Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 |
Next
The parliament by mentioning the dominions in its statutes could extend their provisions to the colonies. The early acts of supremacy and uniformity contained such reference, but it was dropped after the Restoration and no serious attempt was ever made to enforce uniformity in the Colonies. Parliament did not begin to legislate seriously for the colonies until after the Restoration. Then the acts of trade and navigation were passed, to which additions were made in the reign of William III. and from time to time during the 18th century. This body of legislation comprised the most important acts re lating to the Colonies which were passed by Parliament. A few statutes relating to military affairs were passed about the middle of the i 8th century. About f oo statutes in all were passed prior to 1760. The colonists themselves imitated in a general way the organization and procedure of the English courts. The main features of the common law came spontaneously into force in the Colonies. The legislatures of several of the Colonies adopted large parts of the statute law of England. The colonists were always accustomed to avail themselves, as far as possible, of the great English statutes which guaranteed liberty. After about 1690 the obligation was very generally enforced upon the Colonies of sending the acts of their assemblies to England for acceptance or rejection by the King in council.
But this, though far-reaching, was only one of the objects which were sought through the exercise of imperial control. Its chief object was to maintain the rights of Great Britain over the Colonies and her interests in them in all respects. The diplomacy of Great Britain concerned itself to an increasing extent, as the 8th century advanced, with the acquisition or losses of colonial territory, with the fixing of boundaries and with the securing of commercial interests. The interests of trade, more than any other subject, determined the colonial policy of England. The church and her interests also demanded attention. In all these matters the English executive—the Crown—continuously, and for the most part exclusively, managed colonial affairs. During the Common wealth in the 17th century, parliament was the source of all activity, whether legislative or executive, but at other times its legislation was confined chiefly to the subject of trade.
A natural condition which affected colonial administration as a whole and to a large extent determined its limits and character was the remoteness of the Colonies from England. At best three months were required for sending a dis patch from London to America and procuring a return. This ex plains the large degree of self-government which the Colonies pos sessed and the indifference with which their affairs were usually viewed, even by British officials. Only a relatively small part of colonial business came before English officials or received their serious attention. Only at long intervals and in summary fashion was it brought to the attention of Parliament. It is believed that
the affairs of the continental Colonies were never seriously debated in Parliament until of ter the beginning of the controversy which led to the American War of Independence. Social and political intercourse with the colonists and governmental control over them were therefore very imperfectly developed. In fact, the control over them was almost wholly executive, and during most of the period it was to a degree unintelligent and weak; in fact it was something more resembling a federation.
The central fact in colonial history dur ing the 17th century was the development of the chartered Colonies. At their founding, as we have seen, the Crown delegated rights of settlement and subordinate rights of government to pro prietors, who used them in a variety of ways. The effect of this was to introduce a number of mesne lords between the king and his colonial subjects, a phenomenon which centuries before had vanished from England itself. The patentees governed the colonists, and the Crown interfered only at intervals to adjust matters. Under the first two Stuarts some rather desultory efforts were made to check the development of such a system in the early stages. After a controversy over a contract for the sole importa tion of tobacco, which became involved with the political struggles of the time in England, the charter of the Virginia Company of London was revoked (1624). A royal commission was appointed to readjust the affairs of Virginia and to inaugurate its government as a royal province. In 1634 a board of commissioners of planta tions was created and it received very large powers over the Colonies. The year following the New England council resigned its charter, a writ of quo warranto was issued against the Massa chusetts charter, and a plan was nearly perfected for sending out Sir Ferdinando Gorges as royal governor, or rather governor general, to New England. But means were lacking, the suit against the Massachusetts patent failed to accomplish its purpose, and troubles at home soon absorbed the attention of the Government.
During the Great Rebellion in England New England was left practically to itself. Strife broke out in Maryland, over which the home Government was scarcely able to exercise even a moderating influence. The Dutch from New Netherland and Europe were able to monopolize a large part of the carrying trade in tobacco and European goods. Virginia assumed an attitude of distrust or hos tility toward the new Government in England. In 1651 and 1652 Parliament sent out a commission, with an armed force, which ad justed affairs in Virginia by suspending Government under Sir William Berkeley, the royalist governor, and leaving control in the hands of the assembly. By a stretch of power the commissioners also took control of affairs in Maryland, but there they intensified rather than allayed the strife. Baltimore, however, managed to save his interests from total wreck, and at the Restoration was able to re-establish his authority.