United States/history
From LoveToKnow 1911
History
A.-Beginnings of Self-government, 1578-1690.
1.
The American nation owes its origin to colonizing activities in which the British, Dutch, Swedes, French and Spaniards bore a share. and which were continued during a period of more than two centuries at the beginning of the modern era. The settlements of the Dutch and Swedes (New Netherland and New Swetlen) were soon merged in those of the British, and of the territory colonized by Frenchmen and Spaniards the United States, as it was in 1783, included only certain outlying regions (Florida and certain posts on the Great Lakes and in the Mississippi V~Jley). All the European nations which were interested in colonization shared in the enterprise, and the population of the region was therefore cosmopolitan from the outset. But the British, especially after 1660, secured a controlling influence, to such an extent that the history of the period can properly be regarded as the record of an experiment in British colonization.
Permanent settlements on the Atlantic seaboard were first made in the early years of the 17th century, and they continued steadily to increase until after 1680. Relatively speaking, that was the period of settlement, but population continued slowly to advance westward. In the 18th century occurred a large immigration of Germans and Scottish-Irish, who settled in Pennsylvania and New York and thence overflowed into the western parts of Virginia and the Carolinas. The only colony which was founded in the 18th century was Georgia (1732), by means of which British outposts on the Florida frontier were strengthened.
2.
British colonization originated chiefly in private initiative, though it acted in half-conscious obedience to certain general principles of action. From this fact originated the General trend toward self-government, which was funda- Aspects of mental and controlling in the history of the British Coioniza on the American continent. But to an extent the tion.
tendencies which favored self-government were counteracted by the influence of the British Crown and parliament. The influence of the Crown was continuous, except during the period of the Civil War and Commonwealth (1642-1660), while that of parliament was not felt until the middle of the 17th century, and its colonial legislation subsequent to that time was chiefly confined to matters of trade. The activities of Crown and parliament were directed toward the securing of Imperial interests and of that degree of subordination and conformity which, in states that have developed from Roman and feudal origins, attaches to the condition of colonies or dependencies. The term imperial control therefore suggests the second tendency in colonial affairs, to the discussion of which the historian must address himself.
3.
Among the colonists the trend toward local independence and self-government was in harmony with the spirit of the English. Neither was it lacking among the other nationalities represented in the colonies. But in the case of the British it was greatly strengthened by the fact that the colonies were founded by private initiative, the government legalizing the efforts of the adventurers and planters, but leaving them in many cases almost wholly to themselves. Hence many small colonies and settlements were founded along the coast. A variety of motives-economic, religious and politicalcontributed to the founding of these colonies, and people correspondingly different in type came to inhabit them. As they differed from one another, so their descendants came to differ from the Europeans, out of the midst of whom they had come. The remoteness of the colonies from Europe and the difficulties under which communication with them was maintained confirmed and perpetuated the tendency toward independence both of England and its government. Somewhat similar conditions controlled intercolonial relations, kept the colon.ists apart from one another and checked efforts at co-operation. Thus it was that the causes which confirmed the colonists in the spirit of independence toward the mother country at the same time made them jealous of any external authority.
4.
The term chartered colonies is the one which best describes the forms under which the British-American settlem~nts were founded and under which they all con- Chartered tinued for periods varying from a sfngle generation Colonies.
to that of the entire duration of their colonial existence. They were the direct and characteristic results of private initiative in colonization. The discoverers and would-be >><< colonizers, acting individually or in groups, collected the ships, men and resources necessary for their enterprises, and procured from the Crown a charter. By this document the king conveyed to them a claim to the soil which would be valid in English law, gave them the right to transfer Englishmen thither as colonists, to trade with them and with the natives, and to govern the colony, subject to the conditions of allegiance and of British sovereignty in general. The rights and liberties of the colonists as British subjects, without attempt to define what they were, were guaranteed by the charters, and the grantee was prohibited from passing laws or issuing orders which were repugnant to those of England. In only a part of the chartersthose chiefly which were issued subsequent to 1660 was express reference made to the calling of assemblies in the colonies. So general were the provisions of the charters that they only remotely determined the forms which government should assume under them and what the rights of the colonists should be. A considerable variety of institutions and social types existed under them. But their very indefiniteness made them valuable as objects of appeal to those who in time of controversy were upholding local rights and liberties.
5.
Of the chartered colonies there were two varieties proprietary provinces and corporate colonies. Though alike in the fact that the patentees who founded them were mesne tenants of the Crown, they were quite unlike in their internal organization and to a considerable extent also in the character of the people who inhabited them. The proprietary province was a development from the principle of the fief, though with many variations. The early charters of discovery, those for example which were granted to John and Sebastian Cabot and to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, contemplated the founding of feudal principalities in the New World. The grant to Sir Walter Raleigh, which resulted in the abortive colonial experiment at Roanoke, was of the same character. At the period of transition from the rule of the Tudors to that of the Stuarts, trading companies and companies whose purpose was colonization were increasing in number and importance. The first half of the I 7th century was distinguished by the founding of many such, in France and the Netherlands as well as in England. The joint companies which were chartered London ~d by James I. in 1606, one to have its residence Plymouth at London and the other at Plymouth, were of this Companies, character. They were granted the right to colonize, the one in northern and the other in southern Virginia; the intervening territory, three degrees in breadth, being left common to the two. The rights of the companies were confined to those of settlement and trade. The Plymouth patentees achieved no permanent result; but those of London founded Jamestown (1607) and other settlements along the James river, which later became the province of Virginia (q.v.).
6.
But before this result had been reached the London patentees had secured in succession two new charters, one in 1609 and another in 1612. By means of these grants they had practically separated from the Plymouth Company, had secured a concession of territory 400 m. broad and extending through the continent, and had been able to perfect the organization of their company. By the grant of 1606 the right to govern the colonies had been reserved to councils of royal appointees, oae resident in England and one in each distinct colony which should be founded. But by their later charters the London patentees were fully incorporated, and in connection therewith received not only the power to grant land but rights of government as well. This made the Virginia Company of London in the full sense of the word the proprietor of the province which it was founding. It now appointed resident governors, councillors and other officials for the colony, and instructed and controlled them in all ways, subject of course to the general supervision of the king in council. Under the charter of 1606, in order to facilitate colonization on a strange continent, joint management of land and trade was temporarily instituted. But under the fully organized company, as managed by Sir Thomas Smith, and especially by Sir Edwin Sandys and the Ferrars, this system was abandoned, and private property in land and the control of trade through private magazines were established. - A number of distinct plantations and settlements were founded which later developed into counties and parishes. From these localities, in 1619, under authority from the company, representatives were elected who met with the governor and council at Jamestown. and formed the first colonial assembly held on American soil. Its acts were duly submitted to the company in London for its approval or disapproval. Other assemblies were called, the tobacco industry was established and the principles upon which traffic in that staple was to be conducted with Europe were announced. Thus Virginia assumed the form of a proprietary province, with an English trading company as its proprietor.
7.
Meantime west of England men had been making fishing voyages and voyages of discovery to northern Virginia, which now was coming to be known as New England. In New 1620 a new charter was procured, the reorganized ilngland company being known, in brief, as the New England Council. Council. Like the London, patentees, this body was now fully incorporated and received a grant of the vast territory between 40 and 48 N. lat. and extending through to the South Sea (Pacific). Full rights of government, as well as of trade and settlement, were also bestowed. The moving spirit in this revived enterprise was Sir Ferdinando Gorges, an Anglican and royalist from the west of England. For a time John Mason was his most active coadjutor. Such backing as the company received came from nobles and courtiers, and it had the sympathy of the court. But lack of resources and of active interest on the part of most of the patentees, together with the development of a Puritan interest in New England, led to the failure of this enterprise. No colony was established directly by the council itself, but that part of its vast territory which lay adjacent to the coast was parcelled out among the patentees and by them a few weak and struggling settlements were founded. They were all proprietary in character, and those along the northern. coast were more or less connected with Anglican and royalist interests. But, as events proved, Plymouth Colony (founded in 1620), which was Puritan and Separatist to the core, became a patentee of the New England Council; and the colony of Massachusetts Bay (founded in 1628-1630), which was to become the citadel of Puritanism in America, procured the original title to its soil from the same source. At the outset both Massachusetts and Plymouth must be classed as proprietary settlements, though far different from such in spirit and destiny. Massachusetts soon (in 1629) secured a royal charter for its territory between the Merrimac and Charles rivers, and thus took a long step towards independence of the council. At the same time the Plymouth settlers were throwing aside the system of joint management of land which, as in the case of Virginia, had been imposed upon them by adventurers who had lent money for the enterprise; were paying their debts to these same adventurers and securing control of the trade of the colony; were establishing a system of self-government similar to that of Massachusetts. Thus a strong Puritan interest grew up in the midst of the domain which had been granted to the New England Council, and in connection therewith the type of colony to which we have given the name corporate came into existence.
8.
In order to understand the nature of the corporate colony, it is necessary to explain the internal organization of that type of company which, like the Virginia Company Corporate of London, was founded for purposes of trade and Colonies; colonization. It was composed of stockholders, who the Virginia became members as the result of the purchase of Company. shares or of migration to the colony as planters, or of both acts combined. In the Virginia Company they were known as the generality, in the Massachusetts and other companies as the freemen. In them, when met as a democratically organized body under the name of quarter court or general court, was vested the governing power of the company. It >>[[<<United States/history/map|map>>]]<< elected the officers, chief among whom were a treasurer or governor, and a council or board of assistants. These, as well as the subordinate officers, held for annual terms only. Four times a year, at the law terms, the general courts met for the transaction of business, elections being held at the spring meeting. Membership in such companies might be indefinitely increased through the issue and sale of shares. They were, in other words, open companies, whereas the New England Council was a closed body, its membership being limited to forty. The Massachusetts Company was an open corporation of the type just described.
9.
In 1629 the prospects of Protestantism at large, and of Puritanism in England, were so dark that the founders of the Massachusetts Company, who were decidedly Massachu- Puritan in spirit and inclined to nonconformity in Sj7p~fly; practice, resolved to remove with their charter and Removal of the governing body of their company into New Charter to England. Preparatory to this, John Winthrop was Massachu- elected governor and a settlement was made of their business relations in England. After the removal had been made, the assistants and general court met in New England and business was carried on there exclusively by planters. An order was soon passed that none should vote or hold office who were not members of some one of the churches within the colony. As all these churches were Independent or Congregationalist in form and doctrine, this order gave a wholly new definition to the term freemen. It made of this colony something approximating to a biblical commonwealth, and subordinated trade, land-holding and settlement to the interests of the Puritan faith. The board of assistants now assumed political and judicial functions. As local settlements about Massachusetts Bay were founded, the general court, which before had been a primary assembly simply the freemen of the companycame to consist partly of representatives elected by the freemen of the towns. In this way a second chamberthat of the deputieswas added to the assistants to form the general court of the colony. Taxes were levied by this body, and laws and orders proceeded from it which related to all functions of government. It elected or appointed the governor and other chief officials, and determined the times of its own meeting. The governor had no veto and the general court was the controlling organ in the system.
10.
Of primary importance in the affairs of the colony was everything which concerned religious belief and church government. The churches and their relation to the civil power presented the great questions upon which hinged its policy. This was true not only in its internal affairs, but in its relations with other colonies and with the mother country. An ecclesiastical system was developed in which Independent and Presbyterian elements were combined. By a rigid system of test: this was upheld against Antinomians, Baptists, Quakers and dissenters of all sorts. The securing of revenue from land and trade was considered subordinate to the maintenance of the purity of the faith. It was this which gave a point and vigou~ to the spirit of self-government in the New England colonie: which is not perceptible elsewhere. As a consequence of the Puritan migration from England and of the expulsion of assenters from Massachusetts, Plymouth Coanectkut; Connecticut (q.v.), the New Haven Colony, and the towns about Narragansett Bay which became tht ~olony; colony of Rhode Island (q.v.), were settled. Thest Rhode a11 were corporate coionies, organized upon funda. Island. mentally the same plan as Massachusetts bul differing from it in minor particulars. Their settlers at the outset had no charters, but by means of plantation or towr covenants assumed powers of government, which ultimatelq were vested in general courts similar to that of Massa- chusetts. Rhode Island was formed by a union of towns but elsewhere the colony was coeval with or antedated the town. Connecticut and Rhode Island, the former in 1662 anc the latter in 1663, secured royal charters by which they wen incorporated within New England itself and the government! which they had established there were legalized. New Haven Nas absorbed by Connecticut in 166.4 under the charter of 1662 see CONNECTICUT), and Plymouth remained without a charter rom the king until, toward the close of the 17th century, it Iecame a part of the enlarged province of Massachusetts.
11.
The most prominent feature of the New England land system was the " town grant, " which in every case became the .erritorid basis of a group settlement. Throughout New England, and in the outlying districts which were colonized by New Englanders, settlement was effected by groups. The xocess began in Plymouth and was extended through the entire section. The Puritan migration from Europe was of the same zeneral character. Groups of people, animated by a common .eligious or political ideal, broke away from their original Ir temporary abiding-places and pushed farther into the wilder- less, where tracts of land were granted to them by the general zourt. The corporate colonies did not seek profit from their land, ~ut granted it freely to actual settlers, and in such amounts 1s suited their needs. No distinct land office was established by any New England colony. Land was not sold by the colony; nor, as a general rule, was it leased or granted to individuals. Rent formed no appreciable part of the colony revenue..
12.
Over the founding of towns the general courts, as a rule, exercised a watchful supervision. Not only did the courts fix and maintain their bounds, but they issued regulations for the granting of lands, for common fields, fences, herds, the punishment of trespass, the admission of inhabitants and free- holders, the requirement that records of land titles should be kept, and the like. But subject to these general regulations, the allotment and management of its land was left to each town. The colonies had no land system apart from the town. It was partly in order to manage their lands that the towns were made centres of local government and town meetings or boards of town proprietors were established. By means of town action, taken in town meetings and by local officials, the land of each settlement was laid off as house lots, common and common fields, meadow and pasture. Detailed regulations were made for the management of common fields and for their ultimate division and allotment among their proprietors. The same was true of fences and herds. The result was an organization similar to the English manor, but with the lord of the manor left out; for in the case of the New England town administrative authority resided in the body of the freeholders. To this peculiarity in the form of New England settlement is due the prominence of the town, as compared with the county, in its system of local government. The town was the unit for purposes of taxation and militia service as well as of elections. It was also an impor- tant ecclesiastical centre, the parish usually corresponding with it in extent.
13.
As a result of the process thus sketched, southern New England was settled by a population of English origin, with similar instincts and a form of political organization which was common to them all. Gorges, meantime, had secured (1639) a royal charter for his province of Maine, but Mason had died before he
obtained such a guaranty for his settlements on the Piscataqua
river. The small communities along that entire coast remained weak and divided. In 1635 the New England Council surrendered its charter. The helplessness of the Gorges family was insured by its adherence to the royalist cause in the English Civil War. Massachusetts availed itself of a forced inter- pretation of the language of its charter respecting its northern boundary to extend its control over all the settlements as far north-east as the Kennebec river. This was accomplished soon after 1650, and for the time Anglican and royalist interests throughout New England seemed hopelessly wrecked. New England had thus developed into a clearly defined section under Puritan domination. This fact was also clearly indicated by the organization, in 1643, of the New England Confederacy, or the United Colonies of New England (see Nm ENGLAND), which comprised the orthodox Puritan colonies, whose leading magistrates, as annually elected commissioners, for twenty years exercised an advisory control over New England. >><<
14.
The colonies of the middle and southern sections of the territory, which later became the United States, were wholly Mf&j/esnd proprietary in form. This was true of New Nether- southern land (founded by the Dutch West India Company CQ'On"s. in 1621) and of New Sweden (settled under the authority of the Swedish Royal Company in 1638), as well as of the English colonies which were established on that coast. In the case of Virginia and of the Dutch and Swedish settlements, trading companies were the proprietors. But the later English colonies, beginning with Maryland in 1632, and continuing with the Carolinas (1663), New York (1664), New Jersey (1665), Pennsylvania and the Lower Counties, afterwards Delaware (1681), were founded by individual proprietors or proprietary boards. Georgia (1732)~ the only English colony settled after 1681 on the continent, existed for twenty years under a proprietary board of trustees. By the efforts of adventurers of this class, put forth chiefly during the period of the Restoration, the entire coast-line from Florida to Acadia was permanently occupied by the English. But, unlike New England, the population of the other sections was of a mixed character, as were their economic and religious systems, pd to an extent also their political institutions.
15.
As has already been stated, in their internal structure and in the course of their history the proprietary provinces differed very materially from the corporate colonies. Those of later English origin also differed in some important respects from Virginia under the company and from New Netherland and New Sweden. The system of joint management of land and trade, which was so characteristic of early Virginia, was out- grown before the other proprietary provinces were founded. Neither did it prevail in the Dutch and Swedish provinces, but there the law and institutions of government of those nations existed, and no provision whatever was made for assemblies.
16.
In the proprietary province the proprietor, or board of proprietors, was the grantee of powers, while in the corporate colony it was the body of the freemen organized as an assembly or general court. The proprietor might or might not be a resident of the province. He might exercise his powers in person, or, as was usually the case, delegate them to one or more appointees. In any case, the form of government of the pro- prietary province was essentially monarchical in character. The powers that were bestowed were fundamentally the same as those which were enjoyed during the middle ages by the counts palatine of Chester and Durham. In some charters express reference was made to Durham as a model. The normally deve- loped provinces which resulted were miniature kingdoms, and their proprietors petty kings. As Coke said, their powers wcre king-like though not sovereign. This character arose from the fact that the grantee of power was the executive of the province. This branch of government was thereby brought into the fore- front. At the beginning and for a long time thereafter it con- tinued to bear the leading part in affairs. It was not so in the corporate colony, for there the freemen and the general court stood at the centre of the system, and their ultimate control, which no one dreamed of disputing, was maintained through a system of annual elections. In most of the corporate colonies the executive (i. e. the body of magistrates) was strong, but that was due to the political and social influence which its officials had gained, and not to their tenure of office. But the nature of the proprietary province demands further explanation.
17.
In every case, apart from the ordinary rights of tradc and the guarantees of the liberties of the colonists, the powers which were bestowed on the proprietors were of the territorial and governmental. The territory oi ~P*~WY the provinces was granted under the conditions which by English law controlled private estates of land. An entire province, or any part of it, could be leased, sold or otherwise disposed of like a private estate It was an estate of inheritance, descending to heirs. The attitude of proprietors toward it was that of landlords investors or speculators in land. They advertised for settlers and, in doing so, an ever present motive with them was the desirc to secure more private income from land. In 1664 the duke of York sold New Jersey to Berkeley and Carteret, and the sale was effected by deeds of lease and release. In 1708 William Penn mortgaged Pennsylvania, and under his will devising the province legal complications arose which necessitated a suit in chancery. Thus proprietors and proprietary boards changed with every generation or oftener. All this, of course, was different in the corporate colony.
18.
In all the later ~ro~rietarv charters, exceDt that of New York, the operation of'the statutk Quia emptores has suspended, so far as relations between the ~ro~rietor and his immediate . L grantees were concerned. By virtue of this provision each proprietor, or board, became the centre from which originated sn indefinite number of grants. These were held directly of the proprietor and through him of the Crown. In practice the same was true also of New York. The proprietors were bhus left free to make grants on such conditions as they chose-limited by the nature of their patents-to erect or permit the erection ot manors, to devise the machinery necessary for surveying, issuing and recording gnnts, and collecting rents. Preparatory to the exercise of this power, the proprietors issued so-called " concessions " or " conditions of plantation, " stating the terms on which they would grant lands to colonists. These were often accompanied by descriptions of the country, which were intended to be advertisements for settlers. Under a system of head rights, analogous to that which existedin Virginia, land was thus bestowed on settlers upon easy terms. Proportional amouuts of land were granted upon the importation of servants, and in this way a traffic in servants and their head rights to land was encouraged among planters and masters of merchant vessels. In all the provinces, except New Netherland, a quit rent was imposed on all grants. In the Dutch province rents were sometimes imposed, but they varied in character and differed from the English quit rent. In Maryland fines were levied on alienations. In Maryland and Pennsylvania the demand for land became so great that it was sold. In most of the provinces manorial grants were made, but in none except New Netherland did the manor become an institution of government. In aU the provinces territorial affairs were administered directly by the provincial authorities, and not by towns as in New England. In Maryland a land office was fully organized, towns developed only to a very limited extent, and when they did originate they were in no sense village communities. Lots in them were granted by provincial authorities and they were subject to a quit rent. They were simply more densely popclated parts of the counties, and, unless incorporated as boroughs, had no distinct institu- tional life. In almost all cases land, in the provinces, was granted to individuals, and individual ownership, with direct relations between the owners or tenants and the proprietary authorities, was the rule. This was in marked contrast to the conditions which have been described as existing in the corporate colonies. In the corporate colony the elements of the fief had been eliminated, but in the provinces they still survived to a considerable degree.
19.
Had governmental powers not accompanied the terri- tonal grants which have been described, these grants would have been estates of land, unusually large, no doubt, but nothing more. In cases where the governmental rights of proprietors were suspended or resigned into the hands of the Crown, they remained thereafter only private landlords. But the fact that rights of government were bestowed with the land made the territory a province and the proprietor its political head. The bestowment of rights of land carried with it not only the obligation to pay quit rent, but to take to the proprietor the oath of fidelity.
20.
In the discussion of the corporatecolony it was necessary to dwell first and chiefly on the legislature. But in the case of the proprietary province the executive, for the reason already mentioned, demands first attention. The provincial charters made the proprietors the executives of their provinces and for the most part left it to them to determine how and under what forms the governmental powers which they had received should >><< be exercised. The powers which were definitely bestowed were executive and judicial in character-the ordinance power, the authority to appoint all officers, to establish courts, to punish and pardon, to organize a military force and defend the provinces, to bestow titles of honour, to found churches and present to livings. The executive thus became the centre from and around which development in the province chiefly occurred. It gave to the proprietor an importance, especially at the outset, which was comparable with that enjoyed by the general courts in the corporate colonies. It made him in a derived and infe~ior sense the source, within the province, of office and honour, the foun- tain of justice, the commander of the militia, the recipient of the provincial revenue, the constituent part of the legislature. But in most cases the proprietors did not attempt to exercise these powers in person. Even if resident in their provinces they needed the assistance of officials. By means of commissioners they appointed a group of leading officials for their provinces, as a' governor, cour?cillors, a secretary, surveyor-general, receiver-general or treasurer, and somewhat later an attorney- general. These all held office at the pleasure of the proprietor, and were subject to guidance by his instructions. Altogether the chief place among these officials was held by the governor. He was par excellence the agent for the pro- The prietor for all purposes of administration. He PI-OV~XM regularly corresponded with the proprietor and 'overnor. received the latter's directions. In making appoint- ments the proprietor was usually guided by his recommendations. In some cases he was a relative of the
proprietor, and family influence in Maryland after the Restoration
came to dominate the government of the province. In all his important acts the gbvernor was required to take the advice of his council, and that body was expected to co-operate closely with him in all matters; but the governor was not bound to follow their advice. The relations between the two was the same as that between the king and his privy council in England. As settle- ments multiplied and counties and other local subdivisions were formed, other and inferior offices were
created, the right of appointment to which rested with the governor,
though it was exercised in the name of the proprietor. By means of an executkre, thus organized, land was granted and the revenue from it collected, counties and other local divisions were estatlis'ned, relztions were developed with the Indians, early preparations were made for defence, courts were opened and the administration of justice begun.
21.
But in the later proprietary charters generally, with the exception of that issued to the duke of York, provision was made for assemblies. It was made, however, in very general terms, and it was left to the option of the proprietors to determine when, where and how they would call them. These legislatures did not originate in the natural or pre-existent rights of English- men, nor did the existence of a parliament in England make them necessary, though it greatly increased the difficulties of governing the colonies without them. Though they were not original in the sense which attached to the executive, they were immediately proven to be indispensable and their activity in the provinces gradually opened the way for the growth of modern democratic institutions.
22.
When met in regular form, the provincial legislature consisted of the governor, the council or upper house, and the The assembly or deputies. The latter, who were elected PI-Ovlncial by the localities, constituted the only representative Legislature.part of the legislature. In tenure and functions the governor and council were largely independent both of the deputies and of the electors. They were a part of the execu- tive and were naturally swayed by a regard for the interests of the proprietor and by administrative traditions. Though a component of the legislature, the council was the legal advisor of the governor. In many cases the importance of the councils was increased by the fact that, with the governor, in early times they formed the highest judicial tribunal in the province. As the governor had the sole power of calling, pro- roguing and dissolving the general assembly, the council might STATES advise him in such a way as to destroy the body itself or thwart its plans. The joint work of the council and assembly was subject to the veto of the proprietor, or of both the proprietor and his governor. The legislature of the province, therefore, differed materially from the general court, though in practice lhis was somewhat offset by the fact that in the New England colonies the magistrates were usually re-elected for a long series of terms.
23.
In the province, as in the kingdom, the legislature was in a sense an expansion of the executive, developed out of it, and was to an extent controlled by it. Out of this relation arose the possibility of conflict between the two parts of the legislature-that which represented the people and that which represented the proprietor. In the history of the provinces this formed the central line of cleavage. From the first the assemblies largely controlled taxation. Using this as a lever, they endeavoured to limit and define the powers of the execu- tive and to extend the sphere of legislation more widely. Fees, from which officials derived most of their support, were a favourite object of their regulation. Occasionally offices which had originally been appointive were made elective. Protests of various kinds were made against official cliques. British statutes which favoured liberty and the powers of parlia- ment were often referred to as guides and ideals of the opposi- tion. Now and again the lower house came to a deadlock with council or governor. Threatened or actual revolt was sometimes necessary to bring the executive to terms. By such tactics as these the popular elements in the constitutions of the provinces asserted themselves. The sphere of ordinance was gradually limited and that of statute extended, while incidentally the system of government became more complex. In a number of provinces-the Carolinas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania-the proprietors at various times initiated elaborate constitutions, in which not only a land Constltu- system, but forms and functions of government tions. were prescribed on a large scale. These were variously known as fundamental constitutions, concessions and agreements, frames of government, and in every case were submitted to the general assembly for its acceptance or rejec- tion. Long struggles often ensued over the question of accep- tance, which usually ended in the modification or rejection of the schemes as too cumbersome for use or because they reserved excessive powers to the provincial executive.
24.
Though the main features in the form and development of the proprietary provinces have thus been indicated, it should be noted that their history was by no Courseof means uniform. In New Netherland and New York Develop- occurred a struggle for the establishment of a ment* legislature, which continued at intervals for forty years and was not permanently successful until. after New York had become a .royal province. The proprietors of New Jersey never secured a royal charter, and therefore were not able to establish satisfactorily their claim to rights of govern- ment. As grants of land had been made to the settlers in certain localities within that province before its purchase by Berkeley and Carteret, opposition was made to the collection of quit rents, as well as to the enforcement of rights of government, and disturbances, resulting from these causes, became chronic. The province was also divided into East and West Jersey, the boards of proprietors being greatly increased in both, and West Jersey attaining an organization which was almost democratic in character. Within the vast reaches of the Carolina grant developed two provinces. One of these-North Carolina- was almost entirely neglected by the proprietors, and the weakened executive repeatedly succumbed to popular violence. In South Carolina many violent controversies occurred, espe- cially over the efforts of the proprietors to compel the acceptance of the Fundamental Constitutions, which originated with Locke and Shaftesbury. But in the end this failed, and a simple form of government, such as was adapted to the needs of the province, was developed. In Pennsylvania the liberal policy of the proprietor led at the beginning to unusual concessions >><< in favour of the colonists. One of the most characteristic of these was the grant of an electiveCounci1, which was intended to be aristocratic and the chief institution in the province. But owing to conflicts between it and the governors, affairs came to a deadlock. The total neglect of provision for defence by the Quaker province led to the suspension of Penn's powers of government for about two years after the English Revolu- tion and the outbreak of the war with France. This did away with the elective Council for the time, and an appointive Council was soon substituted. Finally, in 1701, the Council was de- prived of its powers of legislation and thereafter the legislature of Pennsylvania consisted of only one house-the Assembly.
B.-Development of Imperial Control, 1606-1760.
25.
Turning now to the exercise of imperial control over the colonies, it is to be noted that it proceeded chiefly from the The Cm wa. English Crown. It was exercised through the secre- tary of state, the privy council and a succession of boards subordinate to it which were known as commissioners of plantations or the board of trade; by the treasury and admiralty boards and their subordinate bureaus; by the attorney-general and the solicitor-general and by the bishop of London. The more continuous and intimate supervision proceeded from the privy council and the commissioners sub- ordinate to it, and from the treasury board. The latter caused the auditing of such revenue as came from the colonies, super- vised expenditures for them and had an oversight over appoint- ments in the colonial service. The privy council received letters and petitions on almost every kind of colonial business, caused hearings and inquiries to be held, and issued letters, instructions and orders in council on an equally great variety of matters. It also acted as the regular court of appeal for the plantations. As time advanced, more of the adminis- trative business passed directly into the office of one of the secretaries of state and the privy council became less active. The admiralty was concerned with the equipment of the navy for service in the colonies, and the high court of admiralty with the trial of prize cases and of cases arising from violations of the acts of trade. The assistance of the law officers of the Crown was sought in the drafting of charters, in the prosecution of suits for their recall, and in all cases which required the interpretation of the law as affecting the colonies and the defence of the interests of the British government in relation thereto. The bishop of London had supervision over the appointment and conduct of clergymen of the English Church in the colonies and over parish schools there. Not all of these boards and officials were active from the first, but they were created or brought into service in colonial affairs as the importance of the dominions increased.
26.
The parliament by mentioning the dominions in its statutes could extend their provisions to the colonies. The early acts of supremacy and uniformity contained Parliament- ruyControl. such reference, but it was dkopped after the Restora- tion and no serious attempt was ever made to enforce uniformity in the colonies. Parliament did not begin to legislate seriously for the colonies until after the Restora- tion. Then the acts of trade and navigation were passed, to which additions were made in the reign of William 111. and from time to time during the 18th century. This body of legislation, including about fifty statutes, comprised the most important acts relating to the colonies which were passed by parliament. A few statbtes relating to military affairs were passed about the middle of the 18th century. Certain other laws relating to currency and coinage, to naturalization, to the punishment of governors, to the post office, to the collection of debts, and to a few other miscellaneous subjects complete the colonial legislation of parliament prior to 1760. About one hundred statutes in all were passed. The colonists themselves imitated in a general way the organization and procedure of the English courts. The main features of the common law came spontaneously into force in the colonies. The legislatures of several of the colonies adopted large. parts STATES [HISTORY 1606--I 760 of the statute law of England. The colonists were always accustomed to avail themselves, as far as possible, of the great English statutes which guaranteed liberty. After about 1690 the obligation was very generally enforced upon the colonies of sending the acts of their assemblies to England for acceptance or rejection by the King in council. Thus a general agreement between colonial and English law was attained.
27.
But this, though far-reaching, was only one of the objects which were sought through the exercise of imperial control. Its object was to maintain the rights of Great Britain over the colonies and her interests in them in all respects. The diplomacy of Great Britain concerned itself to an increasing extent, as the 18th century advanced, with the acqqsition or losses of colonial territory, with the fixing of boundaries and with the securing of commercial interests. The interests of trade, more than any other subject, determined the colonial policy of England. The Church and her interests also demanded attention. In all these matters the English executive-the Crown -continuously, and for the most part exclusively, managed colonial affairs. During the Commonwealth in the 17th century parliament was the source of all activity, whether legislative or executive, but at other times, as we have seen, its legislation was confined chiefly to the subject of trade. The English coqrts also played a minor part e+cept when, in conjunction with the executive, they were concerned in the revocation of colonial charters.
28.
A natural condition which affected colonial administra- tion as a whole and to a large extent determined its limits and character was the remoteness of the colonies ~,,l,tl,,, from England. With this the conditions of sparse of the and scattered settlements in a new continent in' CO'On'esm the midst of savages were closely connected. At best three months were required for sending a despatch from London to America and procuring a return. This explains the large degree of self-government which the colonies possessed and the indifference with which their affairs were usually viewed, even by British officials. Only a relatively small part of colonial business came before English officials or received their serious attention. Only at long intervals and in summary fashion was it brought to the attention of parliament. It is believed that the affairs of the continental colonies were never seriously debated in parliament until after the beginning of the controversy which led to the American War of Independence. Social and political intercourse with the colonists and govern- mental control over them were therefore very imperfectly developed, as compared with that which existed within the realm. That is the real meaning of the distinction between the realm and the dominions. Over the counties and other local jurisdictions of the realm the control of Crown and central courts and parliament was continuously felt. In law and theory the same was true of the dominions; in fact, the control over them was almost wholly executive, and during most of the period it was to a degree unintelligent and weak. In theory the British Empire was a consolidated structure; in fact it was something more resembling a federation.
29.
The central fact in colonial history during the 17th century was the development of the chartered colonies. At their founding, as we have seen, the Crown dele- DweIop,,,eat gated rights of settlement and subordinate rights .fae of government to proprietors, who used theni in Chdered a variety of ways. The effect of this was to introduce a number of mesne lords between the king and his colonial subjects, a phenomenon which centuries before had vanished from England itself. The patentees governed the colonists, and the Crown only interfered at intervals to adjust matters. And when the Crown did this, its dealings were far more with the patentees and their officials than with the body of the colonists. The king had no officials of his own in the colonies, and a practical system of immunity existed. Under the first two Stuarts some rather desultory efforts were made to check the development of such a system in the early stages. After a controversy over a contract for >><< the sole importation of tobacco, which became involved with the political struggles of the time in England, the charter of the Virginia Company of London was revoked (1624). A royal commission was appointed to readjust the affairs of Virginia and to inaugurate its government as a royal province, and the king declared that he desired the government of all his dominions to be monarchical in form. Several commissions were later appointed to manage the tobacco trade. In 1634 a board of commissioners of plantations was created and it received very large powers over the colonies. Of this body Archbishop Laud was the moving spirit. The year following the New England Council resigned its charter, a writ of quo warranto was issued against the Massachusetts charter, and a plan was nearly perfected for sending out Sir Ferdinando Gorges as royal governor, or rather governor-general, to New England. But means were lacking, the suit against the Massa- chusetts patent failed to accomplish its purpose, and troubles at home soon absorbed the attention of the government.
30.
During the Great Rebellion in England New England was left practically to itself. Strife broke out in Maryland, over which the home government was scarcely able to exercise even a moderatinginfluence. The Dutch from New Netherland and Europe were able to monopolize a large part of the carrying trade in tobacco and European goods. Virginia, with Barba- does and a few other island colonies, assumed an attitude of distrust or hostility toward the new government in England. In 16 51 and 16 52 parliament sent out a commission, with an armed force, which reduced the island colonies to submission and adjusted affairs in Virginia by suspending
government under Sir William Berkeley, the royalist governor, and
leaving control in the hands of the Assembly. By a stretch of power the commissioners also took control of affairs in Maryland, but there they intensified rather than allayed the strife. Balti- more, however, managed to save his interests from total wreck, and at the Restoration was able fully to re-establish his authority.
31.
During this period of unstable government in England the seeds were planted of a colonial policy which was hence- Commemlal forth to dominate imperial relations. It was then Influences; that England entered upon
the period of commercial Adm~sfra- rivalries and wars. The
Cromwellian government ~YJamesdetermined to wrest the control of the carrying Aclsaad trade from the Dutch, and the Navigation Act of other 1651 and the first Dutch War were the result. Reslrialve General Robert Sedgwick was sent against New Legislation. Netherland, but ended in attacking Acadia. At this time also the national hatred of Spain, which had so charac- terized the age of Elizabeth, reasserted itself and the Spanish seas were invaded, Hispaniola was attacked, and Jamaica was conquered. In connexion with these events plans were formed for a more systematic colonial administration, which Cromwell did not live to execute, but which were taken up by Clarendon, the duke of York, the earl of Shaftesbury and a large group of officials, lawyers and merchants who sur- rounded them. They
took definite shape after the Restoration in the creation of a
council for trade and a council for foreign plantations, in the passage of the acts of trade, in the conquest of New Netherland and the organization within it of three English provinces, in the settlement of the Carolinas, in a resolute attempt to remedy grievances and adjust disputes in New England. These events and their consequences give greater importance to the next three or four decades than to any later period until the colonial revolt.
32.
The council for foreign plantations was continued, some- times under a patent and sometimes as a committee of the privy council, until, in 1696, it was commissioned as the board of trade. As a board of inquiry and report, subordinate to the privy council, the most important business relating to the colonies was transacted before it. The acts of trade, in which the principles of the system were laid down, were passed in 1660, 1663, 1673 and 1696. They expanded and systematized the principles of mercantilism as they had long been accepted, and as in some particulars they had already been applied to the Virginia tobacco trade. The import and export trade of the colonies was required to be carried on in English and colonial built ships, manned and commanded by Englishmen. The policy of the staple was applied to the trade of the colonies by the enumeration of their chief products which could not be raised in England and the requirement that such of these as were exported should be brought to England and pay duties there, and that thence the supplies not needed for the English market should be sent to foreign countries. The same policy was applied to all colonial imports by the requirement that they should pass through English ports. In order to prevent intercolonial traffic in enumerated commodities, which might lead to smuggling, the act of 1673 provided for the levy of an export duty on them in the colonies in cases where a bond was not given to land them in the realm. In the 18th century severe i-estrictive measures were passed to prevent the growth of manufactures, especially of wool, hats and iron, in the colonies; but these acts proved mostly a dead letter, be- cause the colonies had not reached the stage where such industries could be developed on any scale. Certain compensations, favourable to the colonies, also appear in the system, e.g. the measures to suppress the raising of tobacco in England and Ireland, in order that the colonists might have the monopoly of that market; the payment of bounties on the importation of naval stores and on the production of indigo by the colonists; the allowance, on the re-exportation of colonial products, of drawbacks of part or all of the duties paid on importation; the admission of colonial imports at lower rates of duty than were charged on the same products from foreign countries. In order to ensure the ,enforcement of these acts elaborate provisions became necessary for the issue of bonds, and this, with the collection of a duty in the colonies, led to the appointment of colonial customs officers who were immediately responsible to the commissioners of the customs and the treasury board in England. With them the governors were ordered to co- operate. Courts of vice-admiralty, with authority to try cases without a jury, were established in the colonies; and just before the close of the seventeenth century they were given jurisdiction over violations of the acts of trade, a power which they did not have in England. Naval officers were very generally provided for by colonial law, who were to co-operate with the customs officers in the entry and clearance of vessels; but in some cases their aim was rather to keep control over trade in colonial hands. It thus appears that the resolve to enforce the policy set forth in the acts of trade resulted in a noteworthy extension of imperial control over the colonies. How far it was successful in the immediate objects sought it is impossible to say. In some of the colonies and at some times the acts were practically nullified. Illegal trading was always carried on, especially in time of war. In such times it was closely allied with privateering and piracy. But in the large it is probable that the acts were effective, and their existence always furnished a standard to which officials were required by their instructions and oaths to conform. By the Act of Union of 1707 Scotland was admitted to the advantages of the English trade system. In 1733, in order to check the development of the French colonies and prevent the importa- tion of their products into English possessions, the Molasses Act was passed. This provided for high ::y specific duties on rum, molasses and sugar, when imported from foreign colonies into those of Great Britain. So high were these rates that they could not be collected, and therefore no serious attempt was made to enforce the act.
33.
Returning again to the 17th century, in order to trace in other connexions the notable advance which was then made in colonial administration, we are to note that the conquest of New Netherland by the British in 1664 was an event of great importance. Taken in connexion with the settlement of the Carolinas, it completed the hold which the English had upon the North American coast and gave them for
the first time an extent of territory which could be profitably
developed. >><< The occupation of New Netherland was effected by a royal commission, which was also empowered to hear complaints and report a plan for the settlement of disputes in New England. Precedents for such a commission existed in the past, and a little more than ten years later a similar body, accompanied by a military force, was sent to Virginia to adjust matters at the close of Bacon's rebellion. But the commission of 1664 was the most noteworthy example of its kind. Yet, though it succeeded at New Amsterdam and in the southern colonies of New England, it failed at Boston. Massachusetts would not admit its right to hear appeals. It did not succeed in wresting from Massachusetts the territory of New Hampshire and Maine, which the heirs of Gorges and Mason claimed.
34.
In 1676 Edward Randolph was sent as a special agent to Massachusetts, to require it to send agents to England. He returned to England the sworn enemy of that colony and continued to be its tireless prosecutor. A series of negotiations ensued which lasted for almost a decade, and ended in the revocation of the Massachusetts charter by a degree in chancery, 1684. New Hampshire had already been organized as a royal province. Government under the charters of Rhode Island and Connecticut was soon after suspended. All New England was then organized as a dominion or vice-royalty under Sir Edmund Andros. Assemblies were everywhere abolished and government was left wholly in the hands of the executive. New York-also without an assembly-and New Jersey were Dom/n/onof soon after incorporated with the Dominion of New Ne W England, its boundary being extended to the England Delaware river (see NEW ENGLAND). After Bacon's rebellion in 1676 the lines of executive control were strengthened in Virginia, but the Assembly con- tinued active. These rapid changes involved the downfall of the former system of chartered colonies and the sub- stitution of royal provinces in their place. The effect of this was to introduce into the colonies a large number of officials of royal appointment-the governors, members of the council, judges, secretaries, surveyors-general, receivers-general and attorneys-general. The entire executive and judiciary in a royal province was appointed directly or indirectly by the king. Its members held under commissions subject to the king's pleasure and were controlled by his
instructions. The exclusiveness of the chartered jurisdictions no
longer obtained, but the Crown through its officials was brought into direct relations with the body of the colonists. Government could now be carried on under relations analogous to those between Crown and people in England.
35.
By the abolition of assemblies and the union of colonies on a large scale James 11. did violence to the strongest feelings and traditions of the colonists. The New Englanders not only viewed the levy of taxes by prerogative with the utmost aversion, but they feared a general unsettlement of land titles the destruction of much that was valuable in their system of town government, and the introduction of Anglican worship among them. They shared also in the fear, which was wide- spread among the colonists, that the Crown intended by an alliance with the French and Indians to force Roman Catholicism upon them. Therefore the fall of the Stuart government in England was the signal for an uprising at Boston (April 1689) followed by a less successful one at New York. Thc Dominion of New England at once collapsed and the old colonq governments were generally restored. A revolt against thc Catholic proprietor in Maryland resulted in the suspensior of his powers of government and the organization of Mary land as a royal province. William 111. granted a new chartei to h.lassachusetts (1691) in which full provision was made fol an assembly, but also for a governor and secretary of roya appointment. Rhode Island and Connecticut were allowec Colonla/ to remain under their corporate charters. Nev Qeowisa- York and New Hampshire were organized as roya ihn. provinces with assemblies. Proprietary governmen) struggled back into existence in New Jersey. In Pennsylvani: the governmental powers of the proprietor were suspended fo two years (1692-1694), because of his neglect of provision for defence; then they were restored and Pennsylvania continued under proprietary government until the War of Independence.
36.
The transition from the system of chartered colonies to that of royal provinces was thus begun and well advanced towards completion. But it was a gradual process, and the later stages of it were not reached until the second decade of the 18th century. South Carolina became provisionally a royal province in 1719, and a parallel change was completed in North Carolina 3. decade later. Georgia received a royal government in 1752. But in 1715 Maryland was permitted to resume its proprietary form. After the Revolution of 1689 the change to royal govern- ments did not involve in any case the abolition of colonial assemblies. Henceforward the Crown had a fully equipped executive in every royal province, and for the maintenance of its rights could depend upon its efforts and the influence which it was able to exert upon the assemblies. The governors exercised the royal rights of calling, proroguing and dissolving the assemblies; they assisted in initiating legislation and exercised the right of veto. All bills passed by the assemblies were required to be submitted to the king in council, for acceptance or disallowance. The upper houses of the legislature were the councils of the provinces. These were small bodies and consisted, in every case except Massachusetts, of royal ap- pointees. Their support was in most cases given to the gover- nors, and by that means they were greatly assisted in resisting the encroachments of the lower houses of assembly, which were elected by the freeholders. But, as a rule, the Crown made no provision for the salaries of its governors and other officials, and left them largely dependent for support on appropriations by the assemblies. In very many cases the withholding of salaries was successfully resorted to by the assemblies as a means of thwarting the executive or forcing it into submission. Under this system of balanced forces, analogous in general to that which was reached after the Revolution in England, the colonies entered upon the long period of the French wars.
C.-The Struggle with the French, 1690-1760.
37.
Early French discoveries and colonization in North America were confined chiefly to the valley and gulf of the St Lawrence. These led, in the early 17th century, to the establishment of the province of Canada. By 1610 the French had possessed themselves of the valley of the lower St Lawrence, and the relations with the Indian tribes were being determined. During the next fifty years Canada grew slowly into an auto- cratically governed province, in which a mild form of feudalism existed and in which the Catholic Church was so strong as to contest supremacy at times with the civil power. The fur trade became from the first a most important industry in the province. The Jesuits and other priestly orders undertook missionary work on a large scale among the natives. The fur trader and the missionary soon extended French influence through the region of the Great Lakes and involved the province in inti- mate relations with the Indian tribes, and that throughout a large area of country. Between the Iroquois and the French wars were almost continuous, but with the other Indian tribes the French were in general on friendly terms. The Iroquois, on the other hand, maintained friendly relations with the Dutch and afterwards with the English. This deeply affected relations between the English and the French, as well as the entire development of the province of New York.
38.
Exploration was a most important incident of both the fur trade and the missionary enterprises of the French. Between 1670 and 1690 their work culminated in the great exploring activity of Marquette, Joliet and La Salle. The Ohio and Missis- sippi rivers were discovered and their courses were mainly cr wholly traced. Explorers also penetrated far into the regions beyond the Mississippi. Posts were established at various points along the Great Lakes. During the first two decades of the 18th century the French also Bxma,bn. established themselves on the Gulf of Mexico, Mobile being founded in 1702 and New Orleans in 1718. >><< Quebec and the Gulf ports were then connected by a series of forts which, though few and weak, sufficed for communication and for the establishment of a claim to the Mississippi Valley. They were Niagara and Detroit, commanding the approaches to lakes Erie and Huron; Fort Miami, on the Maumee river; Fort St Joseph, at the southern end of Lake Michigan; Vin- cennes and French Fort, on the Wabasb; Fort Chartres, on the Mississippi opposite St Louis; Michillimackinac and Ste Marie, which guarded the upper lakes.
French zeal and enterprise had thus seized upon the heart of the
continent, and was prepared to oppose any westward movement which the English might in the future attempt. It seemed possible that English settlements might be confined to the coast, for they expanded slowly and no genius for exploratibn or sympathy with Indian life was shown. The tendency of British commer- cial policy was likewise to confine them there, for in no other way did it seem possible to restrict the trade of the colonists to British markets. The Indian alliances of the English were also far less extensive than those of the French. The provinces of South Carolina and Georgia had conflicts with the Spanish on the Florida frontier, and in these the Indian tribes of the south were also involved. But these rivalries were slight and local in character, when compared with the struggle for supre- macy which was preparing between the French and English.
39.
The conflict with the French was precipitated by events in Europe. It was the English Revolution of ~689 that opened the great conflict between France and Engiand. The question of Protestantism versus Catholicism was involved, but at bottom the struggle was one for the balance of power among European states. Rival claims between the two powers in America, Africa and Asia existed at the beginning of the conflict, or oriqinated and were intensified as it progressed. Questions of commercial and naval supremacy world-wide in extent were involved, and the colonial possessions of the two states were necessarily drawn into the struggle. In America it involved four intercolonial wars, which were closed respectively by the treaties of Ryswick (1697)~ Utrecht(171g), Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), and Paris (1763). Between the second and third wars intervened thirty years of peace, the early period of Hanoverian and Whig ascendancy in England, the so-called Walpole era. On the American continent during the first two wars the struggle was confined to the northern frontier, and consisted of devastat- ing raids by the French and Indians, which in turn provoked retaliatory efforts on the part of the English. These took the form in part of attacks on Acadia and of unsuccessful efforts tc conquer Canada by means of joint expeditions by sea and land. The favourite land route was that from New York by way of Lake Champlain to Montreal, while the expeditions by sea were forced to make the long and perilous voyage round Nova Scotia and through the Gulf and River St Lawrence to Quebec. In 1690, and again in I 71 I, an enterprise of this kind was actually undertaken. Acadia, " with its ancient limits, " and the claim of France to Newfoundland and the Hudson Bay territory were, however, ceded to England by the treaty of Utrecht.
40.
As the great world-conflict progressed the relative importance of the colonial and maritime issues which were in. wars volved increased. The first two wars had theil between origin primarily in European questions. The thirc British sad war had its beginning in the Spanish West Indies French In and clearly revealed the existence of the Bourbor Amerka. Family Compact, which bound France and Spair together in active alliance. On the American continent its most striking event was the capture, in 1745, of Louisburg a stronghold which the French had recently fortified or Cape Breton for the purpose of defending its interests ir the Gulf of St Lawrence. This victory was secured largelj by the efforts of the New England colonists. In the following year another plan for the conquest of Canada was thwarter by the necessities of war in Europe. At the close of thc war Louisburg, too, was restored to the French. After thir fashion did the world-struggle react upon the special interests of the English in North America, and perplex and irritate the :olonists. In the fourth intercolonial war (1754-63) the struggle 3etween the two nationalities in North America was decided. Events which immediately preceded this war-the occupation ~f the Ohio Valley and the building of Fort Duquesne-clearly -evealed an intention on the part of the French to exclude the English from the Mississippi Valley and confine them to the Atlantic slope. A persistent effort was also made to recover Acadia. The western, as well as the northern, frontier was not .hreatened, and the war which followed affected all the colonies. Great Britain sent over a succession of commanders-in-chief. Great improvement was made upon the crude efforts at joint zolonial action which had characterized the earlier wars. To as :reat a degree did the Albany Congress of 1754 (see ALBANY, NEW YORK) surpass in importance the meetings of governors and military officers which had occasionally been held in previous times,
though its plan of colonial union failed to meet the xpproval both
of the colonists and of the government of Great Britain. The campaigns of this war were all upon a compara- tively large scale. Campaigns were carried on not merely along the line of Lake Champlain and in Acadia, but against Fort Duquesne (see PITTSBURG, PENN.), Oswego, and Fort Frontenac, Louisburg, and Quebec (q.v.) itself. The weak Spanish power was overthrown in Florida and expeditions were sent against the southern Indians. In all quarters, and especially after Pitt became secretary of state, the British assumed the offensive. The navy of Great Britain, as well as its army, was called into action on a much larger scale in America than ever before. The result was the conquest by the British of Canada, and with it of all North America east of the Mississippi river; the French claim to territory west of this river was ceded to Spain in 1762.
41.
The wars with the French brought the problem of colonial defence among the English into greater prominence than ever before, and added it to the other questions which had been of practical moment from the first. Against the Indians the colonists in the 17th century had provided for their own defence. Chiefly with this object in view, each colony had developed a militia system, modelled in general after that of England. But such a force was not fitted for long campaigns or large operations. It was comparatively undisciplined; both officers and men were inexperienced and destitute of proper habits of command, as well as those of subordination; the commissariat was poor or totally lacking, and the men were able to remain away from their homes for only brief periods. The colonists possessed no navy, and for coast defence only a few rude forts. So poor were means of communication and so isolated were the colonies from one another, that co-operation in joint expeditions was very difficult. Equally difficult was it to secure proportional contributions of money from the colonies. Early in the French wars the British government prescribed quotas both of men and money to be raised by the colonies, but little attention was paid to these except by the colonies which were in immediate peril. Because of the limited amount of available money and the modest resources of the colonists heavy taxation was impossible, and the financing of the wars was a matter of great difficulty. The assemblies resorted to the issue of bills of credit, to which they gave the legal tender quality, and for the redemption of which in nearly all cases they made inadequate provision. The paper depreciated and in some colonies became worthless. Great confusion resulted, involving loss to all, and among the sufferers were British
merchants. Strained relations were produced between the assemblies
and the colonial executive, because the latter, acting under royal instructions, persisted in vetoing bills for additional issues of currency. For this reason, in addition to others, the assemblies withheld the salaries of governors and other oficials, and in this way sought to coerce the executives into submission. In some colonies the Assembly secured the right of electing the treasurer, and in most of them appropriations were made specific. Thus by skilfully utilizing their control over the purse, and that during a long period of war, the colonial assemblies were able materially to limit the authority of the executives and to establish not a few privileges for >><< themselves and their constituents. h was in such ways as these that the constitutions of the provinces became developed and liberalized during the French wars. Many a precedent was then established which was utilized in the later struggle with the mother country. The home government on its part also became convinced that requisitions were altogether inadequate as a method of procuring revenue for general purposes.
42.
The quality of the rank and file of the Canadian militia was not essentially different from that of the British colonies. But the Canadian government was autocratic. The power of the French was also concentrated in a single large province, and not distributed among thirteen or more colonies. These conditions greatly promoted military efficiency. When taken in connexion with their Indian alliances, they enabled the French to take the offensive in the earlier wars much oftener than did the English, and with much greater effect. The government at Quebec was not subject to the limitations of quotas and requisitions. There were no assemblies to thwart its will. The English frontier was also more accessible and more exposed than was the lower part of the valley of the St Lawrence. Quebec was in every sense a citadel to which additional security was given during a large part of every year by the intense cold of the Canadian winter. But so superior were the training and enterprise of the French coureur de bois that, with his Indian allies, he was far better able than the English farmer or artisan to penetrate the wilderness, whether in winter or in summer, and massacre the exposed dwellers on the frontier. It was this class which gave the French the superiority in the long succession of raids by which the English frontier was laid waste.
43.
Though the French by their skill and boldness achieved a remarkable success, their defects and weaknesses were equally evident. The flow of population from France to America was never great, and even it was diminished by the exclusion of Huguenots. The natural growth of population within New France was not rapid. The result was that the French colonists did not become sufficiently numerous to maintain the interests to which their vast claims and possessions gave rise. The disparity between their numbers and those of the British colonists - became greater with every generation. At the opening of the last intercolonial war the ~ r o ~ o r t i o n of English to French . . colonists was approximately 15 to I. New York alone had about the same population as that of all the French colonies on the North American continent combined. The resources of the British exceeded those of the French colonists to a corresponding degree. Had the decision of the questions at issue depended upon population and wealth alone, the issue could not long have remained doubtful. But the tendencies arising from these fundamental conditions were to such an extent offset by other circumstances, already alluded to, that the result of the struggle was for a long time uncertain. Had it been confined to the forces of the colonies alone, it would perhaps never have been decided. The English could have defended the territory which they occupied; so could the French. Moreover, with the French and English thus facing one another, it would have been impossible for the latter to have declared their independence. The French would never have desired to do this. Therefore, the two peoples must apparently have remained in the condition of colonists for an indefinite period. But the motherlands were to be the decisive factors in the problem, which thus depended to an extent on complications which existed in Europe or even on remoter seas and continents. When the climax of the struggle was reached the result might have been different if France at the time had not been so deeply involved in the politics of central Europe.
44.
Of the first- importance in reaching a decision were the fleets and armies of Great Britain and France, or those parts of them which were available for use on the continent of North America. During the larger part of the period under review the French neglected their fleet, while the English steadily advanced toward naval and commercial supremacy. But the first conspicuous service on the northern coasts was that which was rendered by Commodore Peter Warren and his squadron at the capture of Louisburg in 1745. In the next year a large French fleet was despatched to North America, but it accomplished nothing. In the last intercolonial war the operations before Louisburg in 1758 and at Quebec (q.v.) in 1759 decisively proved the superiority of the British navy. The colonies also, in the later stages of the struggle, contributed loyally toward the result. France failed to make her natural military superiority effective in North America, and therefore her power on that continent had to yield before the combined attacks of Great Britain and her colonies by land and sea.
D.-The Colonial Revolt, 1763-1776.
45.
The Treaty of Paris (1763), by which the period of colonial wars - but not the struggle between England and France - was concluded, added vast stretches of territory to the ~,ltl,h dominions of Great Britain in North America. The Acquisitions Floridas, Canada and Louisiana as far west as the OfTerrH0V* Mississippi river now came into the possession of the English. Of the islands which were occupied, the two most important- Guadaloupe and Martinique-were restored to the French. The retention of Canada in preference to these involved an important change in the nature and objects of British colonization. Hitherto tropical colonies had been preferred to those in northern climes. The occasion of this had been the view that, as England was not over-populated, colonies were not needed as " homes for a surplus population." Instead, they were estimated in proportion to their commercial value. The ideal was a self-sufficing commercial empire. The supporters of this view now argued that the islands which had been conquered from the French were more valuable than Canada and should be retained in preference to the northerncontinental territories, which had yet produced nothing for export except furs. But the government did not hesitate. Following the lead of Pitt, it was now bent upon continental expansion. Canada and the West were retained and the most important French islands were given back. The development of modern industry-the so-called industrial revolution-had already begun in Great Britain. Its effect was vastly to increase the population of the British Isles and to necessitate an overflow into the unoccupied regions of the globe. Colonies therefore began to be regarded from this point of view, and the retention of Canada opened the way for the change. Henceforth, astime progressed, colonies were to be valued as homes for a surplus population quite as much as sources of raw materials and food supplies. The retention of Canada and the West also coincided exactly with the desires of the continental colonies. The chief gains of the war went therefore to them and not to the island colonies. They now possessed a continental donlain which was adequate to their need for expansion, and their long-cherished desire to be rid of the French was gratified. Though, as expansion progressed, conflicts with the Indian tribes of the interior, and that on a large scale, were to be expected, the conquest of the French removed the sense of dependence on Great Britain for military aid which the northern colonies in particular had previously felt.
46.
In consequence of the policy thus adopted, largely increased burdens were devolved on the imperial government, while the conquest and the events which led to it strengthened imperialist sentiment and ambi- colonial tions. The course of action which was at first h i i c r o f favoured by leading officials, both in England and the colonies, was a more systematic adminis- Stretlgthentration of Indian affairs, the employment of bgof sufficient regular troops under the commander-in- ~?'~~.' chief to defend the newly acquired territory, the maintenance of posts with English settlers in the interior on a scale sufficient to prevent the French or Spanish from securing the trade of the region. Improved methods of administration were urged through the press by Thomas Pownall, Henry McCulloh, Francis Bernard and Dr John Campbell. French methods were praised and >><< the shortcomings of the surviving chartered colonies were again emphasized. This all required additional revenue, as well as administrative vigour, and that at a time when Great Britain was specially burdened with debt and when several of the colonies had recently incurred heavy expenditures. The large acquisitions of territory also necessitated some changes in the acts of trade. The necessity for their more vigorous enforcement was revealed by the existence of a large contraband trade between the colonists and the enemy during the later years of the war and also of a considerable illegal trade with Europe. These conditions, together with the conviction that, as the continental colonies had reaped the chief advantages of the war, some iavour should be extended to the islands, led to the passage of the Sugar Act by the Grenville ministry in 1764. It also caused a resort to writs of assistance in two of the colonies, and finally the legalization of them in all the colonies by act of parliament (1767). The aid of the navy was directly invoked in the enforcement of the trade laws, and the activity of the customs officials and of the admiralty courts in the colonies was increased. Garrisons of regular troops-numbering several thousandwith a commander-in-chief were now present in the colonies in time of peace, and their aid might possibly be invoked by the civil power to suppress disorder. The Sugar Act itself was a trade and revenue act combined, and the fact was expressed in the preamble of the measure. It was intended directly to affect the traffic between the northern colonies and the foreign West Indies in lumber and food-stuffs, molasses and rum. The duty on foreign molasses, for which provision had been made in the Molasses Act of 1733, was halved; but now it was proposed really to collect this duty. A cry was immediately raised in New England that, if the duty was collected, the manufacture of rum--of which molasses was the staple materialwould be lessened or wholly prevented and a most important industry sacrificed. The fisheries would incidentally suffer. The supply of coin, with which colonial balances were paid in England, they also said, would be lessened. Another act of parliament, passed about this time, prohibited the bestowment of the legal tender quality on colonial bills of credit. Though parliament regarded this act as a necessary remedy for the excesses of which many of the colonies had been guilty in the issue of paper money, it was generally regarded in America as a blow at a necessary system of credit. In spite, however, of the opposition and criticism which it provoked in the northern colonies, it is probable that the Sugar Act could have been permanently enforced. The Act of Trade of 1673 and the Molasses Act-though the latter was not fully executed-were two early instances of the exercise by parliament of the right to tax the colonies. Had the Sugar Act been enforced, a clear and decisive precedent in favour of this right would have been tstablished. In view of the general situation, that was probably as far as the British government should have gope at that ime. But it immediately committed itself to another and Gill more significant measure, and the two acts combined causec an outburst of protest and resistance from the colonists.
47.
Repeatedly in earlier years the imposition of a stam~ duty upon the colonies had been suggested. Archibald Cum mings, William Keith, ex-governor of Pennsylvania, anc Governor George Clinton cf New York had prominently urge( this policy. With the outbreak of the fourth intercolonia war comprehensive plans of parliamentary taxation werc repeatedly proposed. The cost of the regular troops whicl must be stationed in America was estimated at about &oo,oa annually. The Sugar Act was expected to yield about £45,oo( a year. It was thought that the colonies should raise abou Lroo,ooo more as their reasonable share of the cost. Georg~ Grenville resolved to secure this by means of a stamp duty This would fall upon the island colonies equally with those o the continent, though it would be expended chiefly for the en larged military force on the mainland. Though its simplicit! and ease of collection recommended it, the Stamp Act was ; purely fiscal measure, and its character was not concealed by an: features which allied it to the earlier acts for the regulation o rade. It involved an extension of the British system of stamp uties to the colonies, and was intended to draw revenue directly -om many lines of their activity. It was passed by parliament 1 1765, almost without debate and with scarcely a thought that would be resisted. It provided for the appointment of fficials to distribute the stamped papers in the colonies and ~rther extended the power of the admiralty courts by iving them jurisdiction over violations of this act. The
- gal theory upon which the act was based was that of
he unqualified sovereignty of parliament as the represenative body for the whole empire, and that its authority, if it hose to use it, was as effective for purposes of taxation as for he regulation of trade or other objects of legislation. But ever before, during the century and a half of olonial history, had the taxing power been so ~nqualifiedly exercised or in such trenchant force as by this tatute. It followed close on the heels of the Sugar Act, which tself had aroused much hostile criticism. The two measures lso came at a time when the consciousness of strength among he colonists had been increased by the defeat and expulsion
- f the French. Moreover, at the time when the policy was
nitiated, George 111. had undertaken to crush the Whig party a d to revive the latent prerogatives of his office. This reulted in the formation of a series of coalition ministries. Vacilation and uncertainty were thus introduced into the colonial ~olicy of the government. The royal policy also brought into he public service in England and kept there an unusually large croup of inferior men who persistently blundered in the treatnent of colonial questions. It was only with the accession of he North ministry, in 1770, that permanence and a certain
- onsistency were secured. But, in the view of the colonists, the
xestige of the government had by that time been seriously owered, and the stubborn self-will of the king became the only ~vailable substitute for broad and intelligent statesmanship.
48.
Determined opposition to the Stamp Act was shown in all he colonies, by or before the time (Nov. I) when it was to go nto effect. Tne forms assumed by this opposition were such IS characterized the entire controversy with Great Britain until .he opening of hostilities in 1775. It consisted in the passage ~f resolutions of protest by the lower houses of some of the zolonial legislatures; in the calling of a congress at New York, which was attended by delegates from nine of the colonies; n the activity of mobs organized under the namk of the "Sons of Liberty" in all the large seaports and in some smaller inlsnd towns; and, finally, in a somewhat widely extended movement xgainst the importation of British, or even foreign, goods and in favour of frugality and the encouragement of home manufactures. The newspaper press also sprang into much greater activity khan ever before, and many notable pamphlets were published in defence of the colonial cause. The most important resolutions at the outset were those adopted by the Virginia House of Burgesses and by the House of Representatives of Massachusetts. Through the first-named body the dramatic eloquence of Patrick Henry (q.v.) forced five resolutions. Two others, which threatened resistance and the coercion of any who should venture to uphold the home government, failed to pass, but the whole seven were published broadcast through the colonies. The calling of a general congress was proposed bv the House of Representatives of Massachusetts. Promilent among its members was James Otis, who had already distinguished himself by radical opposition to measures of the government, especially in the case against writs of assistance which was argued before the superior court in 1761. Samuel Adams (q.v.), already a prominent man, was now elected a member of the house from Boston. He almost immediately became its leader, drafting its most important resolutions and papers, and to a large extent directing its policy. With the aid of cthers he was able greatly to increase the activity of the town-meeting in Boston, and in the course of a few years to develop it on occasion into a great popular convention, which could be utilized to overawe the government. Throughout New England the town and its institutions served well the purposes of opposition and >><< facilitated its extension over large areas. The county system of the provinces along the middle and southern coast was not so well adapted to these purposes, and their population was more dispersed. The intense Puritan spirit, with its century and a half of pronounced independence, both in polity and temper, was also lacking outside New England; though on the frontiers of the provinces from Pennsylvania southward was a Scottish-Irish population which exhibited many of the New England characteristics. But the tenant farmers of New York, the German pietist sects of Pennsylvania, the Quakers wherever they had settled, and in general the adherents of the .English Church were inclined toward indifference or, as the controversy progressed, toward positive loyalism. Hence the mixture of nationalities in the Middle Colonies greatly increased the difficulty of rousing that section to concerted action. In Pennsylvania the issues were obscured by a struggle on the part of the western counties to secure equal representation with those of the east. This helped to make loyalists of the Quakers. Special grievances also produced among the frontier settlements of North and South Carolina quite as much dislike of the officials and social leaders of the tide-water region as they could possibly feel toward Crown and parliament. Throughout the struggle New England and Virginia exhibited a unity and decision in action which were not equalled elsewhere.
49.
But to return to the Stamp Act. Before the meeting of the Congress at New York outbreaks of mob violence in Boston had forced the stamp distributor there to Colonial oppos.lon. resign, and had wrecked the house of Thomas Hutchinson, the chief justice. Owing largely to the indecision of the elective council, the government had proved powerless to check the disorder. The resolutions passed by the Congress, as well as its petitions to the home government, gave authoritative form to the claims of the colonial opposition in general, though the body which issued them, like all the congresses which followed until 1776, was extra-legal and, judged by the letter of the law, was revolutionary. In these utterances, as later, the colonists sought to draw their arguments from British precedents and their own history. As they owed allegiance in common with subjects within the realm, so the rights of the two were the same. The two British rights which, it was claimed, were violated by the Stamp Act were the right to trial by jury and the right to be taxed only by an assembly in which they were represented. The former grievance was simply an incident of the latter, and was occasioned by the extension of the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts. The tax was a direct grievance. Therefore, for purposes of legislation like this these bodies denied that parliament was representative of the whole empire (so-called virtual representation), and asserted that it represented only the realm. For purposes of taxation, their assemblies, they affirmed, were the only representative bodies they had known. Therefore, ignoring the earlier and tentative measures by which parliament had actually taxed the colonies, and falling back upon the sweeping declarations of their assemblies, they denied the right of parliament to tax them. They declared that the recent policy of parliament was wholly an innovation and insisted upon a return to the Constitution as it was before 1763. The doctrine of natural right and compact was also resorted to with increasing emphasi: in New England utterances. For purposes of government they had all along acknowledged-and now did so expresslythat parliament bound them; and the inference would have been fair that they were represented in it. But they did not draw this inference, nor did they seek by any scheme of reform to secure representation in the imperial legislature. James Otis was the only colonial leader who ever contemplated the possibility of such a solution. Adams early declared it to be undesirable. The British never proposed it, and therefore it played practically no part in the discussion.
50.
The decisive blows, however, were struck by the mob: in the colonies and by the government itself in England. A: the time for the execution of the Stamp Act approached, mort [HISTORY 1763-1776 3r less violent demonstrations occurred in New York and in many other localities. The stamp distributors were forced to resign. Everywhere in the original continental colonies the use of stamped papers was prevented, except to a slight extent In Georgia. Business requiring the use of stamps was in part suspended, but far more generally it was carried on without their use. Without the aid of the militia, which in no case was mvoked, the colonial executives proved indisposed or powerless to enforce the act and it was effectively nullified. In England the petitions of the colonists produced little effect. There the decisive events were the accession of the Rockingham ministry to power and the clamours of the merchants which were caused by the decline in American trade. What might have happened if Grenville had remained in office, and if the duke of Cumberland had not been suddenly removed by death, it would be impossible to tell. But the serious lack of adjustment between British politics and colonial government is illustrated by the fact that, more than three months before the Stamp Act was to go into effect, the ministry whose measure it was resigned, and a cabinet which was indifferent, if not hostile, to it was installed in office. Preparations were soon made for its repeal. The slight extent to which relations with the colonies had been defin