Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/692

HISTORY 1578-1690] be exercised. The powers which were definitely bestowed were executive and judicial in character—the ordinance power, the authority to appoint all officers, to establish courts, to punish and pardon, to organize a military force and defend the provinces, to bestow titles of honour, to found churches and present to livings. The executive thus became the centre from and around which development in the province chiefly occurred. It gave to the proprietor an importance, especially at the outset, which was comparable with that enjoyed by the general courts in the corporate colonies. It made him in a derived and inferior sense the source, within the province, of office and honour, the fountain of justice, the commander of the militia, the recipient of the provincial revenue, the constituent part of the legislature. But in most cases the proprietors did not attempt to exercise these powers in person. Even if resident in their provinces they needed the assistance of officials. By means of commissioners they appointed a group of leading officials for their provinces, as a governor, councillors, a secretary, surveyor-general, receiver-general or treasurer, and somewhat later an attorney general. These all held office at the pleasure of the proprietor, and were subject to guidance by his instructions.

Altogether the chief place among these officials was held by the governor. He was par excellence the agent for the

proprietor for all purposes of administration. He regularly corresponded with the proprietor and received the latter's directions. In making appointments the proprietor was usually guided by his recommendations. In some cases he was a relative of the proprietor, and family influence in Maryland after the Restoration came to dominate the government of the province. In all his important acts the governor was required to take the advice of his council, and that body was expected to co-operate closely with him in all matters; but the governor was not bound to follow their advice. The relations between the two was the same as that between the king and his privy council in England. As settlements multiplied and counties and other local subdivisions were formed, other and inferior offices were created, the right of appointment to which rested with the governor, though it was exercised in the name of the proprietor. By means of an executive, thus organized, land was granted and the revenue from it collected, counties and other local divisions were established, relations were developed with the Indians, early preparations were made for defence, courts were opened and the administration of justice begun.

21. But in the later proprietary charters generally, with the exception of that issued to the duke of York, provision was made for assemblies. It was made, however, in very general terms, and it was left to the option of the proprietors to determine when, where and how they would call them. These legislatures did not originate in the natural or pre-existent rights of Englishmen, nor did the existence of a parliament in England make them necessary, though it greatly increased the difficulties of governing the colonies without them. Though they were not original in the sense which attached to the executive, they were immediately proven to be indispensable and their activity in the provinces gradually opened the way for the growth of modern democratic institutions.

22. When met in regular form, the provincial legislature consisted of the governor, the council or upper house, and the

assembly or deputies. The latter, who were elected by the localities, constituted the only representative part of the legislature. In tenure and functions the governor and council were largely independent both of the deputies and of the electors. They were a part of the executive and were naturally swayed by a regard for the interests of the proprietor and by administrative traditions. Though a component of the legislature, the council was the legal advisor of the governor. In many cases the importance of the councils was increased by the fact that, with the governor, in early times they formed the highest judicial tribunal in the province. As the governor had the sole power of calling, proroguing and dissolving the general assembly, the council might

advise him in such a way as to destroy the body itself or thwart its plans. The joint work of the council and assembly was subject to the veto of the proprietor, or of both the proprietor and his governor. The legislature of the province, therefore, differed materially from the general court, though in practice this was somewhat offset by the fact that in the New England colonies the magistrates were usually re-elected for a long series of terms.

23. In the province, as in the kingdom, the legislature was in a sense an expansion of the executive, developed out of it, and was to an extent controlled by it. Out of this relation arose the possibility of conflict between the two parts of the legislature—that which represented the people and that which represented the proprietor. In the history of the provinces this formed the central line of cleavage. From the first the assemblies largely controlled taxation. Using this as a lever, they endeavoured to limit and define the powers of the executive and to extend the sphere of legislation more widely. Fees, from which officials derived most of their support, were a favourite object of their regulation. Occasionally offices which had originally been appointive were made elective. Protests of various kinds were made against official cliques. British statutes which favoured liberty and the powers of parliament were often referred to as guides and ideals of the opposition. Now and again the lower house came to a deadlock with council or governor. Threatened or actual revolt was sometimes necessary to bring the executive to terms. By such tactics as these the popular elements in the constitutions of the provinces asserted themselves. The sphere of ordinance was gradually limited and that of statute extended, while incidentally the system of government became more complex.

In a number of provinces—the Carolinas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania—the proprietors at various times initiated

elaborate constitutions, in which not only a land system, but forms and functions of government were prescribed on a large scale. These were variously known as fundamental constitutions, concessions and agreements, frames of government, and in every case were submitted to the general assembly for its acceptance or rejection. Long struggles often ensued over the question of acceptance, which usually ended in the modification or rejection of the schemes as too cumbersome for use or because they reserved excessive powers to the provincial executive.

24. Though the main features in the form and development of the proprietary provinces have thus been indicated, it

should be noted that their history was by no means uniform. In New Netherland and New York occurred a struggle for the establishment of a legislature, which continued at intervals for forty years and was not permanently successful until after New York had become a royal province. The proprietors of New Jersey never secured a royal charter, and therefore were not able to establish satisfactorily their claim to rights of government. As grants of land had been made to the settlers in certain localities within that province before its purchase by Berkeley and Carteret, opposition was made to the collection of quit rents, as well as to the enforcement of rights of government, and disturbances, resulting from these causes, became chronic. The province was also divided into East and West Jersey, the boards of proprietors being greatly increased in both, and West Jersey attaining an organization which was almost democratic in character. Within the vast reaches of the Carolina grant developed two provinces. One of these—North Carolina—was almost entirely neglected by the proprietors, and the weakened executive repeatedly succumbed to popular violence. In South Carolina many violent controversies occurred, especially over the efforts of the proprietors to compel the acceptance of the Fundamental Constitutions, which originated with Locke and Shaftesbury. But in the end this failed, and a simple form of government, such as was adapted to the needs of the province, was developed. In Pennsylvania the liberal policy of the proprietor led at the beginning to unusual concessions