CHAPTER II.

NATIONAL COLONIAL POLITICS.

1607-1776.

POLITICAL RELATIONS OF THE COLONIES.

While the colonies were separate in their local organizations and managed their internal affairs without molesting one another, they were as one people in their relation to the British nation, whose authority, vested in the king and Parliament, was supreme. In this relation they had interests in common and contended for them with a united zeal.

POLITICAL CLAIMS OF THE COLONISTS.

There was a difference of opinion between the colonists and the crown as to how far Great Britain might legitimately exercise her authority in the colonies. This occasioned much discussion and formed the basis of the political differences between the colonies and the home government. So great was the divergence that it was difficult of reconciliation. The colonists claimed that they were loyal English subjects and willing to defend the person and territory of their sovereign against foreign enemies to the extent of their ability; that by removing to America they lost none of their rights as Englishmen, and that they were entitled to all the privileges secured to every citizen in the Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, foremost among which were trial by jury and the writ of habeas corpus; that the charters which they obtained from the crown were civil compacts and could not be changed, save by mutual consent; that they possessed the right of making their own laws through their representatives freely chosen,

and that the only limitation to colonial legislation was that their enactments should not be antagonistic to the laws of England; that no tax should be imposed upon them but such as they freely voted in their local assemblies to levy and collect; that they possessed the right of ultimate judicial decision in all cases whatever, and that appeal to any English authority was not legal; that the authority of Parliament could not be recognized, since the colonists were not represented in that body; that they could not be bound by laws in the enactment of which they had no voice; that to Parliament was granted the reserved right of general legislation and of imposing duties to regulate commerce, but its right to supervise internal interests was denied.

These positions were not held by every colony at first, but as the aggressions of Parliament increased the sentiments were adopted, and finally advocated by all. On these national issues the colonists who supported popular rights, planted themselves, and, confident of right, maintained their position with an ability and success that have attracted the admiration of the world. Neither did they operate without antagonism at home. The court party combatted their political views and supported the policy and measures of England.

POLICY OF ENGLAND TOWARD THE COLONIES.

The planting of English colonies, though without exception the result of private enterprise, was generally favored by the sovereigns of England. James I., wishing to open a field of enterprise for adventurous men who thronged England after the long war with Spain, which closed in 1604, readily granted, for purposes of colonization and trade, the vast country between Halifax and Cape Fear. Over the colonies, planted in this territory, the king assumed jurisdiction and maintained that they were the property of the crown, and not subject to the legislation of Parliament. After the affairs of Vir

ginia grew into importance, a royal interference with the London company was kept up till the corporation dissolved.

Charles I. did not preserve a uniform course of action toward his subjects in America. He opposed the Virginians who were royalists, endeavored to monopolize the profits of their industry, attempted to deprive them of many rights, and declared that a "chartered incorporation was totally unfit to manage the affairs of a remote colony."

In opposition to this policy, he favored an association of Puritans called the Massachusetts Bay Company, granted them a charter guaranteeing political rights and religious freedom, and assured them that "he would maintain their privileges and supply whatever else might contribute to their comfort and prosperity." With greater liberality, he granted to Lord Baltimore, for the settlement of Maryland, a charter conferring the rights of freemen upon the settlers, exempting them perpetually from royal taxation, and empowering them to make laws with the approbation of a majority. A wish to rid his kingdom of political and religious agitators seemed to have been the object of the king in opening for the Puritans an asylum in the west. When they became permanently established in Massachusetts, and emigrants to their colony left England in great numbers, the king became jealous of their success and influence, and began royal interference to weaken their power and subvert their liberties. In 1633, he opposed emigration of the Puritans, and on two occasions afterward ships bound for New England were prevented from sailing by order of the council. An attempt to deprive Massachusetts of her charter was defeated by difficulties at home, which resulted in the execution of the king.

During the civil war in England, the colonies were not molested. When Parliament assumed the reins of government, it sent a squadron to reduce to obedience the colony of Virginia, which adhered to the cause of Charles II., a fugitive in