soon occurred, on lines between democratic and
aristocratic or theocratic opinion, and democratic seceders
pushed southwestwards into the Connecticut Valley, where Dutch
and English were disputing possession of the country. There
they settled the question decisively, in 1635 and 1636, by
founding the towns of Hartford, Windsor, Wethersfield and
Springfield. Three years later the three towns first named
confederated themselves in a little republic, with a frame of
government which is the first known written constitution, and
so gave birth to the future State of Connecticut. In 1638 New
Haven was founded by a company of wealthy nonconformists from
England, under the lead of their minister, John Davenport, and
was a distinct colony until 1662, when it was annexed to
Connecticut by a royal charter. Another State, the smallest of
the New England commonwealths, was taking form at this same
time, in a little wedge of territory on Narragansett Bay,
between Connecticut and Massachusetts. Roger Williams, the
great apostle of a tolerant Christianity, driven from Salem by
the intolerant Puritanism of the Bay, went forth with a few
followers into the wilderness, bought land from the
Narragansett Indians, and laid the foundations (1636) of the
town of Providence. In that same year another small company of
people, banished from Boston for receiving the teachings of
Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, bought the island of Aquidneck or
Aquetnet from the Indians and settled at its northern end.
This community was soon divided, and part of it removed to the
southern end of the island, beginning a settlement which grew
to be the town of Newport. The island as a whole received the
name of the Isle of Rhodes, or Rhode Island; and in 1644 its
two settlements were united with Providence, under a charter
procured in England by Roger Williams, forming the colony of
Providence Plantations. In 1643 the colonies of Massachusetts,
Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven, entered into a
confederation, from which Rhode Island was excluded, calling
themselves "The United Colonies of New England." The object of
the confederation was common action in defence against the
Indians and the Dutch on the Hudson. It was the beginning of
the cementing of New England. Before this time, small
settlements had been planted here and there in northern New
England, within territory covered by grants made to Sir
Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason. The province claimed
by Gorges was subsequently called Maine, and that of Mason,
New Hampshire; but Maine never rose to an independent colonial
existence. After years of dispute and litigation, between
1651, and 1677, the jurisdiction of Massachusetts was extended
over the province, and it remained the "District of Maine"
until 1820, when Massachusetts yielded the separation which
made it a sovereign state in the American Union. The New
Hampshire settlements were also annexed to Massachusetts, in
1641, after Captain Mason's death; were separated in 1679, to
be organized as a royal province; were temporarily reclaimed
without royal authority in 1685; but finally parted from
Massachusetts in 1692, from which time until the Revolution
they remained a distinct colony.

See NEW ENGLAND;
also MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND,
NEW HAMPSHIRE, and MAINE.

While the English were thus colonizing New England at the
north and Virginia at the south, the Dutch, not recognizing
their claims to the country between, had taken possession of
the important valley of the Hudson River and the region around
its mouth, and had named the country "New Netherland." The
river had been discovered in 1609 by Henry Hudson, an English
sailor, but exploring in the service of the Dutch. Trading
with the Indians for furs was begun the next year; the coast
and the rivers of the region were actively explored; a New
Netherland Company was chartered; a trading-house, called Fort
Nassau, was built on the Hudson as far to the north, or nearly
so, as Albany; but no real colonization was undertaken until
1623. The New Netherland Company had then been superseded by
the Dutch West India Company, with rights and powers extending
to Africa as well as the West Indies and the North American
coasts. It bought Manhattan Island and large tracts of land
from the Indians, but had little success for several years in
settling them. In 1629 it introduced a strange experiment,
creating a kind of feudal system in the New World, by
conveying great estates to individuals, called Patroons, or
Patrons, who would undertake to colonize them, and who
received with their territorial grant much of the powers and
many of the characteristics of a feudal lord.
{3167}
Several Patroon colonies were established on a baronial scale;
but, generally, the system did not produce satisfactory
results, and in 1640 the Company tried the better experiment
of making the trade of New Netherland free to all comers,
offering small independent grants of land to settlers, and
limiting the Patroons in their appropriation of territory. The
Company government, however, as administered by the directors
or governors whom it sent out, was too arbitrary to permit a
colonial growth at all comparable with that of New England.
Collisions with the English in Connecticut arose, over
questions of boundary, but the latter held their ground.
Southward, on the Delaware, the Swedes made a settlement where
the city of Wilmington now stands, and refused to be warned
off by the Dutch, who claimed the region. This Swedish colony
prospered and enlarged itself during sixteen years, but was
overcome by Director Stuyvesant of New Netherland in 1654. A
little later than the appearance of the Swedes on the
Delaware, certain colonists from New Haven bought lands from
the Indians on both banks of the Delaware and made attempts at
settlement, in what is now New Jersey and on the site of the
future city of Philadelphia. The Dutch and Swedes combined
against them and they failed. In 1664 the whole situation in
this middle region was changed by the English conquest of New
Netherland. The territory so acquired—or regained, if the
original English claim had been good—passed then, by royal
grant, to the Duke of York (afterwards King James II.), and
became the proprietary province of New York.

See NEW YORK.

The Duke of York, in turn, the same year, transferred to Lord
John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret the part of his domain
which lay between the Hudson and the Delaware, and it received
the name of New Cæsarea, or New Jersey. Under encouragement
from Berkeley and Carteret the New Haven colonization was
resumed. Ten years later Berkeley sold his rights to a party
of Quakers who were seeking a refuge for their persecuted sect
in the New World. A division of the province was made and the
Quaker proprietors received West Jersey, while East Jersey
remained to Carteret.

See NEW JERSEY.

Before this time, William Penn had become the principal owner
of the West Jersey interest. Not long afterwards (1681), by
surrendering a claim which his father held against the British
government, Penn procured from King Charles II. a much greater
proprietary domain, on the western side of the Delaware, being
no less than the vast tract, 40,000 square miles in extent,
which received the name of Pennsylvania. To his title from the
king he added a deed of purchase from the Indians. Penn's
scheme of colonization was very liberally framed, and it was
conducted with marked success. Philadelphia, first laid out in
1683, had 2,000 inhabitants in 1685, and Pennsylvania at large
had 8,000. Penn himself did not find peace or happiness in his
position as a princely proprietor; but he founded a great and
prosperous commonwealth on noble lines.

See PENNSYLVANIA.

In order to possess one bank of the Delaware River and Bay to
the sea, William Penn, after securing his grant from the king,
bought additionally from the Duke of York the claims of the
latter to that strip of territory which the Swedes had settled
on and struggled for with the Dutch, and which took an
independent political form in later days as the State of
Delaware. The Delaware "territories," as they were called,
never accepted their dependent relationship to Pennsylvania,
and as early as 1702 it was found necessary to concede them a
separate legislature, though they continued under Penn's
proprietary government.

See DELAWARE.

Adjoining Penn's province on the south was the domain of
another great proprietor, Lord Baltimore, whose title deed,
from the same royal source as that of Penn, but prior in time
by half a century, gave rise to conflicts which troubled the
whole life of the peaceful Friend. The first Lord Baltimore
(George Calvert) received from James I. in 1632 a patent which
gave him territory on the northerly side of the Potomac River,
stretching to the Delaware Bay and River and to the 40th
parallel of north latitude. By its terms it did undoubtedly
take in Delaware and part of Pennsylvania; but the intervening
occupation by the Swedes and Dutch, the English conquest, and
the royal grant to the Duke of York, confused the title. The
controversy was not settled until 1761-7, when "Mason and
Dixon's line" was run as the accepted boundary between
Maryland and Pennsylvania. The lords proprietary of Maryland
had been in conflict long before Penn's time with their
neighbors at the south, in Virginia, and had many difficulties
to encounter and many troubles in their undertaking to found a
state. The powers they had received with their grant from the
king were the largest that royalty could concede to a subject,
and gave to their province the character of a palatine
principality. But they exercised their substantial sovereignty
with an admirable moderation. They were Catholics, and the
early settlers in Maryland were largely though not wholly of
that faith. But they introduced a policy of tolerance which
was strange at the time to every other part of the New World
except Rhode Island, and made their province free to all
religions. Numerous Puritans entered it, especially from
Virginia, where they were unwelcome; and these, it can hardly
be denied, made ill returns for the tolerant hospitality they
received. During the time of the Civil War, the Commonwealth
and the Protectorate in England, the Maryland Puritans were
hostile, not only to the proprietary government, but to its
tolerant principles, and used the ascendancy which they
frequently gained in a spirit that does not compare favorably
with that of their adversaries. Subsequently the ascendancy of
the Puritans gave way to that of the Anglican Church, without
restoring the toleration which Catholicism in power had
established—a rare instance in history—and which Protestantism
in power had suppressed.

See MARYLAND.

Beyond the Virginia plantations, in the South, the coasts to
which Raleigh had sent his first colonists, and to which the
virgin queen had intended to give her name, waited long for
settlement. The first durable colony within that territory
which took its name in time from a less worthy sovereign was
planted in 1653, at Albemarle, on the Chowan River, by a small
company of dissenters from Virginia.
{3168}
In 1665 a considerable party of emigrants from the Barbadoes,
headed by a wealthy planter of that island, Sir John Yeamans,
established themselves on Cape Fear River, near its mouth, in
the district which was afterwards called Clarendon. Two years
before this time, in 1663, King Charles II. had discharged
some part of his heavy obligations to his loyal supporters by
granting that whole section of the American continent which
lies between the 31st and 36th parallels of latitude to a
company of courtiers, including Clarendon, Monk, Shaftesbury,
and others, and the province was named Carolina. It was
divided into two great counties, Albemarle and Clarendon, and
these corresponded somewhat nearly to the North Carolina and
South Carolina of the present day. In 1670 the lords
proprietors sent out a colony under William Sayle, which
settled first at Port Royal; but Sayle died soon after
landing, and the colonists were induced to migrate northwards
to the Ashley River, where Sir John Yeamans met them with a
considerable part of his Clarendon colony, and became the head
of the united settlements. There they founded "Old
Charleston," and, after a few years, shifting the site to the
confluence of the Ashley and the Cooper, they began the
building of the present city of Charleston. This became the
nucleus of the subsequently distinct colony of South Carolina,
as Albemarle did of that of North Carolina. The division was
made in 1729, when the rights of the Proprietors were bought
by the Crown, and the Carolinas became crown colonies. Until
that time, the southern colony had made far greater progress
than its northern twin. It had received a considerable
immigration of Huguenots from France and of Scotch-Irish from
the north of Ireland, as well as of English, and Charleston
was becoming an important port, especially frequented by
buccaneers. But after the displacement of the proprietary
government, North Carolina began quickly to receive more than
its share of the Scotch-Irish immigration and no small number
of Highland Scotch. The colony was developed almost wholly in
the agricultural direction, with few and small towns. Slavery
was introduced at an early day, and rooted itself in the
industrial system, as it did in that of all the southern
settlements.

See NORTH CAROLINA and SOUTH CAROLINA.

The last of the "Thirteen Colonies" to come into existence was
the colony of Georgia, founded so late as 1733 by General
James Oglethorpe. It occupied territory too close in
neighborhood to the Spaniards of Florida to be attractive to
settlers in the 17th century. Its colonization was undertaken
by General Oglethorpe primarily as a philanthropic enterprise
for the benefit of unfortunate English debtors, who were
released from prison and permitted to emigrate under his care;
but secondarily to strengthen the defence of the English
colonies against the Spaniards. He obtained his grant from
George II. "in trust for the poor," and the colony was
governed by trustees until 1752, when it was surrendered to
the crown. The first emigrants left England in the fall of
1732, and early in the next year Savannah was laid out by
Oglethorpe in person. His scheme of colonization proved highly
attractive, not only in England but on the continent, and
numbers of Protestant Germans came over to become part of the
original population of Georgia. At the outset, slavery was
strictly prohibited; but the settlers thought themselves
grievously oppressed by the denial of slaves, and their
discontent became so great that in 1749 the trustees rescinded
the prohibition.

See GEORGIA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1620-1776.
Constitutional relations of the colonies to the English Crown
and Parliament.
The working of the leaven of independence
in New England Puritanism.

The history of the development of the question between England
and her colonies, as to their constitutional relations to one
another, "falls naturally into two periods: first, from the
beginning of English colonization in America to the Revolution
of 1688; second, from 1688 to the Declaration of Independence.
… Passing now to the history of the first period, it is to be
observed that the leading institution in the English
government at that time was the King in Council. … But in the
17th century, owing to a combination of very strong political
and religious forces, the struggle between the King in
Parliament and the King in Council was … opened and pushed
with vigor. It continued with alternations of success, but on
the whole with results favorable to Parliament, till 1688.
Then the King in Parliament finally gained the ascendancy, and
this result was so secured by statute as never afterwards to
be seriously called in question. The supremacy of Parliament
was established by a series of royal concessions. The
parliamentary party viewed these as compromises between
Parliament and king. This gave color to the theory of social
contract, which was now given new impulse and form by the
parliamentarian writers of the 16th and 17th centuries. … It
naturally follows from what has been said that the
administration of colonial affairs previous to 1688 was in the
hands of the King in Council. Such was the fact. The
enterprises of discovery were fitted out under the patronage
of the crown; the territories discovered or visited were taken
possession of in its name; and grants of land, of rights of
government and trade, were made to actual settlers by the
kings. Every colonial charter is a proof of this. As the king
was by the theory of English law feudal proprietor of England,
so he became proprietor of colonial territory, though that
territory was granted out in socage, one of the freest forms
of English tenure. Certain superficial distinctions were
introduced in the form of colonial governments, as royal,
proprietary, and charter; but they all emanated from the
crown. Its supremacy extended around and beneath them all. The
fact that they were established by grant is proof of this,
even though there had been no subsequent acts to enforce the
control. They were colonies of the English crown; their
inhabitants were its subjects. The true doctrine of
sovereignty and allegiance necessitates this conclusion. …
Parliament passed few statutes affecting the colonies. Yet,
not to mention others, there were five such of very great
importance which fall within this period: the Act of Supremacy
(I Eliz. cap. I), and the four Navigation acts. In all these
the colonies were expressly mentioned. But the relative
position of crown and Parliament is illustrated by the fact
that when in 1624 the Council was proceeding to annul the
third Virginia charter, the House tried to interfere but was
warned off—because the business concerned only the king and
his advisers.
{3169}
Moreover there was no lack of precedents for the extension not
only of common law but of royal ordinances and statute law
outside of the original realm of England. … Such in outline
was the status of English colonial law previous to 1688. It
was in the process of formation and adaptation to the new
empire. There were ample precedents for the exercise of the
rights of British sovereignty in America, but those rights had
not yet been called into the fullest operation. Their
legitimacy however was in general fully acknowledged by the
colonists. They had been allowed great liberty in establishing
their governments, erecting courts, levying taxes, organizing
and calling out their militia for defence against the Indians.
Colonial society had been allowed to develop freely in all
lines and the product was far different from anything which
existed in the mother country. It was democratic rather than
aristocratic; it was also extremely particularistic, and too
remote from England to feel much interest in the general
concerns of the empire. In this divergence of social
organization and interests, as between the colonies and the
mother country, lay the germ which might develop into
resistance on the part of the plantations, if at any time
England should attempt to enforce her rightful supremacy over
them. But as yet there was too little of the spirit of union
among the colonists to make possible any combined action. Also
those dynasties whose government had been most arbitrary in
England, the Tudors and Stuarts, had, till the reign of James
II, treated the colonies with great leniency. But the
statements just made do not cover the whole ground. They
describe the attitude of the colonies in general toward the
mother country, but they do not describe the special
conditions which prevailed in New England. If we wish to know
how the theory of colonial independence originated, we must
look in that direction. The American revolution cannot be
explained without reference to the political character and
tendencies of Puritanism. … Puritanism then was a political as
well as a religious movement. On the one hand its doctrines
contained a strong democratic leaven; on the other they
contained principles which might lead to the separation of
church and state. How the former tendency worked itself out in
New England is familiar; how the latter failed of
accomplishment there is equally well known. The Puritans of
Massachusetts were not opposed to the union of church and
state or to the employment of the secular power to enforce
religious conformity. … What they were opposed to was every
other form of state church except their own. … In order to
maintain her peculiar system, Massachusetts had to be on her
guard against all interference from outside. … The
Massachusetts charter was brought over to this country. A few
years later the Plymouth company was dissolved, and
representation of the colony in England, except by such agents
as she might send, ceased. The terms of the charter were very
liberal; but like all the others it was a royal grant, and
expressly stated that the inhabitants of the colony were to be
subjects of England and were to enjoy all the liberties and
immunities of such, as if they were in the realm of England.
The oaths of supremacy and allegiance were to be administered
to all who should go to the colony. The company was made a
'body corporate and politic' and was given ample powers of
government; but its laws, statutes, and ordinances were not to
be contrary to the laws of England. The admission of freemen
was left in the hands of the corporation. How did the Puritan
oligarchy make use of this charter for serving the purposes of
their government? In a word, they interpreted the expression
'body corporate and politic' to mean an independent state, and
virtually abandoned all legal connection with England except
an empty acknowledgment of allegiance. The oath of allegiance
was not administered, but instead an oath of fidelity to the
government of Massachusetts. An ecclesiastical system wholly
different from that of England was established. Only those
were admitted to political rights, made freemen, who were
members of a Congregational church. … The colony also
exercised full legislative and judicial powers, and denied the
right of appeal both practically and theoretically. The proof
of this is most direct and convincing. To illustrate: in 1646
the General Court refused to permit the appeal of Dr. Child
and others who, as Presbyterians, desired to lay before
Parliament the wrongs they suffered in Massachusetts. Not only
was the right denied, but the petitioners were prevented by
force from carrying their case to England. The same course was
pursued in reference to appeals in ordinary judicial cases.
During the discussion of the affair just mentioned it was
boldly affirmed in the General Court that subjects were bound
by English laws only so long as they lived in England; that
neither statutes nor royal ordinances were in force beyond the
seas. A little later than this both the magistrates and the
elders were called upon to give their views on the legal
relations between the colony and England. Both agreed that by
their charter they 'had absolute power of government'; that
their government was perfect and sufficient in all its parts,
not needing the help of any superior to make it complete. They
acknowledged that they had received the charter from England,
and 'depended upon that state for protection and immunities as
freeborn Englishmen'; but the duties which were correlative to
those immunities, and which are necessary to a true conception
of allegiance, were not mentioned. This position was
consistently maintained by the Puritans of Massachusetts as
long as they remained in power. In their correspondence with
the home government and its officials between 1664 and 1684
the right of appeal was always denied. Its exercise was never
allowed. If we add to this the further statements that
Massachusetts coined money; strove to enlarge the bounds of
her patent, not only without consulting the king, but in
defiance of his absolute prohibition; taxed English imports;
and, without the consent of the home government, entered the
New England confederation, some notion can be formed of the
degree of independence claimed and exercised by that colony.
The exercise of this independence however did not make it
legal. It only illustrates the fact that the roots of the
American revolution extend back into the times of which we are
speaking. … It was to be expected that England would interfere
to bring Massachusetts within the bounds of constitutional
dependence. Complaints against the colony, on the part of
Gorges and of those who had been banished by the Puritans,
began very early.
{3170}
These led to 'quo warranto' proceedings for the recall of the
charter in 1635. But civil strife at home compelled the
government of Charles I to abandon the project. Then came the
period of the Commonwealth, when the views of the English
government were so fully in harmony with those of the New
England leaders that the practical independence of the colony
was ignored. … From the restoration dates the beginning of a
more comprehensive colonial policy." With the fall of the
Massachusetts charter, in 1684, "closes the first stage in the
development of the idea of colonial independence. The struggle
between the Puritans of Massachusetts and the crown is the
most significant fact in American history previous to 1760.
The Puritans were defeated; the authority of England was
reasserted. … But for our purpose the important result is that
the Puritans left behind them an armory full of precedents and
arguments in favor of colonial independence. They had
constructed the American theory on that subject. That was the
chief permanent result of their experiment. They had from
first to last adhered to the theory which expediency taught
them to adopt. They taught the colonists how to resist the
exercise of the ecclesiastical and judicial supremacy of the
crown. If now at any time in the future the Americans should
consider themselves aggrieved by the acts of the English
government, the Puritan spirit and theory would be likely to
appear. Such was the aspect of affairs at the close of the
first period of colonial history. After the revolution of
1688, Parliament assumes more and more the control of American
concerns. Statutes on those subjects multiply. The
administration of the colonies becomes a branch of the
ministerial government of Great Britain. The development of an
imperial as distinguished from an insular policy is begun. The
interference of England in colonial affairs became more
frequent and the control asserted more extensive than
heretofore. … The attitude of the colonists during this period
was one of passive rather than active resistance.
Parliamentary restrictions were so far evaded as not to be
burdensome. … The records show that the burden of opinion in
the colonies was jealousy of all government, so far as it
operated as a restraint. The interference of government,
whether colonial or imperial, was welcomed by the colonists,
when it could be used for the advancement of their private or
local interests; when larger objects were aimed at, it was if
possible ignored or resisted. … The political condition of the
colonies was for the first time clearly revealed during the
French and Indian war. The history of Germany can furnish no
more vivid spectacle of the evils of particularism than does
that struggle. … The condition of anarchy and helplessness
revealed by the war was such as to convince all the servants
of the crown in America that active parliamentary interference
was necessary, if the colonies were to be defended and
retained as an integral part of the British empire. The fact
that the British government, within a reasonable time after
the close of the war, proceeded to put this suggestion into
execution, implies nothing arbitrary or unreasonable. It had
the undoubted constitutional right to do so; and so far as
could be seen at the time, expediency prompted in the same
direction. But during the century since the Puritan oligarchy
of Massachusetts yielded to the supremacy of the crown, the
theory of social contract had been fully developed. It had
formulated the needs of the opposition in all the European
countries to the system of absolutism. It was the theory of
government very generally held by the Puritans in both England
and America. … This theory, as soon as it was understood,
would naturally find general acceptance in the colonies. … The
American revolution, as truly as the French, was the outgrowth
of the doctrine of natural rights and social contract. By this
I mean simply that the doctrine in question formed the
theoretical basis of both movements. So far as the American
revolution is concerned the proof of this statement is
contained in the writings of the patriot leaders at the time,
the various state papers that were issued, and the doctrine
that was held respecting the right of imperial taxation. No
man contributed so much to bringing about the revolution as
Samuel Adams; and his mind was saturated with the theory of
social contract. He made it the basis of all his reasonings. …
The reason why New England became the leader of the movement
clearly appears. The process of development through which the
colonies passed was a natural, and therefore a necessary one.
It was slow and obscure, and therefore could not be clearly
recognized at the time. But that it was nevertheless
revolutionary becomes evident when we compare the views and
aims of the colonists with the constitution of the British
empire. When the two systems came into collision the colonists
adopted a theory which was 'in the air' at the time, but one
under which no government can be successfully carried on. When
they came to erect a government of their own, they had to
abandon it. It is not claimed that the doctrine of natural
rights ever found such general acceptance in America as in
France. The character of the people and the absence of a
despotic government prevented that. But that the American
revolution cannot be explained without assigning it a
prominent place is evident. It is not intended to convey the
impression that the colonists had no grievances. There were
causes for complaint, but they were doubtless greatly
exaggerated. A mind filled with the democratic theories of the
times, and with the loose notions concerning sovereignty and
allegiance which then prevailed, could easily imagine that
Parliament, unless resisted, would establish a despotic
government in America."

_Professor H. L. Osgood,
England and the Colonies
(Political Science Quarterly, September, 1887)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.
The Navigation Acts and the colonies.
Spirit and objects of the English restrictive commercial system.

To the Act of Navigation, passed in 1651 (see NAVIGATION LAWS)
is due a change in the relations of the colonies to the
mother-country. "Henceforth they were regarded mainly as
feeders to its carrying-trade, as consumers of its
manufactures, as factories for the distribution of its
capital, and, in a word, as mere commercial appendages of what
was now the great commercial power. Dominion became
subordinate to trade. … Beginning … with the re-enactment of
the Navigation Act after the Restoration, we find that the new
system which is to regulate colonial trade and define the
relations of the colonies to the parent, is contained in three
Acts of Parliament.
{3171}
First, in the re-enactment itself of the Act of Navigation in
1660; secondly, in an act, passed in 1663, entitled 'an Act
for the encouragement of trade'; and, thirdly, in an act,
passed in 1672, and entitled 'an Act for the encouragement of
the Greenland and Eastland fisheries, and for the better
securing the plantation trade.' … The three acts which created
the system, were all passed in the reign of Charles II.; the
others followed rapidly, and in great numbers, for a century,
until the failure of the attempt to transform this system of
trade into one of trade and revenue, by means of what is known
as the Stamp Act. St. John's Navigation Act was reenacted in
1660, under Charles II., as the first-fruits of the
Restoration. This act forbade importation into or exportation
out of the colonies, save what came and went in English ships,
and its object was, to shut the doors of the colonies against
foreign trade. In 1663 another step was taken, and an act was
passed with the object, openly avowed in its fifth section, of
keeping the colonies in 'a firmer dependence' upon England,
and of making that kingdom the staple, or place of
distribution, not only of colonial produce, 'but also of the
commodities of other countries and places, for the supplying
of them.' To effect this, the Act of 1663 went beyond that of
1660, and exacted, that no European products or manufactures
should be imported into any colony, except what had been
actually laden and shipped in an English port, and carried
'directly thence' to the importing colony. This act forced the
colonists to get such supplies as they could not themselves
furnish in England only, and thus not only could none but
mariners of whom three fourths were English transport
merchandise to and from the colonies, but the colonists
themselves were not suffered to go anywhere but to England for
that which they could not get at home. … This position of
factor between the colonies and foreign markets was a
lucrative one. But the spirit of trade is such, that it
regards much as only a stepping-stone to more, and the next
enactment concerning colonial trade, or that of 1672, betrays
this characteristic. The existing factorage was maintained
only between the colonial and foreign trade; it had no place
in intercolonial traffic. … As this intercolonial trade
developed, it attracted the observation of the English
merchants, who at last demanded the control of it. In
compliance with this demand, an act was passed in 1672,
subjecting any enumerated commodity to a duty specified in the
statute—and thus was destroyed the freedom, and, to a great
extent, the incentive of intercolonial traffic. This act was
well entitled 'an Act for the encouragement of the Greenland
and Eastland fisheries, and for the better securing of the
plantation trade.' History is silent respecting the fisheries,
but it has been very outspoken concerning its effect on the
plantations. The effect was this: if Rhode Island wished to be
supplied by Massachusetts with one of the enumerated
commodities, and Massachusetts desired to furnish Rhode Island
with that commodity, the delivery of the goods could not be
made by the producer to the consumer, but the article would
have to be sent to England first, and landed there, and then
be sent back from England to Rhode Island before the consumer
could touch it. A line drawn from Boston, in Massachusetts, to
Bristol, in England, and thence back to Newport, in Rhode
Island, will show the course which such article must take, if
sold by Massachusetts to Rhode Island, before the demands of
English commerce were satisfied; it will in all probability
likewise show the least angle with the longest sides ever
subtended on the chart of trade. Should, however, the parties
to the transaction desire to avoid the risk and delay incident
to this phenomenal voyage, they could do so by paying the
certain rates and duties prescribed by this statute."

_E. G. Scott,
The Development of Constitutional Liberty
in the English Colonies of America,
chapter 8 (with corrections by the author)._

"Unfortunately there does not exist any history of the
commerce of the American colonies, from the Commonwealth to
1774, as affected by navigation laws, acts of trade, and
revenue measures. No one who has read the 29 acts which
comprise this legislation will recommend their perusal to
another; for, apart from their volume, the construction of
these acts is difficult,—difficult even to trained lawyers
like John Adams, whose business it was to advise clients in
respect to them. Nor have special students, like Bancroft,
stated their effect with exact precision."

_M. Chamberlain,
The Revolution Impending: Critical Essay
(Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6),
page 64._

ALSO IN:
_G. L. Beer,
The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies
(Columbia College Studies, volume 3, number 2)._

_W. B. Weeden,
Economic and Social History of New England,
chapter 7 (volume 1)._

_J. E. T. Rogers,
Economic Interpretation of History,
chapter 15._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
The First American Congress.
King William's War.

"After the accession [in England, A. D. 1689] of William and
Mary, hostilities were declared between France and England,
which extended to America; and thus began the first
inter-colonial war [commonly known in American history as King
William's War]. The French soon planned an invasion of Boston
and New York. … On the 8th of February, 1690, a war-party, who
had come stealthily from Canada, entered the open gates of the
town of Schenectady, when it was snowing, and broke the
stillness of midnight with the terrible yell and whoop of the
savages. Men, women, and children, for two hours, were
mercilessly butchered. Their dwellings were burned. The whole
town was sacked. … The intelligence flew through the colonies.
… Schenectady was the Fort Sumter of that day. The event had a
political effect. It shamed the factions in New York at least
into a truce. It roused a spirit of patriotism. The governor
of Massachusetts urged, in letters to other colonies, the
necessity for immediate action to provide for the common
defence. … The General Court [of Massachusetts], in view of
organizing a joint effort of the colonies, proposed to hold a
congress. The call for a meeting is dated the 19th of March,
1690. It relates, that their majesties' subjects had been
invaded by the French and Indians; that many of the colonists
had been barbarously murdered, and were in danger of greater
mischiefs; and it proposed, as a measure of prevention, that
the neighboring colonies, and Virginia, Maryland, and the
parts adjacent, should be invited to meet at New York, and
conclude on suitable methods for assisting each other for the
safety of the whole land. The governor of New York was desired
to transmit this invitation to the southern colonies. Such was
the first call for a general congress in America.
{3172}
It is free from narrowness. It is liberal in its spirit,
simple in its terms, and comprehensive in its object. … The
call elicited from several colonies interesting replies.
Governor Hinckley, of Plymouth, entered with zeal into the
measure, and, though the General Court was not in session,
appointed a commissioner. The Quaker-governor of Rhode Island,
Henry Bull, replied in an excellent spirit. … Though the time
was too short to convene the assembly for the appointment of
commissioners, he promised the aid of that colony to the
utmost of its ability to resist the French and Indians. The
head of the convention of Maryland wrote, that it was the
design of the assembly to send arms and men to aid in the
general defence. … President Bacon, of Virginia, replied, that
the proposition would require the action of the assembly, and
that nothing would be done until the arrival of the daily
expected governor. The replies to the invitation were cordial.
The commissioners of four colonies [Massachusetts, Plymouth,
Connecticut, and New York] met at New York. … The
deliberations led to a unanimous result. On the 1st of May, an
agreement was signed by the delegates, in behalf of the five
colonies [including Maryland under its promise], to raise a
force of 855 men for the strengthening of Albany, and, 'by the
help of Almighty God, subduing the French and Indian enemies.'
It was agreed, that the lieutenant-governor of New York should
name the commander of this force; that it should not be
employed on any other service without the consent of the five
colonies; and that the officers should be required to preserve
among their men good order, punish vice, keep the Sabbath, and
maintain the worship of God. No proposition appears to have
been entertained for a permanent organization. … Efforts were
made to obtain additional aid from New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
and Rhode Island. … I need only state, as the result of this
congress, that it was resolved to attempt the reduction of
Canada by two lines of attack,—one to conquer Acadia, and then
to move on Quebec; and the other, by the route of Lake
Champlain, to assault Montreal. The New England forces under
Sir William Phips, assigned to the first route, captured
Acadia and Port Royal, and sailed for Quebec, in the
expectation of being aided by the other forces who marched by
the Champlain route. But they, under Fitz-John Winthrop, with
the title of major, were not successful. Leisler [see NEW
YORK: A. D. 1689-1691], with characteristic rashness, accused
the commander of treachery; while the officers charged the
commissary, Jacob Milborne, of New York, with inefficiency in
procuring supplies. The failure of Winthrop occasioned the
retreat of Phips."

_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_Doc. History of New York,
volume 2 (Leisler's administration)._

_Documents relating to Colonial History of New York,
volume 3._

See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1697.
The Board of Trade for the Supervision of the Colonies.
Plans of Colonial Union by Penn and others.

"The king attempted a more efficient method of administering
the colonies; and, in May 1696, a Board of Commissioners for
Trade and Plantations, consisting of the chancellor, the
president of the privy council, the keeper of the privy seal,
the two secretaries of state, and eight special commissioners,
was called into being. To William Blathwayte, who had drafted
the new charter of Massachusetts, John Locke, and the rest of
the commission, instructions were given by the crown 'to
inquire into the means of making the colonies most useful and
beneficial to England; into the staples and manufactures which
may be encouraged there, and the means of diverting them from
trades which May prove prejudicial to England; to examine into
and weigh the acts of the assemblies; to set down the
usefulness or mischief of them to the crown, the kingdom, or
the plantations themselves; to require an account of all the
moneys given for public uses by the assemblies of the
plantations, and how the same are employed.' The
administration of the several provinces had their unity in the
person of the king, whose duties with regard to them were
transacted through one of the secretaries of state; but the
Board of Trade was the organ of inquiries and the centre of
colonial information. Every law of a provincial legislature,
except in some of the charter governments, if it escaped the
veto of the royal governor, might be arrested by the
unfavorable opinion of the law officer of the crown, or by the
adverse report of the Board of Trade. Its rejection could come
only from the king in council. … The Board of Trade was hardly
constituted before it was summoned to plan unity in the
military efforts of the provinces; and Locke with his
associates despaired, on beholding them 'crumbled into little
governments, disunited in interests, in an ill posture and
much worse disposition to afford assistance to each other for
the future.' The Board, in 1697, 'after considering with their
utmost care,' could only recommend the appointment of 'a
captain-general of all the forces and all the militia of all
the provinces on the continent of North America, with power to
levy and command them for their defence, under such
limitations and instructions as to his majesty should seem
best.' … With excellent sagacity—for true humanity perfects
the judgment—William Penn matured a plan of a permanent
union, by a national representation of the American States. On
the 8th day of February 1697, he delivered his project for an
annual 'congress,' as he termed it, of two delegates from each
province. … But the ministry adopted neither the military
dictatorship of Locke and his associates, nor the peaceful
congress of William Penn."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

The following is the Plan of Union drafted by Penn: "A Briefe
and Plaine Scheam how the English Colonists in the North parts
of America, viz.: Boston, Connecticut, Road Island, New York,
New Jerseys, Pensilvania, Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina may
be made more usefull to the Crowne, and one another's peace
and safty with an universall concurrence.
1st. That the severall Colonies before mentioned do meet once
a year, and oftener if need be, during the war, and at least
once in two years in times of peace by their stated and
appointed Deputies, to debate and resolve of such measures as
are most adviseable for their better understanding, and the
public tranquility and safety.
{3173}
2d. That in order to it two persons well qualified for sence,
sobriety and substance be appointed by each Province, as their
Representatives or Deputies, which in the whole make the
Congress to consist of twenty persons.
3d. That the King's Commissioner for that purpose specially
appointed shall have the chaire and preside in the said
Congresse.
4th. That they shall meet as near as conveniently may be to
the most centrall Colony for use of the Deputies.
5th. Since that may in all probability, be New York both
because it is near the Center of the Colonies and for that it
is a Frontier and in the King's nomination, the Governor of
that Colony may therefore also be the King's High Commissioner
during the Session after the manner of Scotland.
6th. That their business shall be to hear and adjust all
matters of Complaint or difference between Province and
Province.
As,
1st, where persons quit their own Province and goe to another,
that they may avoid their just debts, tho they be able to pay
them,
2nd, where offenders fly Justice, or Justice cannot well be
had upon such offenders in the Provinces that entertaine them,
3dly, to prevent or cure injuries in point of Commerce,
4th, to consider of ways and means to support the union and
safety of these Provinces against the public enemies. In which
Congresse the Quotas of men and charges will be much easier,
and more equally sett, then it is possible for any
establishment made here to do; for the Provinces, knowing
their own condition and one another's, can debate that matter
with more freedome and satisfaction and better adjust and
ballance their affairs in all respects for their common safty.
7ly. That in times of war the King's High Commissioner shall
be generall or chief Commander of the severall Quotas upon
service against a common enemy as he shall be advised, for the
good and benefit of the whole."

_H. W. Preston,
Documents illustrative of American History,
page 146._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.
Growing despotism of the English mercantile policy.
Systematic suppression of colonial manufactures.