the seventeenth century. England and Scotland then had the same king, but separate parliaments, and the English parliament could not make laws for Scotland. Such is the connection between Sweden and Norway at the present day; they have the same king, but each country legislates for itself. So the American colonists held that Virginia, for example, and Great Britain had the same king, but each its independent legislature; and so with the other colonies, there were thirteen parliaments in America, each as sovereign within its own sphere as the parliament at Westminster, and the latter had no more right to tax the people of Massachusetts than the Massachusetts legislature had to tax the people of Virginia. except in the maritime In one respect, however, the Americans did admit that parliament had a general right of supervision over all parts of the British empire. Maritime commerce seemed to be as much the regulation of affair of one part of the empire as another, commerce. and it seemed right that it should be regulated by the central parliament at Westminster. Accordingly the Americans did not resist custom-house taxes as long as they seemed to be imposed for purely commercial purposes; but they were quick to resist direct taxation, and custom-house taxes likewise, as soon as these began to form a part of schemes for extending the authority of parliament over the colonies. In England, on the other hand, this theory that the Americans were subject to the king's au In England natu there grew up the the king ory of the imperial su par premacy of parliament. thority but not to that of parliament rally became unintelligible after the himself had become virtually subject to liament. The Stuart kings might call themselves kings by the grace of God, but since 1688 the sovereigns of Great Britain owe their seat upon the throne to an act of parliament. To suppose that the king's American subjects were not amenable to the authority of parliament seemed like supposing that a stream could rise higher than its source. Besides, after 1700 the British empire began to expand in all parts of the world, and the business of parliament became more and more imperial. It could make laws for the East India Company; why not, then, for the Company of Massachusetts Bay? tween the British and the American theo ries was pre cipitated by George III. Thus the American theory of the situation was irreconcilable with the British theory, and when parliament in 1765, with no unfriendly purpose, began laying taxes upon the Americans, thus invading the province of the colonial legislatures, the Americans refused to submit. The ensuing quarrel might doubtConflict be less have been peacefully adjusted, had not the king, George III., happened to be entertaining political schemes which were threatened with ruin if the Americans should get a fair hearing for their side of the case.1 Thus political intrigue came in to make the situation hopeless. When a state of things arises, with which men's established methods of civil government are incompetent to deal, men fall back upon the primitive method which was in vogue before civil government began to exist. They fight it out; and so we had our Revolutionary War, and became separated politically from Great Britain. It is worthy of note, in this connection, that the last act of parliament, which brought matters to a crisis, was the so-called Regulating Act of April, 1774, the purpose of which was to change the government of Massachusetts. This act provided that members of the council should be ap 1 See my War of Independence, pp. 58–64, 69–71 (Riverside Library for Young People). pointed by the royal governor, that they should be paid by the crown and thus be kept subservient to it, that the principal executive and judicial officers should be likewise paid by the crown, and that town-meetings should be prohibited except for the sole purpose of electing town officers. Other unwarrantable acts were passed at the same time, but this was the worst. Troops were sent over to aid in enforcing this act, the people of Massachusetts refused to recognize its validity, and out of this political situation came the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill. QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT. 1. Various claims to North America : a. Spanish. b. English. c. French. 2. What was needed to make such claims of any value ? 3. The London and Plymouth companies : a. The time and purpose of their organization. b. The grant to the London Company. c. The grant to the Plymouth Company. d. The magnitude of the zones granted. e. The peculiar provisions for the intermediate zone. f. First attempts at settlement. 4. To what important principle of the common charter of these two companies did the colonists persistently cling? 5. The influence of these short-lived companies upon the settlement and government of the United States : a. A review of the zones and their assignment. c. The states of the southern zone and their origin. d. The states of the middle zone and their origin. e. The influence of the movement of population on local government in each zone. 6. Early state government in Virginia : — a. The part appointed and the part elected. b. The first legislative body in America. c. The dignity of its members. d. The reason for the name "House of Burgesses." 7. Early state government in Massachusetts: a. The Dorchester Company. b. The government provided for the Company of Massachu setts Bay by its charter. c. The real purpose of the Puritan leaders. d. The change from the primary assembly of freemen to the representative assembly. e. The division of this assembly into two houses, with a comparison of the houses. f. The reason for the name "General Court." g. The loss of the charter and the causes that led to it. h. The new charter as compared with the old. 8. Compare the early governments of Connecticut and Rhode Island with the first government of Massachusetts. 9. What two kinds of state government have thus far been observed? to. Early state government in Maryland :— a. The favouritism of the crown as shown in land grants. b. The palatine counties of England. c. The bishopric of Durham the model of the colony of Maryland. d. The extraordinary privileges granted Lord Baltimore. e. The tribute to be paid in return. f. The ruler a feudal king. g. Limitations of the ruler's power. 11. Early state government in Pennsylvania and Delaware : a. The powers of Penn as compared with those of Calvert. b. One governor and council. c. The legislature of each colony. d. The quarrels of the Penns and Calverts. e. Mason and Dixon's line. 12. What other proprietary governments were organized, and what was their fate? 13. Why were proprietary governments unpopular? (Note the exceptions, however.) 14. Classify and define the forms of colonial government in existence at the beginning of the Revolution. 15. Show that these forms differed chiefly in respect to the governor's office. 16. A representative assembly in each of the thirteen colo nies: a. The basis of representation. b. The control of the public money. c. The spontaneousness of the representative assembly. 17. The governor's council : a. The custom in England. b. The council as an upper house. c. The council in Pennsylvania. 18. Compare the colonial systems with the British (1) in organization and (2) in the nature of their political quarrels. 19. What was the American theory of the relation of each colony to the British parliament ? 20. What was the American attitude towards maritime regulations? 21. What was the British theory of the relation of the American colonies to parliament ? 22. How was the Revolutionary War brought on? 23. Describe the last act of parliament that brought matters to a crisis. § 2. The Transition from Colonial to State Gov ernments. blies and During the earlier part of the Revolutionary War most of the states had some kind of provisional government. The case of Massachusetts may serve as an illustration. There, as in the other colonies, the governor had the power of dissolving the assem- Dissolution bly. This was like the king's power of dis- of assemsolving parliament in the days of the Stuarts. parliaments. It was then a dangerous power. In modern England there is nothing dangerous in a dissolution of parliament; on the contrary, it is a useful device for ascertaining the wishes of the people, for a new House of Commons must be elected immediately. But in old times the king would turn his parliament out of doors, and as long as he could beg, borrow, or steal enough money to carry on government according to his own notions, he would not order a new election. Fortunately such periods were not very long. The latest |