網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

nists. The introduction of it, therefore, was resisted by the people, as much as it could be; and indeed, in some respects, it was found impracticable.1 Public dissatisfaction daily increased; and after a few years' experience of its ill arrangements, and its mischievous tendency, the proprietaries, upon the application of the people, (in 1693,) abrogated the constitution, and restored the ancient form of government. Thus perished the labours of Mr. Locke; and thus perished a system, under the administration of which, it has been remarked, the Carolinians had not known one day of real enjoyment, and that introduced evils and disorders, which ended only with the dissolution of the proprietary government. Perhaps in the annals of the world there is not to be found a more wholesome lesson of the utter folly of all efforts to establish forms of governments upon mere theory; and of the dangers of legislation without consulting the habits, manners, feelings, and opinions of the people, upon which they are to operate.

§ 135. After James the Second came to the throne, the same general course was adopted of filing a quo warranto against the proprietaries, as had been successful in respect to other colonies. The proprietaries, with a view to elude the storm, prudently offered to surrender their charter, and thereby gained time. Before any thing definitive took place, the revolution of 1688 occurred, which put an end to the hostile proceedings. In April, 1698, the proprietaries made another system of fundamental constitutions, which embraced many of

1 1 Ramsay's South Car. 39, 43, 88; 1 Howntt's South Car. 45; 1 Chalmers's Annals, 527, 528, 529, 530, 532, 550; Marsh. Colon. ch. 5, 156, 157, 159; 1 Williams's N. Car. 122, 143.

2 1 Chalmers's Annals, 552.

3 1 Chalmers's Annals, 549; 1 Holmes's Annals, 416.

those propounded in the first, and, indeed, was manifestly a mere amendment of them.

§ 136. These constitutions (for experience does not seem to have imparted more wisdom to the proprietaries on this subject) contained the most objectionable features of the system of government, and hereditary nobility of the former constitutions, and shared a common fate. They were never generally assented to by the people of the colony, or by their representatives, as a body of fundamental laws. Hewatt says,1 that none of these systems ever obtained "the force of fundamental and unalterable laws in the colony. What regulations the people found applicable, they adopted at the request of their governors; but observed these on account of their own propriety and necessity, rather than as a system of laws imposed on them by British legislators."2

§ 137. There was at this period a space of three hundred miles between the Southern and Northern settlements of Carolina;3 and though the whole province was owned by the same proprietaries, the legislation of the two great settlements had been hitherto conducted by separate and distinct assemblies, sometimes under the same governor, and sometimes under different governors. The legislatures continued to remain distinct down to the period, when a final surrender of the proprietary charter was made to the crown in 1729.4 The respective territories were de

11 Hewatt's South Carol. 45.

2 Dr. Ramsay treats these successive constitutions as of no authority whatsoever in the province, as a law or rule of government. But in a legal point of view the proposition is open to much doubt. 2 Ramsay's South Carol. 121 to 124.

3 1 Williams's N. Car. 155.

4 Marsh. Colon, ch. 9, p. 246, 247; 1 Hewatt's South Carol. 212, 318.

signated by the name of North Carolina and South Carolina, and the laws of each obtained a like appellation. Cape Fear seems to have been commonly deemed, in the commissions of the governor, the boundary between the two colonies.1

§ 138. By the surrender of the charter, the whole government of the territory was vested in the crown; (it had been in fact exercised by the crown ever since the overthrow of the proprietary government in 1720;) and henceforward it became a royal province; and was governed by commission under a form of government substantially like that established in the other royal provinces. 2 This change of government was very acceptable to the people, and gave a new impulse to their industry and enterprise. At a little later period [1732], for the convenience of the inhabitants, the province was divided; and the divisions were distinguished by the names of North Carolina and South Carolina.3

§ 139. The form of government conferred on Carolina, when it became a royal province, was in substance this. It consisted of a governor and council appointed by the crown, and an assembly chosen by the people, and these three branches constituted the legislature. The governor convened, prorogued, and dissolved the legislature, and had a negative upon the laws, and exercised the executive authority. He possessed also the powers of the court of chancery, of the

1 1 Williams's N. Car. 161, 162; 1 Ramsay's South Carol. 56, &c. 88, 95; 1 Hewatt's South Carol. 212, 318; 1 Holmes's Annals, 523, 525; Marsh. Colon, ch. 9, p. 246.

2 Marsh. Colon, ch. 9, p. 247.

3 Marsh. Colon, ch. 9, p. 247; 1 Holmes's Annals, 544.

4 2 Hewatt's South Car. ch. 7, p. 1 et seq.; 1 Ramsay's South. Car. ch. 4, p. 95.

admiralty, of supreme ordinary, and of appointing magistrates and militia officers. All laws were subject to the royal approbation or dissent; but were in the mean time in full force.

§ 140. On examining the statutes of South Carolina, a close adherence to the general policy of the English laws is apparent. As early as the year 1712, a large body of the English statutes were, by express legislation, adopted as part of its own code; and all English statutes respecting allegiance, all the test and supremacy acts, and all acts declaring the rights and liberties of the subjects, or securing the same, were also declared to be in force in the province. All and every part of the common law, not altered by these acts, or inconsistent with the constitutions, customs, and laws of the province, was also adopted as part of its jurisprudence. An exception was made of ancient abolished tenures, and of ecclesiastical matters inconsistent with the then church establishment in the province. There was also a saving of the liberty of conscience, which was allowed to be enjoyed by the charter from the crown, and the laws of the Province.1 This liberty of conscience did not amount to a right to deny the Trinity. The Church of England had been previously established in the province [in 1704] and all members of the assembly were required to be of that persuasion. Fortunately, Queen Anne annulled these obnoxious laws; and though the Church of England was established, dissenters obtained a toleration, and the law respecting the religious qualification of assembly-men was shortly afterwards repealed.

1 Grimke's South Carolina Laws, (1712,) p. 81, 08, 99, 100.

2 Id. Act of 1703, p. 4.

3 1 Holmes's Annals, 489, 490, 491; 1 Hewatt's South Carol. 166 to

141. The law of descents of intestate real estates, of wills, and of uses, existing in England, thus seem to have acquired a permanent foundation in the colony, and remained undisturbed, until after the period of the American Revolution.1 As in the other colonies, the registration of conveyances of lands was early provided for, in order to suppress fraudulent grants.

§ 142. In respect to North Carolina, there was an early declaration of the legislature [1715] conformably to the charter, that the common law was, and should be in force in the colony. All statute laws for maintaining the royal prerogative and succession to the crown; and all such laws made for the establishment of the church, and laws made for the indulgence to Protestant dissenters; and all laws providing for the privileges of the people, and security of trade; and all laws for the limitation of actions and for preventing vexatious suits, and for preventing immorality and fraud, and confirming inheritances and titles of land, were declared to be in force in the province.2 The policy thus avowed was not departed from down to the period of the American Revolution; and the laws of descents and the registration of conveyances in both the Carolinas was a silent result of their common origin and government.

1 2 Ramsay's South Car. 130.—The descent of estates was not altered until 1791.

2 Iredell's North Car. Laws, 1715, p. 18, 19.

« 上一頁繼續 »