CHAPTER III. Colonists consider themselves entitled to the rights of Englishmen-Claim the right of representation-Disputes with the crown on this subject-Opinions of eminent lawyers on this question-Declaration of rights by the assembly of New York in 1691-Declarations of the colonies at various times on the right of taxation—Various acts of parliament restricting the trade and manufactures of the colonies-The origin and causes of these acts-Their effects in the colonies and opinions concerning them-Mode of enforcing them-Board of trade and plantations establishedObjects and powers of this board-Rice included among the enumerated commodities in a clandestine manner-Acts of parliament concerning hats and hattersManufacture of iron aud steel prohibited—Slitting mills, plating forges and furnaces, in the colonies declared common nuisances-Governors ordered to destroy themPrinciples and opinions of English writers concerning the trade and manufactures of the colonies. THE colonists, from their first settlement considered themselves entitled to the rights of Englishmen, as secured by magna charta, and confirmed by the bill of rights. The most important of these rights, were those of representation and taxation. To have a share in making the laws by which they were to be governed, as well as in the imposition of taxes they were to pay, they always claimed as their birthright. Under the charter and proprietary governments, the colonists were secured in the right of representation, by solemn compacts with the crown; but in the royal governments, this right was not conceded, but depended, as claimed by the crown, on royal authority alone. This important question was agitated at an early period, as we have before stated, in the province of New York. About the time of the revolution in England, it was a subject of debate in that province, whether the people had a right to be represented in the assembly, or whether it was a privilege to be enjoyed through the favor of the crown.* This question was settled in favor of the right, on the part of the people, by the act to which we have before alluded, passed in 1691, declaring the rights and privileges of the people of that province. By this act it was declared, that the supreme legislative power and authority, under their majesties, should forever be and reside in a governor in chief, and council, appointed by their majesties, their heirs and successors; and in the people, by their representatives, met and convened in general assembly. That the governor, with the advice of his council, was to administer the government, according to the laws of the province, and for any defect therein, according to the laws of England and not otherwise; and in case of the death or absence of the governor, the oldest councillor was to officiate as governor, that a general assembly should be held, once every year, and that every person having a freehold of forty shillings per annum, should have a vote in the choice of representatives. The act also designated the number of representatives, to be chosen in the cities, manors, and counties, prescribed the mode in which the house should be organized, and authorized the representatives to adjourn from time to time, as they should think fit. This act, however, was disallowed by the king, in 1697. The governor claimed the right of calling the assembly, when he pleased, and after the representatives were chosen, of continuing them at his pleasure, without a new election. The manner in which this power was exercised, created violent disputes between the governors and the people. During the administration of Cosby, one assembly was continued six years. The people solicited the governor for a new election, but in vain; and he was equally regardless of the repeated requests of the house to be dissolved. During the continuance of this assembly, laws were passed, declaring and enacting, that no assembly should continue longer than three years, and that an assembly should be held, at least once a year; but to these the governor refused his assent. The continuance of the same assembly for a long time, and the distribution of offices among the members, the governors, no doubt, considered the best mode of obtaining a majority favorable to their views, and particularly in secur ing a large salary to themselves, a principal object with most of them. To prevent the influence of the governor by the distribution of offices among the members, bills were introduced prohibiting any member from accepting an office of profit, after his election, but did not pass. During the administration of the successor of Cosby, a law was finally obtained, limiting the duration of assemblies to three years. This law, however, was negatived by the king, because it was "a high infringement upon the prerogative of the crown. To compel the governor to convene the legislature once a year, the assembly of New York utterly refused to grant a revenue but For that short period. In pursuance of royal instructions, the governors repeatedly urged the establishment of a permanent revenue, and particularly required that the same be placed at the control of the governor and council. This was resisted by the house, and in the year 1737, an address was presented to lieutenant governor Clark, on this and other subjects, couched in the spirited language of injured freemen. After stating the importance of frequent elections, to prevent the improper use of power, declaring that checks and balances were necessary for the preservation of the liberty and happiness of any country; on the subject of revenue, they say, we, therefore, beg leave to be plain with your honor, and hope you will not take it amiss, when we tell you, that you are not to expect, that we either will raise sums unfit to be raised, or put what we shall raise, into the power of a governor to misapply, if we can prevent it; nor shall we make up any other deficiencies, than what we conceive are fit and just to be paid, or continue what support or revenue we shall raise, for any longer time than one year; nor do we think it convenient to do even that, until such laws are passed, as we conceive necessary for the safety of the inhabitants of this colony, who have reposed a trust in us, for that only purpose, and which, we are sure, you will think it reasonable we should act agreeably to; and by the grace of God, we shall endeavor not to deceive them." The question respecting the duration of the assembly, was settled, under the administra * Chalmers' opinions of eminent lawyers, on points concerning the colonies, vol. 1, † Continuation of Smith's History of New York, p. 421. p. 189. tion of Clinton, in 1743. The house were obliged, at last, to yield their assent to a septennial act. The evils experienced in this province, from this extraordinary power in the crown, were such, that, when, in 1775, the convention of the people of that province, drew up certain terms of reconciliation with the parent country, one of them was, that the duration of assemblies should not exceed three years. In the royal governments various questions came before the king, in relation to laws passed by the colonial legislatures, regulating the assemblies. The law-officers of the crown were consulted on these questions, and their opinions given, that the king could alter such laws at pleasure. These opinions were founded on the idea, that the right of representation in the colonies, depended solely on the will of the king. On a question from New Jersey, in 1723, with respect to the number of representatives, from certain counties or places, the attorney general, Raymond, advised the king that he might regulate the number to be sent from each county or place, or might restrain them from sending any, at his pleasure; giving as a reason," that the right of sending representatives to the assembly, and the quali fications of the elector and elected, were founded originally on the instructions given by the crown, to the governor of New Jersey.' In 1747, on a similar question from New Hampshire, the celebrated lawyers, Ryder and Murray, informed his majesty "that as the right of sending representatives to the assembly, was founded originally on the commissions and instructions given by the crown, to the governors of New Hampshire, his majesty may extend the privilege of sending representatives to such new towns, as his majesty should judge to be, in all respects, worthy thereof." These questions could only be settled by a revolution; and the arbitrary and illegal manner, in which this portion of the royal prerogative was exercised, particularly in calling and dissolving assemblies, was one of the grievances stated in the declaration of independence. With respect to the great and important rights of personal security and of private property, some of the first acts, which appear * Chalmers' opinions of lawyers, &c. vol. 1, pp. 268, 272. on the records of most the colonies, declare, " that no man's life shall be taken away, no man's honor or good name be stained, no man's person be arrested, restrained, banished, or any way punished; that no man's goods or estate be taken away from him, or in any way endamaged, unless it be by virtue of some express law of the colony, warranting the same, established by the general court and sufficiently published.” In regard to the imposition of taxes, the colonial legislatures at various times passed declaratory acts. In 1636, the assembly of the Plymouth colony declared, “that no act, imposition, law, or ordinance be made or imposed upon us, at present, or to come, but such as has or shall be enacted by the consent of the body of the freemen, or their representatives, legally assembled; which is according to the free liberties of the free born people of England.”* In 1650, when the constitution of Maryland was settled, the legislature of that province passed "an act against raising money without the consent of the assembly," declaring, " that no taxes shall be assessed or levied on the freemen of the province without their own consent, or that of their deputies, first declared in a general assembly."t 66 In 1661, the general court of Massachusetts, declared that any imposition prejudicial to the country, contrary to any just law of their own, (not repugnant to the laws of England,) was an infringement of their right." In March, 1663-4, the assembly of Rhode Island declared, in the words of magna charta, that "no aid, tax, tallage, or custom, loan, benevolence, gift, excise, duty, or imposition whatsoever, shall be laid, assessed, imposed, levied, or required, of or on any of his Majesty's subjects, within this colony, or upon their estates, upon any manner of pretence or color, but by the assent of the general assembly of this colony." In the year 1692, the assembly of Massachusetts made a similar declaration. This was in accordance with the views of the agents of that colony, who procured and assented to the new charter. Among the * Bradford, vol. 1, p. 269. Note. † Chalmers' Annals, p. 220. Hutchinson, vol. 1, p. 456. |