militia in war against the French; and by the absence in Pennsylvania and New Jersey of all militia. Experience had shown that English courts could not be depended upon to annul colonial charters (§§ 148, 152); and so, in 1701, the Board recommended, in a strong paper, that the eight charter and proprietary governments be "reunited" to the crown by act of parliament. A bill to this effect passed two readings, with little opposition; but the hurried departure of King William for a campaign in Ireland forced a timely adjournment of parliament. The following year another bill was being prepared, when the death of the King compelled parliament to dissolve. In the next reign these efforts were renewed. But time had been given for the proprietors in England and the charter governments in America to rally all their influences, public and secret.1 The Whigs in parliament had great respect for charters and for "vested rights"; and the movement came to nothing. 187. The English government then fell back upon the early policy of William III, and attacked colonial grants one by one, as occasion offered. Before 1730, by taking advantage of a legal flaw, a serious disorder, or of the willingness of an embarrassed proprietor to sell, it added New Jersey and North and South Carolina to the list of royal provinces. Out of the last named, Georgia was carved for a proprietary province a little later; but it, too, soon came under a royal government. Down to the Revolution Maryland and Pennsylvania remained proprietary, and Connecticut and Rhode Island remained " corporate" colonies. 188. The common distinction between royal, proprietary, and charter colonies is not of great consequence. Connecticut and Rhode Island did keep their right to elect all branches of their government. Pennsylvania, not classed as a charter colony, possessed, through its grant from Penn, the next freest constitution, in the security of its legislature from interruption (§ 175). Massachusetts, with its charter, had less valuable privileges, and resembled a royal province in all practical respects. But the 1 The report of the Board of Trade is in the Source Book (No. 111). Greene's Provincial America (58-62) gives an excellent account. § 189] VETO OF KING AND GOVERNOR 151 really important thing about the colonial governments was their resemblances. All had representative Assemblies, with no small degree of control over their governors (§ 189) and all had the private rights of Englishmen, — jury trial, free speech, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment, — which were not then found in the colonies of any other country. 1 189. The next step in the new colonial policy was to attempt closer control in the charter and proprietary colonies: (1) to re quire royal approval for the appointment of proprietary gover nors; (2) to place the militia of charter colonies under the command of a neighboring royal governor; (3) to set up appointed admiralty courts, without juries, so as to prevent evasion of the navigation laws; (4) to compel colonial courts to permit appeal to the privy council in England; (5) to enforce a royal veto upon colonial legislation; and (6) to free royal and proprietary governors from dependence upon colonial Assemblies. The last two points require some explanation. (a) In theory, the king always possessed a veto, just as in parliament; but, even in Virginia, so early a royal colony, he rarely exercised it until after Bacon's Rebellion. Thereafter, it was expressly reserved in all colonial grants (as in that to Penn and in the Massachusetts charter of 1691), and the right was emphasized in every commission to a governor of a royal province (cf. Source Book, No. 112). True, a colonial law went into effect pending adverse royal decision; but the veto was no mere form. Scores of important statutes were disallowed, sometimes after they had been in force for years. Fifteen Massachusetts laws of 1692 were vetoed in 1695, and eight statutes of North Carolina as late as 1754. (b) Even in a royal province, the governor often showed little desire to carry out English instructions that conflicted with colonial views. Partly, this was because the governor, living in close touch with the colonists, was likely to see their side of the case; but more commonly it was because his salary depended upon 1 Special report on Connecticut's resistance to Governor Fletcher of New York. See Johnston's Connecticut, and cf. Source Book, No. 111, d, for Fletcher's aggrieved letter. 2 2 For illustrations, cf. Berkeley's Report (Source Book, No. 104). his keeping up a good understanding with the colonial legislature. Every governor, in the words of a colonist, had “two Masters, one who gives him his commission, and one who gives him his Pay." If the Assembly passed a bill distasteful to the home government, the governor could veto it; but the Assembly His Excellinet Toseph Capt isen & Govern in chief in sever her May Province al Shewith That When as by Verone of an an det of Een Coure. upon ansine Quad ther granted to the Govern then being of the Cotoriy of the Majachusetts ony in F-Zagle hij dataru 180 je xuño, a this sum soon after was in Goy" "Endicotte time augmented to 10 and the same 125 yeasty paid by the Publing Frenquser without any question, as a thidy certainly known and thated, for many years sthur Vince ago the late hemble Firmen Bradstreet Effe was orderly chosen to, and frithfully discharred, this hombre post for a long Series, and for the three last years of his Service in this Station, there apprays by his ace which he formerly prefented to this Province (remaining will to doliante 139h, if) that he has not received whine was due to him as will by vertue of the by the act of Council page in one of thej. Po a last year purpose, that Are you" Salary thould be the same as was ssued or formerly ollowed, as also by reason of the haggard wouds.. and multipledy of business in those troublesome a critical times which was apparently more ridinary » cacceding great, and which ye Hombu Peyon has said and laid before the Bovince, to be secomported with more trouble care & expence to him than 7 years before to this than Can Fill a Feftament the Honble Govern Bequeashed the firears te PETITION OF THE HEIRS OF SIMON BRADSTREET, governor of Massachu- might then cut down his salary, or leave it altogether out of the vote of supply, which, according to good English custom, was always the last business of the session. To free the governors from this dependence upon the popular will, the English government tried for many years, in vain, to secure from the Assemblies a standing grant for such salaries. |