tration of Went worth. Feb. 18. The new Assembly of New Hampshire was not Adminis in session at the time of Shute's departure for England. When it came together again according to its prorogation, Wentworth announced the absence of his superior, which he expected would not last many months, and courteously bespoke the aid of the Council and Representatives in carrying on the public business.1 For the most part the relations between him and the Legislature continued friendly throughout his administration, though he was confronted in his sphere by the two questions which had excited so much feeling in Massachusetts. While Shute was in New England, no salary had been settled upon him by New Hampshire. The Province generally granted him two hundred pounds a year in two payments.2 The Assembly instructed their agent in England "to make all possible remonstrance against having any recommendation or May 19. direction sent to this government to settle a salary on a Commander-in-Chief, if any such design should be on foot, the Province being ever cheerful in making an honorable allowance for the support of his Majesty's government here even much beyond its capacity, and the same good inclinations and loyal disposition still continuing in all his Majesty's dutiful subjects here." At almost the last moment of Wentworth's independent govern- 1728. ment, he "disallowed" the House's choice of a April 9. Speaker. The House, in respectful terms, desired him to produce his authority for that proceeding, and he sent two Counsellors to read to them a clause in his commission. By a message in writing, they prayed him not ant to see that the people of New Hampshire did not overlook the need of education for their children. (N. H. Provincial Papers, III. 364, 365, 570, 646, 718, 799, 802; IV. 154, 268, 391.) Ibid., 81, 82, 88, 107, 128. 1727. April 10. 2 Ibid., III. 690, 691; IV. 40. Shute thought his pay ought to be continued while he was in England (Ibid., 149); but the Assembly was of a different mind (156). 8 Ibid., 249; comp. 156. to "insist upon his disallowance of the choice;" and he replied "that, if they would add to their request that they did not question his Honor's right of negativing a Speaker, his Honor would then take their desire under April 13. consideration." The House did nothing for three April 17. days, and was prorogued till the following week, and then for another day, "the Lieutenant-Governor being out of town." The House saw itself to be at a disadvantage in the contest, and gave it up, proceeding to another choice, though "with a preamble in justification of the late Speaker." Whereupon "his Honor signified his allowance of the choice, but utter disapprobation of the preamble." There was indeed no chance from the first for the claim which had been set up. The question had been settled four years before in the "Explanatory Charter" of Massachusetts. April 18. Island. 1715. 1727. Rhode In the first year of the reign of King George the First, the population of Rhode Island was estimated at nine thousand persons, of whom five hundred were negroes.2 Colonel Samuel Cranston, who died in office, was Governor through the whole of that reign, as he had been through the reign of Queen Anne and the four last years of King William. Nine towns, namely, Newport, Providence, Portsmouth, Warwick, Westerly, Kingston, New Shoreham, Jamestown, and Greenwich, sent delegates to the General Assembly. The Board of Trade represented to the King that "since neither . . . . . Connecticut nor Rhode Island were obliged to submit their laws to royal revision, an Act of Parliament was necessary to compel them to do 1714. 1 N. H. Provincial Papers, IV. uted by him to one Stephen Goden, 283-286. 2 Chalmers, Revolt, II. 7, note. Chalmers's estimate of the population of the Colonies in 1715, attrib a London merchant, though wide of the truth in some parts, is apparently correct in respect to Rhode Island. (Comp. above, 358, 359.) that, without which it was impossible to enforce their submission." A bill was accordingly brought into the The charter House of Commons for amending the charters of in danger. those Colonies.1 It was on that occasion that 1 1715. Jeremiah Dummer wrote his able Defence of the American Charters. But the measure was dropped in Parliament, and it was not till seven years later that a new alarm occasioned the publication of the treatise. It will be referred to more particularly hereafter. 66 1722. The Board of Trade had charged the people of Rhode Island with numerous misfeasances," of which one was their way of eluding a law of the reign of King 1706. William requiring that all propriety Governors Jan. 10. shall be allowed and approved of by the King, before they enter upon the government. But by choosing the Governor annually, though it is generally the same person, his turn is expired before any such approbation can be had, if they did apply for it pursuant to the above Act, which hitherto they never have done." 2 At the same time a committee of the Privy Council, instructed to advise that body concerning the long-disputed boundary between Rhode Island and Connecticut, reported that "it were to be wished that they would both voluntarily submit themselves to his Majesty's immediate government, as some other Colonies have done, and that they might be annexed to New Hampshire. It was not to be expected that either Connecticut or Rhode Island would willingly come into such an arrangement, even had there been no other objection than that New Hampshire, being merely a royal unchartered Province, was subject to whatever regulations the King might from time to time be disposed to make for its administration, - a liability which would have equally attached to the other governments, had the annex 1 Chalmers, II. 5. 3 2 O'Callaghan, Documents, &c., V. 599, 600. 8 R. I. Rec., IV. 12, 308, 334. ation which was proposed taken place. The true method of promoting the welfare of all the parties concerned, had the British Court had no other object, and had circumstances admitted of its being taken, would have been to replace New Hampshire under the authority and protection of Massachusetts, and to give to the turbulent towns of Rhode Island the benefit of the orderly administration of Connecticut, by an obliteration of the disputed eastern boundary of the latter Colony, similar to what had taken place when New Haven, sixty years before, had been annexed to it on the west. 1722. Neutrality in the Indian war. 1724. Dec. 29. When the trouble with the eastern Indians became serious, the Assembly of Rhode Island, on a request October. from Governor Shute for assistance in men and money, raised a committee to inquire into the merits of the case. Having entertained the question somewhat over two years, the Assembly decided that "although the said Indian rebels deserved nothing but a total extirpation from the face of the earth for their continual and repeated rebellions, hostilities, and perfidiousness, yet that it would be by no means justifiable in the Colony of Rhode Island to join with the Province of Massachusetts in the prosecution of said war, 'as things were at present circumstanced," for the reasons, that Rhode Island did its part towards the common defence by maintaining the maritime frontier; that the King's pleasure ought first to be ascertained, "who in his great wisdom might find out and prescribe ways to make those wild and inaccessible subjects of his come in and tamely submit to his government; " that "Rhode Island was never advised with by the Province of Massachusetts" in making war or peace with the Indians; that in treaties Massachusetts had secured to herself the advantages of Indian trade; and that it was not for Rhode Island to "buy for the Massachusetts this privilege with the blood of their young and strong." But they took the spirited measure of ordering a letter to be addressed to the Governor of Canada, threatening him that, if he did not desist from his intrigues with the savages, Rhode Island would take part in the war. The menace failed to deter the obstinate Vaudreuil. 2 1710. Oct. 25. 1711. May 2. Rhode Island was suffering from the great financial error of the time. Following with less excuse, but not Financial till after some years, the unfortunate example of disorder. Massachusetts, she had undertaken to pay her war expenses by promises to pay, to which, so far as law could do it, she gave the character of money. There was some intelligent distrust, and a short suspension of the process; but it was presently revived, and paper money continued to be made in Rhode Island July 5. down to the year of the framing of the Constitution of the United States. It must be owned that this easy command of funds did not tempt the Colony to extravagant expense. On the contrary, its creditors, whether individuals or neighboring Colonies, had occasional reason to complain of an unfavorable reception of their claims.3 1715. The laws of the Colony, such as they were, were observed to "lie in a very disordered condition, and Colonial only in the hands of some few persons; and two legislation. Deputies were empowered to collect and tran- July 5. scribe them for the press. A difficulty occurred, relating to that engagement under oath which is thought to contribute to the safe administration of justice. "Several persons, who were of this body politic, scrupled to take an engagement where the words 'as in the presence of God' is in, whereby the corporation was much hurt for want of their service in the same;" and, to relieve their scrupulous conscience, the simple solemnity was dispensed with.5 Some of the citizens were less fastidious in their 1 R. I. Rec., IV. 320, 351–353. 2 Ibid., 102, 106, 117, 190; comp. Staples, Annals of Providence, 188, 189. 3 E.g., R. I. Rec., IV. 231, 257, 263, 302, 313. 4 Ibid., 194, 195. Ibid., 271. |