LOCKE'S "GRAND MODEL." 385 effect, and in fact was not applicable to the infant colony.* The following are its chief provisions: acted by an assembly consisting of the governor and council, and twelve delegates chosen by the settlers.* A few years later the settlers were confirmed in the possession of their lands by an act of the proprietaries, and they were given the right also to nominate five councillors in addition to the five named by the proprietaries. At about this same time, George Fox, founder of the Quaker colony. The palatine was to have power to nom sect, visited the settlement at Albemarle, and by his preaching gave a strong impulse to Quakerism in that vicinity. It was now highly desirable that the territory in charge of the proprietaries should have a settled form of government, and the drafting of a code of laws for the territory was intrusted to Shaftesbury. In this task he was aided by the famous John Locke, who in 1669 promulgated his "Grand Model," a scheme of great theoretical, but little practical value. The original copy was revised and a clause inserted against the wishes of Locke, declaring that, while there should be complete religious toleration in the colony, the Church of England was to be the national religion of Carolina, and that it alone was to receive grants for maintenance from the colonial assembly. This revised model was not signed until March, 1670.+ It was never carried into *North Carolina Records, vol. i., pp. 183, 238. For the provisions of these acts see Williamson, History of North Carolina, vol. i., p. 120 et seq. Bancroft, vol. i., p. 419. "The eldest of the eight proprietors was always to be palatine, and at his decease was to be succeeded by the eldest of the seven survivors. This palatine was to sit as president of the palatine's court, of which he and three more of the proprietors made a quorum, and had the management and execution of all the powers in their charter. This palatine's court was to stand in room of the king, and give their assent or dissent to all laws made by the legislature of the inate and appoint the governor, who, after obtaining the royal approbation, became his representative in Carolina. Each of the seven proprietors was to have the privilege of appointing a deputy, to sit as his representative in parliament, and to act agreeably to his instructions. Besides a governor, two other branches, somewhat similar to the old Saxon constitution, were to be established - an upper and lower House of Assembly; which three branches were to be called a parliament, and to constitute the legislature of the country. The parliament was to be chosen every two years. No act of the legislature was to have any force unless ratified in open parliament during the same session, and even then to continue no longer in force than the next biennial parliament, unless in the mean time it be ratified by the hands and seal of the palatine and three proprietors. The upper House was to consist of the seven deputies, seven of the oldest landgraves, and caciques and seven chosen by the Assembly. As in the other provinces, the lower House was to be composed of the representatives from the different counties and towns. Several officers were also to be appointed, such as an admiral, a secretary, a chief justice, a surveyor, a treasurer, a marshal, and register; and besides these each county was to have a sheriff, and four justices of the peace. Three classes of nobility were to be established, called barons, caciques and landgraves; the first *Thwaites says: "The plan was the dream of an aristocrat; it was an attempt to reproduce the thirteenth century in the seventeenth; it was artificial and unwieldy. While the rough backwoods-men could not grasp its intricacies or understand its mediaval terms, they instinctively felt it to be a useless bit of constitutional romancing, and would have little to do with it."— The Colonies, p. 91. to possess twelve, the second twenty-four, and the third forty-eight thousand acres of land, and their possessions were to be unalienable. Military officers were also to be nominated, and all inhabitants from sixteen to sixty years of age, as in the times of feudal government, when summoned by the governor and grand council, were to appear under arms, and in time of war, to take the field. With respect to religion, three terms of communion were fixed; first, to believe that there is a God; secondly, that he is to be worshipped; and thirdly, that it is lawful, and the duty of every man, when called upon by those in authority, to bear witness to the truth, without acknowledging which no man was to be permitted to be a freeman, or to have any estate or habitation in Carolina. But persecution for observing different modes and ways of worship was expressly forbidden, and every man was to be left full liberty of conscience, and might wor ship God in that manner which he in his private judgment thought most conformable to the Divine will and revealed Word. Every freeman of Carolina was declared to possess absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever." * Meanwhile, the colonists themselves were enacting such legislation as necessity required, and were not disposed to favor any act on the part of the proprietaries with which they The first draft of the Fundamental Constitutions is printed in Carroll's Historical Collection of South Carolina, vol. ii., p. 361. They are also printed in Locke's Works, vol. ix., pp. 175–199 (London, 1824); Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, vol. v., pp. 2772-2786; N. C. Col. Recs., vol. i., pp. 187-205. Prof. J. S. Bassett gives a good analysis of them in his The Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina, in Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series xii., no. iii., pp. 97-169. See also E. L. Whitney's article on the Government of the Colony of South Carolina in J. H. U. Studies, series xiii., nos. i.-ii., pp.. 1-121; Doyle, English Colonies in America, vol. i., pp. 334-340; Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, vol. v., p. 291; Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbours, vol. ii., p. 273 et seq.; Osgood, American Colonies, vol. ii., p. 208 et seq.; Hildreth, vol. ii., pp. 29-33; Bancroft, vol. i., p. 412 et seq. could easily dispense. In January, 1670, after a long delay, three vessels were sent out with a body of emigrants, under the command of Captain William Sayle, who had some years previously been employed in The sum preliminary explorations. of £12,000 was spent in providing necessaries for the plantation of the colony.* After touching at Port Royal, where they found traces of the fort erected by the Huguenots, they continued on, finally settling at a spot between two rivers, which they called the Ashley and the Cooper, the family names of Lord Shaftesbury, and here they laid the original foundation of Charleston. Some years afterward they removed to the site of the present city. Before their removal, however, Sayle died, and his filled by place was temporarily filled Joseph West, from March, 1671, until April 29, 1672, when he was succeeded by Sir John Yeamans, governor of Clarendon. The latter now introduced a body of negroes from Barbadoes, subsequently recruited so largely that they finally outnumbered the whites. Slave labor thus became established in Carolina. The proprietaries established a separate government over Albemarle, and in this way the two colonies came to be known as North and South Carolina. *For the schemes of the proprietors see Doyle, vol. i., p. 352 et seq. Rivers, Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the close of the Proprietary Government, pp. 109-111. DISPUTE WITH SPANIARDS; PROPRIETARIES DISCOURAGED. 387 In addition to the trials and distress which attended their first efforts, the colonists here were subjected to intrigues and assaults by the Spaniards at Fort Augustine. The latter sent emissaries among the settlers at Ashley River, in hope of moving them to revolt; they encouraged indentured servants to abandon their masters and fly to the Spanish territory; and they also instilled in the Indian minds the most unfavorable notions concerning the English, with the final result that they took up arms against the English in an effort to exterminate the whole settlement. As was only natural, therefore, discontent and insubordination were the fruits of the trials and hardships to which the colonists had been exposed, and consequently various insurrectionary movements were begun, but these were easily suppressed by the governor. In 1672 the Spanish garrison at Fort Augustine received intelligence of these dissensions, and a party of their military advanced from that fortress as far as the Island of St. Helena, to dislodge or destroy the settlers. But a party of 50 volunteers, under command of Colonel Godfrey, was sent against them, whereupon they evacuated the island and retreated to their fort. At about this same time, and during the governorship of Sir John Yeamans, two ship loads of Dutch emigrants came from New York. The proprietaries encouraged the settlement of this territory by the Dutch, and made very liberal offers of land and other privileges. For several years after their arrival in America, the colonists in Carolina were dependent upon the proprietaries in England, and considerable supplies and provisions and stores were sent to them; but the proprietaries finding that, instead of any indications of repayment with a corresponding profit, they received demands for further supplies, became discouraged with a result so contrary to their sanguine expectations. Mutual dissatisfaction began, and the intercourse between the colonists and the proprietaries became bitter, the colonists being the only ones benefited, as they were led to depend upon themselves, and on their own resources. To the mismanagement of Sir John Yeamans was ascribed much of the responsibility for the failure of the enterprise. In 1674 he was compelled by the state of his health to resign the office of governor, thus according to some authorities relieving the proprietaries of the necessity of dismissing him.* The council thereupon appointed Joseph West as his successor, and for some years thereafter there were continual changes in the office of governor; West being followed in 1682 *Ill-health served at least as a pretext for the change, but undoubtedly Yeamans was removed because of the unsatisfactory manner in which he conducted the office of governor.- Doyle, English Colonies in America, vol. i., pp. 355-356; Hildreth, vol. ii., p. 35. by Joseph Morton, in 1684 by Sir Richard Kyrle, who in the same year was replaced by Robert Quarry. In 1685 West once more became governor, but the same year again gave way to Morton, he in turn being superseded in 1686 by James Colleton, a brother of the proprietor. Despite these changes, however, the population of the colony steadily increased. A large number of emigrants came to the colony from England, and in 1679 Charles II. sent over a band of French Protestants to introduce the cultivation of the grape and olive, and the breeding of silk worms. Some Scotchmen also emigrated, and many of the Huguenots who migrated to America after the Edict of Nantes, came to settle on the banks of the Santee.* In 1674, shortly after the death of Stephens, the governor of Albemarle, or North Carolina, the Assembly elected George Cartwright to the vacant office. As the limits of the settlement were doubtful under the Grand Model, Cartwright, accompanied by the new speaker of the assembly, Thomas Eastchurch, sailed for England to lay the case before the proprietaries. At the same time Thomas Miller, one of the prominent men of the colony, who had been accused of sedition but acquitted, also repaired to London to lay his complaints before the proprietaries; and * Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 432-434; The South in the Building of the Nation, vol. ii., p. 8. as his treatment was disapproved of, he was rewarded for his troubles with the office of secretary to the colony. In November, 1676, Eastchurch was appointed governor, but on his return to the colony, was delayed by his marriage in the West Indies. Miller, however, proceeded without Eastchurch, and immediately upon his arrival in the colony he began to enforce the provisions of the obnoxious Navigation Act, which pressed heavily upon the commerce of the colony.* In December, 1677, public discontent broke out into an insurrection, the leader of which was John Culpepper. Miller was imprisoned and Culpepper appointed governor; a popular assembly was established; £3,000 of the customs revenue was seized and applied to the support of the revolutionary government; and when Eastchurch arrived from the West Indies, the people refused to submit to his authority. Three years later, in 1680, the people, confident in the justice of their cause, sent Culpepper to England to obtain the consent of the proprietaries to the recent changes. Miller, however, in the meantime succeeded in escaping and had gone to England, and charged Culpepper who was about to embark for the colony, with treason for having appropriated the customs revenue without the authority of the king. However, Shaftesbury himself de * North Carolina Records, vol. i., p. 326; Bancroft, vol. i., p. 424. BUCCANEERS; PROPRIETARIES DISPUTE WITH COLONISTS. 389 fended Culpepper against the accusation, basing his plea on the ground that the offence was not toward the crown, but toward the planters. This plea was so successfully urged that Culpepper was acquitted by the jury.* In 1683, as the proprietaries had found it useless to attempt to carry out the "model" by force, they agreed to a compromise with the settlers and appointed a new governor, Seth Sothel. During the next five years Sothel pillaged both the proprietaries and the colonists, until, in 1688, the Assembly deposed him, banished him from the colony for a year, and compelled him to adjure the government for ever. He then went to South Carolina and engaged in the factional disputes there. During the five years from 1680 to 1685, when the changes in the office of governor were so frequent in South Carolina, the far famed buccaneers came to Charleston to purchase provisions, and the people, whether from fear or a culpable interest, not only sold them whatever provisions were necessary, but even *For details of this rebellion see Hawks, History of North Carolina, vol. ii., pp. 463–483; Osgood, American Colonies, vol. ii., pp. 237-241; Hildreth, vol. ii., p. 39 et seq.; Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 424-426; The South in the Building of the Nation, vol. i., pp. 428-429. † Osgood, American Colonies, vol. ii., p. 241; Doyle, English Colonies in America, vol. i., pp. 340-343. Fiske says that he "proved himself one of the dirtiest knaves that ever held office in America," and cites instances of his misrule.Old Virginia, vol. ii., p. 28 et seq. See also Bancroft, vol. i., p. 427. encouraged their visits. This body of freebooters had sprung up in the West Indies where the Spaniards had once destroyed their haunts, but during the war with Spain, they had once again appeared and had obtained commissions to attack the Spanish settlements in America. One of their leaders had even been knighted by Charles II., and another created governor of Jamaica. But when the war with Spain had ended, the English government could no longer countenance them, and expressed a desire to see them most effectually suppressed. Nevertheless, the governor of the colony connived at and even encouraged their visits, and for a long time they successfully engaged in many daring enterprises with impunity.' In addition to the connivance with free-booters, the colonists carried on a border warfare with the Indians, selling those who were captured to planters in the West Indies - - directly contrary to the orders of the proprietaries. This only tended to widen the breach between the colonists and the proprietaries, and as the former were equally as stubborn as the New Englanders in refusing to submit to the collection of revenue and the enforcement of acts of trade, the king, in 1685, ordered that a writ of quo warranto be issued against their charter. In the colony itself there was great difference of opinion re *See S. C. Hughson, The Carolina Pirates and Colonial Commerce in J. H. U. Studies, series xii., nos. v., vi., vii. |