Growth of the colony were transferred to America, the local government was discontinued, and remained in effect until the charter was annulled in 1684, which, however, was replaced by a royal charter in 1691 after the expulsion of James II, granting substantially the same rights and privileges, with the exception that the governor was hereafter to be appointed by the Crown instead of elected by the Assembly, as under the previous charter. There is an interesting passage in Mr. Hutchinson's History of the Colony of Massachusets-Bay in which that devoted son of New England and accurate historian traces the origin and growth of representative institutions in the Bay Colony. "The people," he says, "began to grow uneasy, and the number of freemen being greatly multiplied, an alteration of the constitution seems to have been agreed upon or fallen into by a general consent of the towns, for at a general court for elections, in 1634, twenty-four of the principal inhabitants appeared as the representatives of the body of freemen, and before they proceeded to the election of magistrates, the people asserted their right to a greater share in the government than had hitherto been allowed them, and resolved, That none but the general court had power to make and establish laws or to elect and appoint officers, as governor, deputy governor, assistants, treasurer, secretary, captains, lieutenants, ensigns, or any of like moment, or to remove such upon misdemeanor, or to set out the duties and powers of these officers - That none but the general court hath power to raise monies and taxes, and to dispose of lands, viz. to give and confirm proprieties.'" 1 Mr. Hutchinson states that after these resolutions they proceeded to the election of magistrates and that they further determined "That there shall be four general courts held yearly, to be summoned by the governor for the time being, and not to be dissolved without the consent of the major part of the court That it shall be lawful for the freemen of each plantation to chuse two or three before every general court, to confer of and prepare such business as by them shall be thought fit to consider of at the next court, and that such persons, as shall be hereafter so deputed by the freemen of the several plantations to deal in their behalf in the affairs of the commonwealth, shall have the full power and voices of all the said freemen derived to them for the making and establishing of laws, granting of lands, &c. and to deal in all other affairs of the commonwealth, wherein the freemen have to do, the matter of election of magistrates and other officers only excepted, wherein every freeman is to give his own voice." Mr. Hutchinson vouchsafes a further reason for this action on the part of the early settlers, saying: "The freemen were so increased, that it was impracticable to debate and determine matters in a body, it was besides unsafe, on account of the Indians, and prejudicial to their private affairs, to be so long absent from their families and business, 1 Hutchinson, History of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay, pp. 35-6. so that this representative body was a thing of necessity, but no provision had been made for it in their charter." Anticipating Sir John Seeley's happy remark that it is in the nature of Englishmen to assemble, he comments on this incident, rightly connecting it with that of Virginia, for from the action of these two colonies representative government in the western world is to be dated: "Thus they settled the legislative body which, except an alteration of the number of general courts which were soon reduced to two only in a year, and other not very material circumstances, continued the same as long as the charter lasted. This I suppose was the second house of representatives in any of the colonies. There was, as has been observed, no express provision for it in the charter, they supposed the natural rights of Englishmen reserved to them, implied it. In Virginia, a house of burgesses met first in May 1620. The government in every colony like that of the colonies of old Rome may be considered as the effigies parva of the mother State." 1 As in the case of Virginia for a period the two houses sat together, so in Massachusetts they were together for ten years, when a separation took place for the reasons and with the results stated by Mr. Hutchinson: "About this time there was another struggle for power between the assistants or magistrates, and the deputies. The latter could not bear their votes should lose their effect by the non-concurrence of the former who were so much fewer in number; but, by the firmness of Mr. Winthrop, the assistants maintained their right at this time, and (March 25, 1644) the deputies, not being able to prevail, moved that the two houses might sit apart, and from that time votes were sent in a parliamentary way from one house to the other, and the consent of both was necessary to an act of the court." 2 Thus, the colony of Virginia, under the charter of a trading company with its governing body in the home country, and the colony of Massachusetts, under the charter of a trading company with its seat of government in the colony, provided the same course of development, the one serving as a model for what may be called the southern colonies, and the other for those which, in comparison, may be called the northern colonies. In each case a charter created a body politic, empowered to make laws for the government of the inhabitants, conforming as far as possible to the laws, customs and institutions of England. In each case a governor, supplied with a council or assistants, was the executive. A legislature in each came into being, sharing with the council the making of laws in common, and in each case separate but nevertheless sharing in the responsibilities of government. In each case the authorization was a written instrument, a charter or a constitution, within. which the actions of the colony were lawful and beyond which their actions, 'Hutchinson, History of the Colony of Massachusets-Bay, 2 Ibid., p. 143. p. 37. Virginia and Massachusetts Compared New Instru- to Charters whether executive, legislative or judicial were unlawful as in excess of the grant.1 We of today should say it was to be expected that the colonies would, when they had broken with the mother country, fashion their future according to their own desires, and that in so doing they would revert to written charters in which the rights of governors and governed were stated in clear and unmistakable terms. This, with the exception of Connecticut and Rhode Island, the thirteen colonies did when they declared themselves to be independent States. This the States did when they confederated for the first time, drafting Articles of Confederation in their Congress, to be binding upon all when ratified by each. This representatives of the States did, assembled in the Federal Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, when they formed a more perfect Union than that of the Confederation, in that charter of the Union and of the States which we call the Constitution, defining the rights of the Union and of the States and of the peoples of the States, with courts of justice to pass upon the acts of each, holding them valid when within the grant, holding them invalid when beyond the grant, just as in colonization days acts in excess of the charter were declared to be null and void. 1 This process is stated in very brief compass by Richard Frothingham in a note to page 18 of his Rise of the Republic of the United States, which is here reproduced: 66 Bancroft (i. 250) remarks, that popular assemblies burst everywhere into life with a consciousness of their importance and an immediate capacity for efficient legislation." These assemblies, in some cases, at first were composed of the whole body of freemen. The dates of the formation of representative assemblies to make laws in the colonies are as follows:Virginia, July 30, 1619.- The governor summoned two burgesses from three cities, three hundreds, three plantations, Argals' gift, and Kiccowtan.- Proceedings in New-York Hist. Soc., Coll. 2d ser. 111, communicated by Bancroft in 1856. The governor, council, and burgesses continued to meet together, Beverly says (Hist. Va. b. iv. 31), till 1680, when "Lord Colepepper, taking advantage of some disputes among them, procured the council to sit apart from the assembly; and so they became two distinct houses, in imitation of the two Houses of Parliament in England,—the Lords and Commons,— and so is the Constitution at this (1705) day." Massachusetts, May 19, 1634.- To the surprise of the magistrates, twenty-five delegates, chosen by the freemen of the towns, of their own motion, appeared and claimed a share in making the laws. The claim was allowed, and their names appear on the records of the day, with the magistrates, as part of the General Court. They sat together for ten years. In 1644, the "Massachusetts Records" say (i. 58), on account "of divers inconveniences," of the magistrates and deputies sitting together, and "accounting it wisdom to follow the laudable practice of other States, who have laid groundworks for government," it was ordered both sitting together - that each should sit apart; and they became co-ordinate and co-equal branches, the assent of both being necessary to make a law. Plymouth had a representative assembly in 1639. The charter of 1692 named twenty-eight persons as counsellors: afterwards they were chosen annually by a joint vote of a new House of Representatives and the old counsellors. Connecticut, Jan. 14, 1639.- An agreement among the towns to be as one public State or commonwealth," provided for a representative assembly, consisting of deputies chosen by the freemen, who, with a governor and council, composed the legislative power. They sat together. The charter of 1662 provided, that the governor, deputy-governor, and twelve magistrates should be chosen at a general election, and deputies should be chosen by the towns. All these officers sat together. In 1698, it was ordered that the governor or deputygovernor and magistrates should be called the upper house, and the deputies the lower house, that they should sit apart, and that no bill become a law without the consent of both.Trumbull's Connecticut, i. 102, 399. Maryland, February, 1639.- An assembly of the body of freemen made provision for a representative assembly (Chalmers' Annals, 213). The composition of this body was pecul iar. Griffith (Maryland, 7) says, that, "upon writs being issued by the governor, delegates elected by the freemen were to sit as burgesses, one or two for each hundred, with the persons especially called by the governor, and such freemen as had not consented to the election of others, or any twelve or more of them, including always the governor and secretary." The burgesses (Chalmers, 219) desired, in 1642, to sit by themselves; and, in 1650 (Griffith, 13), the assembly passed an act dividing themselves into two houses; the governor and secretary and council to be the upper house, and the burgesses the lower house; and all bills assented to by the major part of either to be the laws. Rhode Island, May, 1647.- Provision was made under the patent or charter, granted in 1644 by the Parliamentary Commission, for a representation from the towns, which discussed proposed laws before they were presented to a general assembly.- Arnold's Rhode Island, i. 203. By the charter of 1663, a governor, deputy-governor, and assistants were to be chosen annually at Newport; and deputies were to be chosen by each town. At first, all sat in one room. In 1666, there was an effort to have the deputies sit as a separate house; but the measure was not adopted till 1696.- Arnold, 327, 533. The governor and assistants, or magistrates, were the upper house; the deputies, the lower house. North Carolina, 1667.- Settlers were invited into this colony by the promise of legislative freedom. Williamson, i. 94. Hawks (i. 144) thinks there was an assembly in 1666; but the general assembly, under the charter, consisted of the governor, twelve councilors, and twelve delegates, chosen by the freeholders.- Chalmers, 524. At a later period, while under proprietary rule (Hawks, ii. 147), the general assembly was divided into two houses. New Jersey, 1668.— This proprietary colony was divided at first into East Jersey and West Jersey, which had separate assemblies: the first held in East Jersey was on May 26, 1668, and in West Jersey, Nov. 25, 1681.- Gordon's New Jersey, 44-48. In 1702, the two parts were united, a royal government formed, and a general assembly provided for, consisting of the governor, a council of twelve nominated by the king, and a house of representatives chosen by the freemen of the counties and cities. They sat together. In 1738, the council was made a separate branch; the governor withdrew from it, and no longer was the presiding officer.- Mulford's New Jersey, 335. South Carolina, 1674.- Settlers were promised a share in making the laws.- Ramsay's South Carolina, i. 30. In 1674, the freemen elected representatives, when, Ramsay says, there were (ib. i. 35) “the governor, and upper and lower houses of assembly; and these three branches took the name of parliament." The colony became, in 1720, a royal government; it was settled that the governor and council be appointed by the king, and the representatives be chosen by the people. The whole house was chosen at Charleston, where "there had been often great tumults."- Carroll, ii. 149. About 1716, the colony was divided into parishes; and it was provided that each parish should elect its representatives, “to be balloted for at the several parish churches, or some other convenient place mentioned in the writs, which were to be directed to the church-wardens, and they to make returns of the elected members; and of this act the people were very fond, finding it gave them a greater freedom of election."-Ib. ii. 149. In 1720, when the colony became a royal government, it was provided that the governor and council should be appointed by the king, and the representatives chosen by the people.- Ramsay, i. 95. New Hampshire, March 16, 1680.- By the decision of the crown, New Hampshire was separated from Massachusetts, and a commission constituted a president and council "to govern the province;" and this commission authorized the qualified voters of the four towns to choose an assembly. It consisted of eleven deputies, and sat as a distinct body; the council having a negative on its acts. The king engaged to "continue the privilege of an assembly in the same manner and form, unless he should see cause to alter the same." A Royal Commission, in 1692, provided for a governor and council, and a house of representatives, to be elected by the towns; both meeting separately, and acting as co-ordinate branches. Belknap, i. 139, 145. Pennsylvania, 1682.- In this colony, provision was made for a representative assembly under the Frame of Government of 1682; and also under forms tried in 1683 and 1696. In 1701, the charter agreed upon provided for an annual assembly to consist of four delegates from each county, or a greater number, if the governor and assembly should agree to it. This assembly was to choose a speaker and other officers, "to be judges of the qualifications and elections of their own members, sit upon their own adjournments, appoint committees, prepare bills, impeach criminals, and redress grievances, with all other powers and privileges of assembly, according to the rights of the free-born subjects of England, and the customs in any of the Queen's plantations in America."- Franklin's Works, iii. 155. In this colony (Douglass's Summary, ii. 317), the council had no concern in the legislation otherwise than advising the governor. The legislature had but one branch. Delaware, 1682.-This colony became a dependency on New York, but was purchased by William Penn. The three lower counties of the Delaware, New Castle, Kent, and Sus sex, claimed, under the charter of 1681, a separate assembly, which they obtained, but had the same executive as Pennsylvania. New York, Oct. 17, 1683.- The governor called an assembly, composed of seventeen delegates, who adopted a charter of liberties, apportioned the representatives to the counties, and claimed to be a free assembly.— Dunlap's New York, i. 134. In 1791, the first assembly convened after the Revolution, and consisted of seventeen delegates. The acts of this assembly are the first that were considered valid by the courts of law. Smith's New York, 87. The assembly, down to the Revolution, did not exceed twenty-seven members.- Dunlap's New York, i. 212. The council consisted of twelve, nominated by the crown, as was the governor, and sat by themselves. Georgia, 1754.-The first representative assembly was called by the governor under a form of government matured by the Board of Trade, and authorized by the king. It was composed of nineteen delegates from three districts, and (McCall's Georgia, i, 248) had power similar to other colonial assemblies. |