home for the royal approbation or disallowance: and that nolaws, ordinances, elections, or acts of government whatsoever, were to be of any validity, without the consent of the governor, signified in writing. The new charter, however, conferred on the inhabitants a number of very important privileges, and was to be preferred to the old in many respects. They were informed by the best civilians, that their religious liberties were forever secured; and that they could be touched by no tax or law, but of their own making; which had a good effect in quieting them under the variations to which they objected.

[1692.] The first act of the Massachusetts legislature, after the arrival of the charter, was a kind of Magna Charta, asserting and setting forth their general privileges, and this clause was among the rest, "No aid, tax, tallage, assessment, custom, loan, benevolence, or imposition whatsoever, shall be laid, assessed, imposed, or levied on any of his majesty's subjects, or their estates, on any pretence whatever, but by the act and consent of the governor, council and representatives of the people, assembled in general court." The general court passed others favourable to. liberty, which were perused by the ministers of England at a distant period; and with the preceding, disallowed of by the regency in 1695. In December the reasons of this dissent were transmitted to the governor and council. The following extract from the letter sent by the committee of plantations, is subjoined, be-cause of its being so extraordinary and decisive: "Whereas, by the act for securing the liberty of the subject, and preventing illegal imprisonments, the writ of Habeas Corpus is required to be granted, in like manner as is appointed by the statute of 31 Charles II. in England, which privilege has not yet been granted in any of his majesty's plantations; it was not thought in his majesty's absence, that the said act should be continued in force, and therefore the same hath been repealed."

The above extract makes this a proper place for mentioning, that the ancient colonists being destitute of proper security, for want of an Hæbeas Corpus act, were in some provinces grievously oppressed. Edward Randolph, surveyor-general, during the reign of William III. represented their condition to the board of trade, March 1700; and among other beneficial regulations, he recommended, "That it being the practice of governors to imprison the subjects without bail, the Habeas Corpus act should be extended as fully to the colonies as it is in England." It was accordingly soon after conferred on Virginia, by queen Anne. The council in their address said upon the occasion, "We, the council of Virginia, acknowledge your majesty's late favour, in. allowing us the benefit of the Habeas Corpus act, and in ap

pointing

pointing courts of oyer and terminer, for the more speedy execution of justice, and relief from long imprisonments." The lower house, in theirs, said, "We the burgesses now assembled, do beseech your majesty to accept our sincere thanks for your many favours bestowed on your subjects of this colony. We shall not pretend to enumerate the particulars, nor can we omit mentioning those lately communicated to us by your majesty's royal instructions to your governor, wherein you have asserted to your subjects their legal rights and propeities, by allowing them the Habeas Corpus act.

The extension of the Habeas Corpus act to the plantations, by queen Anne, appears to have been only by instructions to the governors, and not by any act of parlianicnt. By what prerogative could she extend that act to the colonists, were they not before entitled to its benefit? If entitled to, it was unjust in any power to deny them the advantage of the act; and the royal favour to the Virginians, consisted solely in the queen's asserting to her subjects their legal rights and properties (as the burgesses expressed themselves) by giving suitable directions on the business. The high sense of colonial liberty exhibited by the York and Massachuseetts general courts, was opposed by the English government.

[1696.] An act was passed by the parliament, declaring that "All laws, bye-laws, usages and customs, which shall be in practice in any of the plantations, repugnant to any law made or to be made in this kingdom, relative to the said plantations, shall be void and of none effect."

There might be no design on the part of the ministry of taxing any of the colonies; but about 1696, a pamphlet was published, recommending the laying a parliamentary tax on one of them. It was answered by two others much read; which totally denied the power of taxing the colonies, because they had no representation in parliament to give consent. No answer, public or private, was given to these pamphlets; no censure passed upon them; men were not startled at the doctrine, as either new or illegal, or derogatory to the rights of parliament. +

Though the parliament might not then claim the right of taxing, they claimed the right of punishing disobedience to their laws, with the loss of charter privileges. In the 11th of William III. an act was passed [1699.] for the trial of pirates in America, in which there is the following clause, "Be it further declared, that if any of the governors, or any person or persons in authority there, shall refuse to yield obedience to this act, such refusal is

Chalmers's Political Annals. + Lord Camden's Speech in April 1766» hereby

hereby declared to be a forfeiture of all and every the charters granted for the government or propriety of such plantation."

Severity is stamped upon the very face of the act, in making the disobedience of a governor, the forfeiture of a charter, meant to secure the liberties of thousands, who might not have any the least power of preventing such disobedience. The proprieties and charter colonics were so disinclined to admit of appeals to his majesty in council, and were thought so to thirst after independence that these and other objections against them were laid before the parliament, [1701.] and a bill thereupon brought into the house of lords for re-uniting the right of government in those colonies to the crown: but better council prevailed, and matters were left unaltered. Some are for bringing as a precedent for the parliament's raising a revenue from the colonics, what was passed in 1710, viz. "An act for establishing a general post-office for all her majesty's dominions, and for settling, a weekly sum out of the revenues thereof, for the service of the war and other her majesty's occasions." By this act the postage of England, Scotland, Ireland, and America, were consolidated, to the end that a general post-office might be established through Great-Britain and Ireland, her colonies and plantations in NorthAmerica and the West-Indies, and all her other dominions, in such manner as might be most beneficial to the people: and that the revenue arising form the said office might be better improved. The consolidation made a new act necessary; and afforded the opportunity of advancing the rates of letters. The weekly sum amounted to £.700 and was to be paid out of the revenue for 32 years; the payment was made perpetual in the third year of her successor, having been soon after granted, appropriated by another act toward paying off, with interest at six per cent. the principal of £.2,602,200, which government borrowed of the public. By the act, the post-riders carrying the mail, were exempted from paying any thing for passing the ferries in North-America, and the ferryman was subjected to a penalty of five pounds, if he did not convey them over within half an hour after demanded.

Whatever power over the colonies the parliament might exercise in the act, the dissimilarity between this and the sugar act, passed in 1764, will not admit of the former's being quoted, with propriety, as a precedent for the latter. The colonists were in no wise uneasy at it, and considered not the American postage in the light of an internal tax, designed for the raising of a revenue from them; for it was but a few comparatively who were affected by it; and these were accommodated in the conveyance of their letters, received a full equivalent for the postage of them,

and

and were not bound to send them by the public post, when they preferred a private conveyence.

In respect of the readiness of the colonies to co-operate with each other and the mother country, for the general good, they manifested the same as occasion required.

[1690.] The Massachusetts general court wrote to the several governors of the neighbouring colonics, desiring them to appoint commissioners "to meet, advise, and conclude upon suitable methods in assisting each other for the safety of the whole land." The governor of New-York was requested to signify the same to Maryland, and parts adjacent.

The commissioners met on the 1st of May, at New-York, and were stiled a Congress, as may be concluded from the following paragraph in Mr. Stoughton's letter of October 20, 1693, to Lord Nottingham: "I crave leave further to acquaint your lordship, that the governor of New-York having written unto his excellency the governor here, signifying his appointment of a meeting at New-York, upon the first Wednesday of this month, of commissioners from the several governments of New-England, Virginia, &c. to concert and agree upon a certain quota of men and money, for the defence of Albany, &c. in 'observance of their majesties commands; it happened to be at such a time, and under such a conjuncture of affairs here, that no meet persons could be procured to attend that Congress." It does not appear, that there was any congress between the two periods. It may also be observed, that the first was procured at the motion of the Massachusetts general court, formed, from the necessity of the day, upon the vacated charter, before a new one was granted; and that the motion originated in the court, from zeal for the common safety of the colonies, without any interposition of their majesties command. We meet with no congress prior to what was thus procured.

[Oct. 14, 1709.] At the desire of colonel Vetch, there was a congress of several governors, with some of their council and assembly, to consult upon the intended expedition against Canada, and to resolve on methods for securing the frontiers.

[Oct. 31, 1711.] The Massachusetts house of assembly, at the motion of lieutenant-general Nicholson, advised, to a congress of her majesty's governors attended with such persons as the governments might appoint. The council appointed two, and the house three, out of their respective bodies, to attend the governor to congress, which appears to have met afterwards at New-London.

Hutchinfon's Hiftory, Vol. II. p. 74.

But

But though the conduct of the Massachusetts, in their exciti ons for the general good, was highly commendable, their behaviour afterward, in their own colonial affairs, under governor Shute, was greatly censurable.

[1722.] The house of assembly attempted to take from colonel Shute, those powers in matters relative to the war, which belonged to him by the constitution, and to vest them in a committee of the two houses. They by degrees acquired, from the governor and council, the keys of the treasury; and no monies could be issued, not so much as to pay an express, without the vote of the house for that purpose; whereas by the charter, all monies were to be paid out of the treasury, "by warrant from the governor, with the advice and consent of the council."

The ministry were greatly offended at the governor's being made uneasy; for colonel Shute was known at court and the of fices of state, under the character of a very worthy gentleman, of a singular good temper, fitted to make any people under his command happy. When, therefore, they found the contrary in the Massachusetts, they concluded, that the people wished to have no governor from Great-Britain, but wanted to be independent of the crown. The cry of the city of London ran exceedingly against them; and a scheme, that had been long planned for taking away the charter, had nearly been executed; but was fortunately frustrated by the indefatigable pains of Mr. Dummer, their then agent. Their own council at home were obliged to a confession of their illegal proceedings. [Jan. 15, 1725.]. An explanatory charter was prepared, proposed, and accepted. Had it not been accepted, the design was to have submitted to the consideration of the British legislature, "What further provision may be necessary to support and preserve his majesty's authority in the colony, and prevent similar invasion of his prerogative for the future.”*

It had been usual to give instructions to the several governors, to recommend to the assembly the establishing of a salary suitable to the dignity of their post; but the house had always declined complying,prudently apprehensive, that disagreable consequences might ensue, from the independency of the governor on the people over whom he was placed. These instructions were renewed when governor Burnet was appointed to the chair, who adhering to them, and showing a fixed determination not to part with govermental rights, warin disputes followed between him and the

Hutchinfon's Hiftory, Vol. II. p. 271, 290, 294, 321. and governor Burnet's Speech to the Maffachusetts general court, in the Maffachufetts Records for 1728.

house