The constitutions for Carolina merit attention as the only continued attempt within the United States to connect political power with hereditary wealth. America was singularly rich in every form of representative government; its political life was so varied that, in modern constitutions, hardly a method of constituting an upper or a popular house has thus far been suggested, of which the character and the operation had not already been tested in the experience of our fathers. In Carolina the disputes of a thousand years were crowded into a generation.

Europe suffered from obsolete but not inoperative laws; no statute of Carolina was to bind beyond a century: Europe suffered from the multiplication of law-books and the perplexities of the law; in Carolina, not a commentary might be written on the constitutions, the statutes, or the common law Europe suffered from the furies of bigotry; Carolina promised not equal rights, but toleration to "Jews, heathens, and other dissenters," to "men of any religion." In other respects, "the interests of the proprietors," the desire of "a government most agreeable to monarchy," and the dread of "a numerous democracy,' are avowed as the motives for forming the fundamental constitutions of Carolina.

The proprietaries, as sovereigns, constituted a close corporation of eight; a number which was never to be diminished or increased. The dignity was hereditary: in default of heirs, the survivors elected a successor. Thus was formed an upper house, self-elected and immortal.

For purposes of settlement, the almost boundless territory was to be divided into counties, each containing four hundred and eighty thousand acres. The creation of two orders of nobility — one landgrave or earl, and two caciques or barons for each county preceded the distribution of lands into five equal parts, of which one remained the inalienable property of the proprietaries, and another formed the inalienable and indivisible estates of the nobility. The remaining three fifths were reserved for what was called the people; and might be held by lords of manors who were not hereditary legislators, but, like the nobility, might exer

cise judicial powers in their baronial courts. The number of the nobility might neither be increased nor diminished; election supplied the places left vacant for want of heirs; for, by an agrarian principle, estates and dignities were not allowed to accumulate.

The instinct of aristocracy dreads the moral power of proprietary cultivators of the soil; their perpetual degradation was enacted. The leet-men, or tenants, holding ten acres of land at a fixed rent, were not only destitute of political franchises, but were adscripts to the soil; "under the jurisdiction of their lord, without appeal;" and it was added, "all the children of leet-men shall be leet-men, and so to all generations."

Grotius had defended slavery as a rightful condition; a few years later, William Penn employed African bondmen; Locke proposed, without compunction, that every freeman of Carolina should have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves.

By the side of the seigniories, baronies, and manors, room was left for freeholders; but no elective franchise could be conferred on a freeholder of less than fifty acres, and no eligibility to the parliament on a freehold of less than five hundred.

All executive power, and, in the last resort, all judiciary power, rested with the proprietaries themselves. The seven subordinate courts had each a proprietary for its chief; and, of the forty-two counsellors of whom they were composed, twenty-eight were appointed by the proprietaries and the nobility. The judiciary was placed beyond the reach of popular influence. To one aristocratic court was intrusted the superintendence of the press; and, as if not only men would submit their minds, but women their tastes, and children their pastimes, to a tribunal, another court had cognizance of "ceremonies and pedigrees, of fashions and sports." Of the fifty who composed the grand council of Carolina, fourteen only represented the commons, and of these the tenure of office was for life.

The constitutions recognised four estates, the proprietaries, the landgraves, the caciques, and the commons. In

the parliament, all the estates assembled in one chamber; apart from the proprietaries, who might appear by deputies, the commons elected four members for every three of the nobility; but large proprietors were alone eligible. An aristocratic majority might, therefore, always be relied upon; but, to prevent danger, three methods, reproduced, in part, in modern monarchical constitutions, were adopted; the proprietaries reserved to themselves a negative on all the proceedings of parliament; no subject could be initiated, except through the grand council; and, in case of a constitutional objection to a law, either of the four estates might interpose a veto. Popular enfranchisement was made an impossibility. Executive, judicial, and legislative power was each beyond the control of the people.

a

A few singularities were in harmony with the great outlines of the system. In trials by jury, the majority decided, — a rule fatal to the oppressed; for, where moral courage is requisite for an acquittal, more than a small minority cannot always be expected. Another clause, which declared it " base and vile thing to plead for money or reward," could not but compel the less educated classes to establish between themselves and the nobility the relation of clients and patrons.

Such were the constitutions devised for Carolina by Shaftesbury and Locke, by the statesman who was the type of the Revolution of 1688, and the sage who was the antagonist of Descartes and William Penn. Several American writers have attempted to exonerate Locke from a share in the work which they condemn; but it harmonizes with the principles of his philosophy and with his theories on government. To his late old age he preserved with care the evidence of his legislative labors; and his admirers esteemed him the superior of the contemporary Quaker king, the rival of the ancient philosophers," to whom the world had "erected statues." The constitutions were signed on the twenty-first of July, 1669; and, five days later, a commission as governor was issued to William Sayle. In a second draft of the constitutions, against the wishes of Locke, a clause was interpolated, declaring that, while

1669.

July.

every religion should be tolerated, the church of England, as the only true and orthodox church, was to be the national religion of Carolina, and was alone to receive public maintenance by grants from the colonial parliament. This revised copy of "the model" was not signed till March, 1670. To a colony of which the majority were likely to be dissenters, the change was vital; it was scarcely noticed in England, where the model became the theme of extravagant applause. "It is without compare," wrote Blome, in 1672. "Empires," added an admirer of Shaftesbury, "will be ambitious of subjection to the noble government which deep wisdom has projected for Carolina ;" and the proprietaries believed they had set their seals to "a sacred and unalterable" instrument, which they decreed should endure “for ever."

As far as depended upon the proprietaries, the government was immediately organized with Monk, Duke of Albemarle, as palatine. But was there room for a palatine and landgraves, for barons and lords of manors, for an admiralty court and a court of heraldry, among the scattered cabins between the Chowan and the ocean?

1667.

Albemarle had been increased by fresh emigrants 1665. from New England, and by a colony of ship-builders from the Bermudas, who lived contentedly with Stevens as chief magistrate, under a very wise and simple form of government. A council of twelve, six named by the proprietaries, and six chosen by the assembly; an assembly, composed of the governor, the council, and twelve delegates from the freeholders of the incipient settlements, formed a government which enjoyed popular confidence. No interference from abroad was anticipated; for freedom of religion, and security against taxation, except by the colonial legislature, were conceded. The colonists were satisfied; the more so, as their lands were confirmed to them on their own terms.

1668, May 1.

1669.

The authentic record of the legislative history of North Carolina begins with the autumn of 1669, when the legislators of Albemarle, ignorant of the scheme which Locke and Shaftesbury were maturing, framed a few laws which, however open to objection, were suited to the

character, opinions, and manners of the inhabitants, and which therefore endured long after the designs of Locke were abandoned. New settlements invite the adventurer and welcome the needy. The planters of Albemarle gave a five years' security to the emigrant debtor against any cause of action arising out of the country. Marriage was made a civil contract, requiring for its validity nothing more than the consent of parties before a magistrate with witnesses. New settlers were exempted from taxation for a year. The care for peace, or the instinct of monopoly, prohibited strangers from trading with the neighboring Indians. As every adventurer who joined the colony received a bounty in land, frauds were checked by withholding a perfect title, till the emigrant should have resided two years in the colony. The members of this early legislature probably received no compensation; to meet the expenses of the governor and council, a fee of thirty pounds of tobacco was exacted in every lawsuit. Such was the simple legislation of men, who, being destitute of fortune, had roamed in quest of it. The laws were sufficient, were confirmed by the proprietaries, were re-enacted in 1715, and were valid in North Carolina for more than half a century.

1670.

1670 to

1674.

Hardly had these laws been established, when the new constitution was forwarded to Albemarle. Its promulgation did but favor anarchy by invalidating the existing system, which it could not replace. The proprietaries, contrary to stipulations with the colonists, superseded the existing government; and the colonists resolutely rejected the substitute.

1672.

Far different was the welcome with which the people of North Carolina met the first messengers of religion. From the commencement of the settlement, there seems not to have been a minister in the land; there was no public worship but such as burst from the hearts of the people themselves, when natural feeling took the form of words. But man is by nature prone to religious impressions; and when William Edmundson came to visit his Quaker brethren among the groves of Albemarle, “he met with a tender people," delivered his doctrine in the authority