A law excluding Roman Catholics from the franchise, Disfranchise- and from competency to hold office, appears in ment of a collection of the statutes extant in a manu Romanists. 1705. 1719. 1783. 1663. 1699. script of the third year of Queen Anne. It is also in the collection printed in consequence of the vote just mentioned. In the imperfection of the records, the date of the enactment of that law, embodying so wide a departure from the primitive principle of Rhode Island, remains uncertain. In the Act of Repeal passed after the emancipation from England, it is referred to the same year as the grant of the charter. The recent historian of the Colony supposes that it never went through the forms of legislation, but was without authority interpolated by a committee which was charged to make a compilation of the laws in the time of the Earl of Bellomont, a supposition which could not be entertained in respect to a community possessing the usual guaranties for the public order and safety, but which is not in itself incredible in respect to Rhode Island. The motive suggested in explanation of it, namely, that it was "in order that their privileges, then threatened by the powerful influence of Bellomont, might not be taken from them," is also the less improbable, as it accords with the usual unworthy policy of Rhode Island in its relations to the parent country. Militia and franchise laws. It has been told how the extreme disinclination to control, which signalized this peculiar people, asserted itself in military affairs, where it is attended with especial danger.3 After four years' experience of the chaos which had been introduced, the influence of the Governor and his friends prevailed to have the elective system for military offices abolished. 1718. Jan. 17. 1 R. I. Rec., IX. 674; comp. Mass. Hist. Col., XXV. 244. 2 Arnold, History, II. 492, 493; comp. Walsh, Appeal, &c., 427–434. 3 See above, p. 361. 4 Ibid., p. 238; comp. Arnold, II. 61. 1726. 1730. May. After eight more years, the popular discontent compelled another trial of elected commanders of troops,1 but in a shorter time a renewed observation of the June 14. "ill consequence" of the incongruous method occasioned it to be again abandoned.2 On the other hand, the franchise of the Colony, originally so freely conferred, was subjected to rigorous limitation. A law was made establishing the possession of a freehold of the value of a hundred pounds, or an annual in- Feb. 18. come from real estate of not less than two pounds, as a qualification of a voter. But the eldest son of a freeman shared in his father's privilege. This arrangement, so peculiar in a community otherwise so democratic, continued in force till nearly the middle of the present century. 4 1724. 1715. After the return of the agent, Jahleel Brenton, Agencies in William Penn had had the charge in England of England. the affairs of the Colony. On the alarm for the charter at the beginning of the reign of King George the First, Richard Partridge, described as "of Lon- June 13. don," was appointed to be agent. His principal business proved to be, at first, to pacify the Lords of Trade and Plantations in respect to the charges made against the Colony for illicit commerce. But presently the old question of the limits of the Colony on the side of Connecticut assumed more importance, and Lieutenant-Governor Joseph Jenckes was sent over to be associated with him in the agency. The further progress and termination of this long-standing controversy will be related further on. Condition and indus At the beginning of the reign of King George the First, the Colony of Connecticut is believed try of Conto have contained twenty-seven thousand five 1 R. I. Rec., IV. 377. 2 Ibid., 437. 3 Arnold, II. 77. necticut. 1715. hundred people, of whom fifteen hundred were negroes. There were fifty towns, and about the same number of churches and of ministers, the number of towns having nearly doubled since the Revolution.1 The occupations of the people were mostly agricultural, though Hartford and Wethersfield on the river, and New London, Stonington, New Haven, and other towns along the Sound, had vessels engaged in fishing, and carried on a considerable business with the West India Islands; and ships were built in all the inlets on the southern shore. There was for a time a delusive hope of profit from certain mines, one in the town of Simsbury, the other in what afterwards became Wallingford, which it was thought would yield copper, at least, in abundance, if not more valuable ores. The General Assembly encouraged the exploration October. of them by granting certain privileges to the proprietors and their workmen; and not a little money was spent in the enterprise by capitalists of Massachusetts and New York. But it did not prove remunerative, and was abandoned after a few years. The excavated mine at Simsbury was afterwards turned to account as a State prison. 1718. 1708. The system of consociation of churches, which had been organized by the synod convened at Saybrook,3 Religious gave no little additional power to the clergy; and condition. from an early period of the eighteenth century a 'Trumbull, I. 476. At the time of the deposition of Governor Andros, Connecticut had twenty-eight towns. Between that time and the death of George the First twenty-two were added, viz. Danbury (1693), Lebanon (1697), Colchester and Durham (1699), Voluntown (1700), Mansfield and Canterbury (1703), Hebron (1704), Killingly (1708), Coventry and Ridgefield (1709), Newtown (1711), East Haddam, Pomfret, and New Milford (1713), Ashford (1714), Tolland (1715), Stafford (1719), 2 Conn. Col. Rec., VI. 84-87. severer religious rule began to prevail in Connecticut than in Massachusetts. The war in the time of Queen Anne was regarded by many good people of Connecticut as having unfavorably affected the character of the soldiers, and through them of the community at large. The Assembly "took into their serious consideration the many 1714. evident tokens that the glory is departed, that the May. providences of God are plainly telling us that our ways do not please him ;" and they recommended "to the reverend elders to inquire and report respecting the state of religion in each parish," and particularly "how and whether catechising were duly attended, and whether there were a suitable number of Bibles in the various families in the respective parishes, and also if there were found in any parishes any that neglected attendance on the public worship on the Lord's Day; . . . . . and likewise, which and what are the sins and evils that provoke the just Majesty of Heaven to walk contrary unto us in the ways. of his providence." 1 The Assembly laid a formal injunction upon all judicial officers, constables, and October. grand jurors, to give their strictest attention to the laws. for the education of children, and against profaneness, Sabbath-breaking, lying, swearing, and intemperance.2 Laws for preventing and punishing the profanation of the Sabbath, or the Lord's Day," visited May. with pecuniary penalties absence from public worship, "rude behavior" on Sundays, and travelling on that day, except to and from the meeting-house.3 Masters and mistresses were to be fined by Magistrates at discretion, not exceeding forty shillings, for neglect May 11. to teach and catechise, and instruct in Christianity, Indian children" put out" to them by their parents.* 1715. 1721. October. 1727. Some annoyance was occasioned by a sect known by the 1 Conn. Col. Rec., VI. 436. 2 Ibid., 530, 531. 3 Ibid., 248; comp. 277; V. 525. ♦ Ibid., VII. 103. name of Rogerenes, disciples of John Rogers of New London, who had adopted and improved upon the scheme of his Rhode Island neighbors, the Seventh-Day Baptists of Westerly. Differing from the Quakers in their esteem for the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, in other of their practices the Rogerenes imitated that extraordinary people. They came into the churches during Sunday worship in objectionably scanty dress, and with violent vociferations, "charging the ministers with lies and false doctrine." When they were brought into court, the judges and officers fared no better at their hands. The contest between them and the law was brought to an earlier termination, by reason, it is said, of the discovery of some gross immoralities of the leader, which tended to discredit him with his friends, and to cool their enthusiasm for his methods. Their irregularities probably occasioned the law by which persons absenting themselves May. from their "lawful congregation," and assembling for worship in private houses, were made punishable by a fine of twenty shillings for each transgression, and “whatsoever person, not being a lawfully allowed minister of the gospel, should presume to profane the holy sacraments by administering or making a show of administering them," was to "incur the penalty of ten pounds, and suffer corporal punishment by whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes for each offence."2 In Andros's time the Church of England had gained a foothold in Connecticut, especially in the western part of the Province. Its followers obtained from the government a fair recognition of their wishes. 1723. 1727. May. They were allowed to reclaim for their separate use as much money as was levied on them in the town 1 For a sufficient account of this short-lived sect, see Gillett's "Historical Sketch," &c., in Hist. Mag., XIV. 5-7. Comp. above, p. 471. 2 Conn. Col. Rec., VI. 401.— Various gross particulars of Rogers's misconduct are related by Trumbull. (Hist., II. 39, note.) |