his keeping up a good understanding with the colonial legislature. Every governor, in the words of a colonist, had "two Masters, one who gives him his commission, and one who gives him his Pay." If the Assembly passed a bill distasteful to the home government, the governor could veto, it; but the Assembly Ais. Exilliner Toseph Enitleys Capt tren & Govern in thief in sover her May Province at of Shepeth That Whereas by drove of an de of Gen Court upon ancient Record there wow granted to the Govern then being of the Coloney of the Magachusetts way in Engld for in one Service in this Kan Since also the late honble fiton Bradstreet if y was orderly chosen to, and faithfully bischarged, that hon ble post for a long Series; and for the three last years of his. Station, there appears by his are which he formerly prefented to this Province (remaining Hill to ballant 257. 15) that he has not received what was one to him as well by vertue of the afores Act as by the act Council page of the P 3 last years to this purpoje, that The Gov Indary should be the same as was usual or formerly allowed, as alfo by reason of the haggard wouble and multiplicity of onjiness in those troublesome is critical time rohich was apparently more ridinary & exceeding great, and which ye Thonbie Person has said and cald recomposited with more trouble care is expence to him than I years before: Jince alfo in his cap Twill & Teftament the Fonts Govern bequeathed the arrears to Your hurubic Petitioners the orphan is day Son D'Samust street in these words of the Will • Further I give a sequerch to my 3 Grand Chidren John Timon & Ann all the Arrears of what is dus sto me for Podgry as late Govern of the Colony of the Majachujus bay; Before the Province, to be PETITION OF THE HEIRS OF SIMON BRADSTREET, governor of Massachusetts under William III, for the salary not paid him by the Assembly. They were granted '1000 acres of land to satisfy the claim. From the Massachusetts State Archives. might then cut down his salary, or leave it altogether out of the vote of supply, — which, according to good English custom, was always the last business of the session. To free the governors from this dependence upon the popular will, the English government tried for many years, in vain, to secure from the Assemblies a standing grant for such salaries. § 191] GAINS IN FREEDOM 153 In 1727, Burnet, Governor of Massachusetts, laid before the Assembly his instructions to secure from that body a fixed grant of £1000 a year. Refusal, he said, would be taken by the King as 'a manifest mark of undutiful behavior." On the other hand, a Boston town meeting bluntly called upon the Assembly "to oppose any bill . . . that may in the least bear upon our natural rights and charter privileges, which, we apprehend, the giving in to the King's instructions would certainly do." ... Burnet was popular, as well as able; and the Assembly voted him not £1000, but £ 1700, for one year. The governor indignantly refused to be "bribed" into proving false to his instructions. The Assembly raised their offer, still in vain. For three years the struggle continued. Then a new governor, in want of money, petitioned the crown to allow him to receive the annual grant temporarily. The English government assented, and Massachusetts had won. 190. To the credit of the monarchs, no attempt was made, in this long contest, to suppress any colonial Assembly. Indeed, while the English government did in some respects extend its powers in the colonies, still the Assemblies also made substantial gains. Everywhere the elected Houses claimed the powers and privileges of the English House of Commons. Especially did they get more control over finances. After long struggles, they shut out the appointed Councils from any authority over money bills, and, in each colony, they created a Treasurer, not appointed by the governor, but elected by the Assembly. 1 191. Private rights, too, were more clearly defined. With the approval of the crown lawyers, the doctrine was established that the Common Law of England, with all its emphasis on personal liberty, was also the common law of the colonies even without express enactment. And at least one advance was made in the colonies over English custom in the matter of personal liberty- namely, a greater safety for a free press. In 1735 a tyrannical governor of New York removed the 1Just as in England, the appointed and hereditary House of Lords was no longer permitted to amend or reject bills of supply. chief justice of the colony from office for personal reasons. John Zenger in his Weekly Journal published vigorous criticism of this action, declaring that, if unchecked, it threatened slavery to the people. Zenger was prosecuted for criminal libel. In England at that day such a prosecution, backed by the government, was sure of success. In New York, the new chief justice, too, showed a determination to secure a conviction. He tried to limit the jury to deciding only whether Zenger was responsible for the publication (a matter not denied), reserving to himself the decision whether the words were punishable. This was the custom of English courts in such cases to a much later period. But Zenger's lawyer in a great speech argued that public criticism is a necessary safeguard for free government, and that, to prevent the crushing out of a legitimate and needed criticism, the jury in such a trial must decide whether the words used were libelous or true. This cause, said he, is "not the Cause of a poor Printer alone, nor of New York alone," but of "every free Man on the Main of America." He called upon the jury to guard the liberty "to which Nature and the Laws of our Country have given us the Right, the Liberty of exposing and opposing arbitrary Power (in these parts of the World at least) by speaking and writing the Truth." "A free people,” he exclaimed bluntly, "are not obliged by any Law to support a Governor who goes about to destroy a Province." The jury insisted upon this right, and declared Zenger "Not guilty." Gouverneur Morris afterward styled this acquittal "the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America." 2 FOR FURTHER READING. The best treatments (outside of special monographs) are Greene's Provincial America, 1-80, Channing's second volume, 217-281, and Becker's Beginnings, 125–200. An excellent treatment of Virginia is given in Fiske's Old Virginia, II, 174–269. 1 Cf. Modern Progress, p. 249, or Modern World, § 746. The fullest account 2 This trial was one of several at about the same time. in a general history is in Channing, II, 475–489. Zenger's own account, resembling a modern "report," is reproduced in the Source Book, No. 113. RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH 155 Classify the "navigation acts" under three heads 2. What are the two main subdivisions of the colonial period? Into what two subperiods is the second of those divisions again subdivided, and by what? Write a brief paragraph upon the matter of these divisions and subdivisions, stating dates for each, and the characteristic marks. from the site of his little band, But if they want LEXINGTON GREEN, showing part of a typical New England village and the scene of the first bloodshed of the Revolution. When the British regulars reached Lexington on their way to Concord (p. 213), they found there a few "Minute Men" in front of the Meeting House which this view is taken. Said Captain Parker to "Stand your ground. Do not fire unless fired upon. a war, let it begin here." And so, in spite of the British officer's command, "Disperse, you scoundrels," the Americans stood their ground and received a deadly volley. One of those who fell was the patriot Harrington, who, fatally wounded, dragged himself to his home (the house best shown in the picture) to die on its steps while his wife was trying to help him in. CHAPTER XVIII COLONIAL LIFE 192. Much colonial legislation goes under the name of Blue Laws. The term signifies either undue severity in punishing ordinary crime, or unreasonable interference with personal liberty. In the first sense (that of bloody laws), the colonists could not be blamed by Europeans of their day. Everywhere, life was still harsh and cruel; but American legislation was more humane and rational than that of England or France. True, many barbarities did survive. The pillory and whipping post (with clipping of ears) were in universal use. As late as 1748, a Virginian law (Source Book, No. 115) required every parish to have these instruments ready, and suggested also a ducking stool for "brabbling women." Prison life was unspeakably foul and horrible. Death was the penalty for many deeds not now considered capital crimes in any civilized land;1 and many punishments seem to us ingeniously repulsive, such as branding for robbery. In the second meaning of Blue Laws, that of inquisitorial legislation, New England comes in for just criticism. Not that she was much worse than the rest of the world even in that. To-day, as a rule, legislation aims to correct a man's 1 When the colonies were growing up, there were over fifty offenses punishable with death in England. This number increased to about two hundred before the "sanguinary chaos" was reformed in the nineteenth century (cf. Modern World, § 746); but not more than eighteen offenses were ever "capital" in New England. Virginia ran the number up to twenty-seven; but in large part this was due to her cruel slave laws, which were rarely enforced. |