Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/693

Rh in favour of the colonists. One of the most characteristic of these was the grant of an elective Council, which was intended to be aristocratic and the chief institution in the province. But owing to conflicts between it and the governors, affairs came to a deadlock. The total neglect of provision for defence by the Quaker province led to the suspension of Penn's powers of government for about two years after the English Revolution and the outbreak of the war with France. This did away with the elective Council for the time, and an appointive Council was soon substituted. Finally, in 1701, the Council was deprived of its powers of legislation and thereafter the legislature of Pennsylvania consisted of only one house—the Assembly.

25. Turning now to the exercise of imperial control over the colonies, it is to be noted that it proceeded chiefly from the English Crown. It was exercised through the secretary of state, the privy council and a succession of boards subordinate to it which were known as commissioners of plantations or the board of trade; by the treasury and admiralty boards and their subordinate bureaus; by the attorney-general and the solicitor-general and by the bishop of London. The more continuous and intimate supervision proceeded from the privy council and the commissioners subordinate to it, and from the treasury board. The latter caused the auditing of such revenue as came from the colonies, supervised expenditures for them and had an oversight over appointments in the colonial service. The privy council received letters and petitions on almost every kind of colonial business, caused hearings and inquiries to be held, and issued letters, instructions and orders in council on an equally great variety of matters. It also acted as the regular court of appeal for the plantations. As time advanced, more of the administrative business passed directly into the office of one of the secretaries of state and the privy council became less active. The admiralty was concerned with the equipment of the navy for service in the colonies, and the high court of admiralty with the trial of prize cases and of cases arising from violations of the acts of trade. The assistance of the law officers of the Crown was sought in the drafting of charters, in the prosecution of suits for their recall, and in all cases which required the interpretation of the law as affecting the colonies and the defence of the interests of the British government in relation thereto. The bishop of London had supervision over the appointment and conduct of clergymen of the English Church in the colonies and over parish schools there. Not all of these boards and officials were active from the first, but they were created or brought into service in colonial affairs as the importance of the dominions increased.

26. 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, including about fifty statutes, comprised the most important acts relating to the colonies which were passed by parliament. A few statutes relating to military affairs were passed about the middle of the 18th century. Certain other laws relating to currency and coinage, to naturalization, to the punishment of governors, to the post office, to the collection of debts, and to a few other miscellaneous subjects complete the colonial legislation of parliament prior to 1760. About one hundred statutes in all were passed. 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. Thus a general agreement between colonial and English law was attained.

27. But this, though far-reaching, was only one of the objects which were sought through the exercise of imperial control. Its 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 18th 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 Commonwealth in the 17th century parliament was the source of all activity, whether legislative or executive, but at other times, as we have seen, its legislation was confined chiefly to the subject of trade. The English courts also played a minor part except when, in conjunction with the executive, they were concerned in the revocation of colonial charters.

28. 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. With this the conditions of sparse and scattered settlements in a new continent in the midst of savages were closely connected. At best three months were required for sending a despatch from London to America and procuring a return. This explains the large degree of self-government which the colonies possessed 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 after 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, as compared with that which existed within the realm. That is the real meaning of the distinction between the realm and the dominions. Over the counties and other local jurisdictions of the realm the control of Crown and central courts and parliament was continuously felt. In law and theory the same was true of the dominions; 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 theory the British Empire was a consolidated structure; in fact it was something more resembling a federation.

29. The central fact in colonial history during 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 proprietors, 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 only interfered at intervals to adjust matters. And when the Crown did this, its dealings were far more with the patentees and their officials than with the body of the colonists. The king had no officials of his own in the colonies, and a practical system of immunity existed. 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