and obtained [March 16, 1644.] "a free and absolute charter of incorporation of Providence and Rhode Island Plantations, em powering them to rule themselves, by that form they might voJuntarily agree upon." They agreed upon a democratic. Mr. Williams justly claims the honor of having been the first legislator in the world, in its latter ages, who effectually provided for, and established a free, full, and absolute liberty of conscience.. This was the chief cause that united the inhabitants of Rhode Island and those of Providence, and made them one people, and one colony. The foundation principle on which this colony was first settled, was, that "every man who submits peaceably to the civil authority, may peaceably worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, without molestation." When the colony was applied to in 1656 by the four United Colonies" to, join them in taking effectual methods to suppress the quakers,, and prevent their pernicious doctrines being propagated in the country; the assembly returned for answer" We shall strictly. adhere to the foundation principle on which this colony was, first settled."

[July 8, 1663.] King Charles II. granted an ample charter, whereby the colony was made a body corporate and politic, by the name of the Governor and Company of the English colony of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, in New-England, in America. The charter reserved only allegiance to the king without the smallest share of the legislative or executive powers.

[1685.] A writ of quo warranto was issued out against the colony, which was brought June 26, 1686. The assembly determined not to stand suit. After the revolution, they were al lowed by government to resume their charter, no judgment having been given against it.

New-Hampshire and the Main were settled about the same time with the Massachusetts, by different proprietors who had obtain ed patents, and whose views were to enrich themselves, by the fishing trade at sea, and the beaver trade ashore. Religion had little concern in the settlements; but it had some in the plantation of Exeter, on the river Pascataqua; which was began by Mr. Wheelwright (a minister banished from the Massachusetts,. on account of the antinomian dissensions with which the colony was convulsed) and by a number of his adherents. They formed themselves into a body politic. Three other distinct governments were also established on the branches of the said river. These governments, being altogether voluntary, had no security as to their continuance; and the several settlers were too divided in opinion to form any good general plan of permanent administration. Therefore the more considerate among them treated

with the Massachusetts, about taking them under its protection; which fully suited the wishes of that colony, as it afforded the heads of it the opportunity of realizing the construction they had put upon a clause of this charter, by which they extended their line, so as to comprehend both New-Hampshire and the Main. The business terminated in the incorporation of the two colonies, on condition that the inhabitants of each should enjoy equal pris vileges. They continued long united, and were of one heart and mind in civil and religious affairs. When separated by the king's commission for the government of New-Hampshire, the new assembly at their first meeting, in a letter of March 25,1680, to the governor of the Massachusetts, to be communicated to the general court, expressed their full satisfaction in the past connection; grateful sense of the care that had been exercised over them; and of their having been well governed; and an unfeigned desire, that a mutual correspondence between them might be settled.+

... The towns in the province of Main, after a time, fell into a state of confusion. The Massachusetts took that opportunity, for encouraging the disposition which prevailed in many of the inhabitants to submit to their jurisdiction; and, to forward their compliance, granted the people larger privileges than were enjoyed by their own; for they were all freemen upon taking the oath, whereas every where else no one could be made free, unless he was a church member. The province was made a county, by the name of Yorkshire; and the towns sent representatives to the general court at Boston. Though the major part of the inhabitants were brought to consent to this regulation, great opposition was made by some principal persons, who severely reproached the Massachusetts, for using force in order to reduce the province: but the people experienced the benefit of it, and were contented. They continued in union with the Massachusetts until 1665, when a short separation commenced.

You have now a sketch of the settlement of all New-England. It would have been far more concise, had it not been necessary, to correct the mistakes frequently committed, by those who publish on the subject; and to remove the reproaches cast upon the bulk of the inhabitants, on account of their religious profession. Whether there was any material difference between them and the other colonies, in regard to the opinion they entertained of their civil rights, you will be able to observe in the course of your reading. Their judgment in respect to the exercise of parliamentary powers over them, may be further known by what

Hutchinfon's Hiftory. Vol. I. p. 268.

+Ibid. p. 328Randolph

Randolph wrote concerning the Massachusetts, in his narrative and letters, after the restoration; from whence "it seems to have been a general opinion that acts of parliament had no other force than what they derived from acts passed by the general court to establish or confirm them."

[1676.] Randolph declared, "No law is in force or esteem there, but such as are made by the general court; and therefore it is accounted a breach of their privileges, and a betraying the liberties of the commonwealth to urge the observation of the laws of England."-" No oath shall be urged, or required to be taken by any person, but such oath as the general court hath considered, allowed and required."" there is no notice taken of the act of navigation, plantation, or any other laws made in England for the regulation of trade."-"All nations have free liberty to come into their ports, and vend their commodities without any restraint; in this as well as in other things, that government would make the world believe they are a free state, and do act in all matters accordingly."-"The magistrates have continually disobeyed his majesty's command in his royal letters, of 1662, 64, 65, and those of March last; ever reserving to themselves a power to alter, evade and disannul any law or command not agreeing with their humour, or the absolute authority of their government, acknowledging no superior."-" He (the governor) freely declared to me, that the laws made by your majesty and your parliament obligeth them in nothing, but what consists with the interest of the colony; that the legislative power is and abides in them solely.*

The Massachusetts general court, in a letter to their agents, mentioned, that not being represented in parliament, they looked not upon themselves to be impeded in their trade by the acts of trade and navigation, and that these could not be observed by his majesty's subjects in Massachusetts without invading their liberties and properties, until the general court made provision therein by a law, which they did in October. Notwithstanding such law, and a subsequent order, Feb. 15, 1681, "that the act of navigation and the act for the encouragement of trade, be published in Boston by beat of drum, and ail clauses in said acts relating to the plantation be strictly observed." Randolph complained to the commissioners of the customs in England, because of their not being duly observed. When the people found themselves in danger of a quo warranto, they agreed upon such

? *See Hutchinfon's collection of papers, p. 477-506. The Maffschufetta affembly in their answer to Gov. Hutchinfon in 1773, quoted the above pal fages in fuch a manner and to fuch a purpofe, as expreffes their opinion of the truth of what Randolph declared.

emendations

emendations of their acts of trade, as to make them accord in al things with the laws of England. But it was too late. A que warranto was sent them, and brought by Randolph, Nov. 3, 1683; and the next year a writ of scire ficias was prosecuted in the court of chancery against the governor and company, and judgment given, that the charter should be annihilated. Considering the temper of Charles II. it is rather matter of astonishment, that the sentiments and conduct of the Massachusetts government did not provoke him to vacate the charter much sooner. However mortifying, yet it would have been more prudent, to have declined contending with the king, when they knew that they must be vanquished, than virtually to bid him defiance. Such submission might not have saved them from the arbitrary government that followed, but could have been of no disservice, had there not been a subsequent revolution: that event taking place, it would have been extremely beneficial. They might have been allowed to resume their charter, nearly, if not wholly.

Before we proceed to the southward, let it be noted, that in 1672, the English parliament enacted by law, "That if any vessel, which by law may trade in the plantations, shall take on board any enumerated commodities, and a bond shall not have been given with sufficient security to unlade them in England, there shall be rendered to his majesty, for sugars, tobacco, ginger, cocoa nut, indigo, logwood, fustic, cotton wool, the several duties mentioned in the law, to be paid in such places in the plantations, and to such officers as shall be appointed to collect the same and for their better collection, it is enactad, that the whole business shall be managed, and the imposts be levied by officers appointed by the commissioners of the customs in England." This is the first act that imposed customs on the colonies alone, to be regularly collected by colonial revenue officers. But the best affected colonies, Barbadoes, Virginia and Maryland, considering the laws of trade either as inconsistent with their privileges, or destructive to their infant commerce, hesitated to obey, or elude the provisions of the laws; and trafficked without restraint, wherever hope of gain directed their navigat

ors.

Charles II. reprimanded them, and his successors gave standing instructions upon the head, but without effect.*

Governor Nicholson of Maryland wrote to the board of trade, August 16, 1698, "I have observed that a great many people in all these provinces and colonies, especially in those under proprietaries, and the two others under Connecticut and Rhode

*Chalmers's Political Annals, p. 313.

Island,

Island, think that no law of England ought to be in force and binding to them without their own consent; for they foolishly say, they have no representatives sent from themselves to the parliament of England; and they look upon all laws made in England, that put any restraint upon them, to be great hardships." These were the colonial sentiments two years after passing the famous declaratory act of Willian and Mary, which you will find mentioned below. Molyneux's Case of Ireland, asserting openly the same doctrines, was first published in February, 1697-8.

The colony of New-York demands our next attention. The Dutch had settled, and named it the New-Netherlands. Charles II. resolved upon its conquest in 1664, and in March granted to his brother the Duke of York, the region extending from the western banks of Connecticut to the eastern shore of the Delaware, together with Long-Island, conferring on him the civil and military powers of government. Colonel Nichols was sent with four frigates and three hundred soldiers to effect the business. The Dutch governor being unable to make resistance, the NewNetherlands submitted to the English crown, in September, without any other change than of rulers. Few of the Dutch removed; and Nichols instantly entered upon the exercise of his power, as deputy governor of the duke of York, the proprietary.

In July, 1673, the Dutch repossessed themselves of the province, by attacking it suddenly when in a defenceless state. By the peace in February following it was restored. The validity of the grant, while the Dutch were in quiet possession having been questioned, the duke of York thought it prudent to obtain a new one the following June, and Edmund Andros having been appointed governor, the Dutch resigned their authority to him in October. Thus was New-York regained; but the inhabitants were again enslaved to the will of the conqueror; for, being admitted to no share in the legislature, they were subject to laws to which they had never assented.

[1681.] To be relieved from a servitude that had degraded the colony, and now gave dissatisfaction to every one, the council, the court of assizes, and the corporation of New-York, concurred in soliciting the duke, "to permit the people to participate in the legislative power." The duke, though strongly prejudiced against democratic assemblies, yet in expectation that the inhabitants would agree to raise money to discharge the public debts, and to settle such a fund for the future as might be sufficient for the maintenance of the government and garrison, informed the lieutenant-governor, in 1682, that " he intended to establish the same frame of government as the other plantations enjoyed, particularly in the choosing of an assembly.' Mr.