emendations of their acts of trade, as to make them accord in all things with the laws of England. But it was too late. A quo 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 obcy, or elude the provisions of the laws; and trafficked without restraint,, wherever hope of gain directed their navigat 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 Chalmer's Political Annale, 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 Feb ruary, 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. Mr. Dongan was appointed governor in September, and instructed to call an assembly, to consist of a council of ten, and of a house of representatives, chosen by the freeholders, of the number of eighteen members. The assembly was empowered to make laws for the people, agreeable to the general jurisprudence of the state of England, which should be of no force, however, without the ratification of the proprietary. the inhabitants of New-York, after being ruled almost twenty years at the will of the duke's deputies, were first admitted to participate in the legislative power." "Thus [1683.] An assembly was called on governor Dongan's arrival, which passed an act of general naturalization, in order' to give equal privileges to the various kinds of people then inhabiting the province; together with an act "declaring the liberties of the people," as also one "for defraying the requisite charges of government for a limitted time." The legislature was convened once more in August 1684, when it explained the last act. These seem to have been the only assemblies called prior to the revolution. When the duke became king of England, he refused to confirm that grant of privileges to which, as duke, he had agreed. He established a real tyranny, and reduced New-York once more to the deplorable condition of a conquered province. New-Jersey, which was also taken from the Dutch (who were considered as having no right to any of their settlements in these parts of America) was included in the grant to the duke of York. The duke disposed of it to lord Berkely and Sir George Carteret who, being sole proprietors, for the better settlement of it, agreed [1664.] upon certain constitutions of government, so well relished, that the eastern parts were soon considerably peopled. One of the stipulations was, "no qualified person, at any time, shall be any ways molested, punished, disquieted, or called into question, for any difference in opinion or practice in matters of religious concernments, who does not acturally disturb the civil peace of the province; but all and every such person and persons, may, from time to time, and at all times, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their judgments and consciences in matters of religion, they behaving themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using this liberty to licentiousness, nor to the civil injury or outward disturbance of others; any law, statute, or clause contained, or to be contained, usage or custom of the realm of England, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding." The lords proprietors further agreed, "for the * Smith's Hiflory of New-Jersey, p. 513. VOL. I. F better better security of all the inhabitants in the province-That they are not to impose, NOR SUFFER TO BE IMPOSED, any tax, custom, subsidy, tallage, assessment, or any other duty whatsoever, upon any colour or pretence, upon the said province and inhabitants thereof, other than what shall be imposed by the authority and consent of the general assembly." "What can more strongly cxpress the then opinion of Lord Berkely and Sir George Carteret, as to the parliaments having no right to tax the inhabitants of the province, possessed by them as lords proprietors.! [1674.] Lord Berkely sold his moiety of the province to John Fenwick, in trust for Edward Byllinge and his assigns.After which the proprietors, E. Byllinge, William Penn, Garen Lawrie, Nicholas Lucas, and Edmund Warner, of the quaker persuasion, agreed with Sir George Carteret [1676.] upon a division; and that his moiety should be called New East-Jersey; and theirs New West-Jersey. The agreement respecting the not. imposing or suffering to be imposed any tax, &c. was adopted: the other stipulation is worded somewhat differently-"No man, nor number of men upon earth, hath power or authority to rule over men's conscience in religious matters; therefore it is consented, agreed and ordained, that no person or persons whatsoever, within the province, at any time or times hereafter, shall Be any ways, upon any pretence whatsoever, called in question,. or in the least punished or hurt, either in person, estate or privilege, for the sake of his opinion, judgment, faith or worship towards God in matters of religion; but that all and every such person and persons, may from time to time, and at all times, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their judgments, and the exercise of their consciences, in matters of religious worship, throughout all the province." It was also agreed, "that all elections be not determined by the common and confused way of cries and voices; but by putting balls into balloting boxes, to be provided for that purpose, for the prevention of all partiality,. and whereby every man may freely choose according to his own. judgment and honest intention."‡ Soon after, many quakers resorted to West-Jersey from. England, and the country filled apace. But the people early experienced the dreadful effects of arbitrary power. Major Andros the governor of New-York, imposed 10 per cent. on all goods imported at the Hoar-kill,§ and demanded 5 percent. of the *Smith's Hiftory of New-Jersey, P. 517. I ibid. 536. Corrupted by time into Whore-Kill. The name of many rivers, in New York particularly terminate with kill, which means both river and rivulet. settlers settlers at arrival or afterwards, though neither West-Jersey, nor the Hoar-kill, was legally under his jurisdiction. They complained of the hardship from the first, but borc it patiently, till about 1680, when application was made to the duke of York, who referred the matter to the council, where it rested for a considerable time, and then was reported in their favour, and the duty ordered to be discontinued. Among the arguments used by Messrs. William Penn, George Hutchinson and others, chiefly if not all quakers, in the paper presented to the duke's commissioners, were these, "Powers of government are expressly granted, in the cenveyance lord Berkely made us; for that only could have induced us to buy it; and the reason is plain, because to all prudent men, the government of any place is more inviting than the soil: for what is good land without good laws; the better, the worse. And if we could not assume people of an easy and free, and safe government, both with respect to their spiritual and worldly property, that is an uninterrupted liberty of conscience and an inviolable possession of their civil rights and freedoms, by a just and wise government, a mere wilderness would be no encouragement; for it were a madness to leave a free, good and improved country, to plant in a wilderness, and there adventure many thousands of pounds, to give an absolute title to another person to tax us at will and pleasure." Natural right and human prudence oppose such doc- trine all the world over, as says, "that people free by law, under their prince at home, are at his mercy in the plantations abroad." The King's grant to the duke of York, is plainly restrictive to the laws and government of England. Now, we humbly conceive, it is made a fundamental in our constitution and government, that the king of England cannot justly take his subjects goods without their consent: this needs no more to be proved than a principal; 'tis jus indigene, and home-bore right, declared to be law by divers statutes; as in the great charter, ch. 29 and 34. Ed. III. ch. 2; again 25 Ed. ch. 7.* To give up the power of making laws is to change the government, to sell or rather resign ourselves to the will of another; and that for nothing; for we buy nothing of the duke, if not the right of an undisturbed colonizing, with no diminution, but expectation of some increase of those freedoms and privileges enjoyed in our own country. We humbly say, that we have not lost any part of our liberty, by leaving our country; but we transplant to a place with express limitation to erect no policy contrary to the *The manufcript copy contains a number of authorities from Bracton, Fortefque, the petition of right, &c. See Smith, p. 129, the note. established. |