To
re ne
s wh en thisvolume wastaken
N
w thisb ook opy th e
d gi v e
t o th lib i
c
.
o . an
e
rar an .
H OME USE RULE S
ookss ubj e ct to e c ll
t egis
All b o owe s mus
th e lib y t o b
ter i
w b ooks f
h ome us
All b oks mus t b
tu e d t d of coll ege
ye f imp cti o
d
All B
a
r
r
rr
n
r
or
rar
or
ro
e.
o
rn
a
ar
or
e
re
en
a
n
an
t be
imit d b ooksmus
L
e
h ou d
Ofioerss l
arrange
f or
the library asmuch as
p os
sible For speci al p ur
p oses th ey se given out
for a li mi te d ti m e
h oul d not us
e
B o owe s s
their li brary pri vil g sf or
the ben efit of oth er p e s ns
B ooks
f s p e ci l v l u e
when the
and gif t b ooks
giv er wish es i t are n t al
l owe d to i culate
R ea dersare as
ke d to re
port all ases o f b ooks
ma ke d "mu til ate d
d e fa c e b ooksby marksan d wri ting
in
.
r
.
r
rr
e e
r o
a
o
.
a
,
o
,
cr
.
c
or
r
Do
not
.
.
C
J K8 1
Th e d
i
ol n
o ll
PSS
rne
i s
ity
Un ver
nt of
a re
U brary
s
ide ntial
3 1 92 4 030 45 2 2 4 1
ua lifi
ide n tia l
T he D e v e lo p me nt o f a Re s
e n ta tiv e s
Q ua lifica tio n fo r R e p re s
in C olo nial Le gis
latu re s
“
-
BY
H UB E RT PH I LL I PS , A B
.
.
,
M
.
A
.
xi
ll ment of the req ui re me n ts
Submi tted in p a rti a l f ulfi
fo r t he degree o f Do cto r o f Phi lo s
o p hy , in t he
i ty
Facult y o f Po lit i cal Sci en ce , C o lumbi a Uni v ers
.
CI N CI NN ATI
P R I N T ED FOR TH E AUTH OR B Y
TH E AB IN G DO N P R ESS
-
s
To ONE N DW ( o na
r,
rRA r roN
s
: ms
s “mo s
s
wrr s
o
r
'
WOUL D N O T H AV E
A
AND S C R
B EE N
-
IFI CE
FO RE
WO R D
GE OGRAPH I CAL L Y thi s s tu d y only c overs th e c olon i es whi c h
later b ec a me known a s th e Thi r tee n O r i ginal C oloni es
I n p oi n t o f ti me i t ex te n ds fr o m th e per io d o f fi rs t se ttl e
me nt d own to th e en d o f th e c olo n ial per iod I n m o s t o f
th e c olo n i es th e req ui reme nt that a represe n tative m u s t b e a
res i den t o f th e d i s t r i c t h e represe n t s wa s in c o rp o ra ted i n to
th e R e volution a r y c o n s titutio n s
I n tho se c oloni es wh ere
thi s wa s n o t d o n e th e s tu d y has b ee n c onti n u ed but n o t in
de tail i n to th e per io d o f s tate hoo d
A t th e v er y b e g i n n i n g s o me sp ace has b ee n give n to a
s u r ve y o f E n gli s h C o n s titutio n al hi s to ry s o fa r a s it re lates
to th e s ubj ec t in han d
Thi s i s j u s tifi ed by th e c lo se re l a tion s hi p r a c ial s o c ial a n d
i n s titutional whi c h ex i s ted b e tw ee n th e c oloni es a n d th e
m oth er c ou n t r y ; a re latio n s hi p s o vital that w e s houl d ex pec t
to fin d e ver y de v e lo p i n g c olonial i n s titution to have a d i rec t
c onn ec tion with s o me al re ad y w e ll de ve lo ped E n gli s h pr ac ti ce
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
‘
-
.
C O N T E N TS
CH
AP T E R
I
.
AG E
P
G e ner al O b servatio n s
and
C o m p aris o n s with
En g li s h P r ac ti ce
II
III
TV
V
VI
VI I
VI I I
IX
X
IX
XII
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
XI I I
-
X IV
XV
XVI I
.
.
.
M assa ch u sett s
N ew P lym o uth
N ew H a mp hi re
Rho d e I s la n d
C o n n ec ti c ut
N ew H ave n
N ew Y or k
ey
N ew Jers
P en n sylva ni a
D e lawa re
M arylan d
V i rg i n ia
N o r th C a r ol ina
South C arol i na
Ge o r gia
Co n c lus
ion
11
IS
s
46
61
81)
s
93
.
1 30
29
14
16 1
1 86
20 1
2 15
“
2 34
i24 4;
T he D ev e l o p m e n t
o
f
a
Res
ide n tial
(hi alificatio n f o r R e pre s
e n tative sin
l ature s
C o l o n ial L e gis
G E N E R A L O B SE R V AT I O N S AN D C O M
PA R I SO N WI T H E N G L I SH
PR AC T I C E
th e Un it ed States to d ay th e inva riabl e c u s to m i s that a
represe n tative m u s t b e a res i de n t o f th e d i s t ri c t h e represe n ts
I n th e c a se o f represe n tatives a n d se nato rs in th e s tat e
l e gi slatu res thi s req ui reme n t i s o ft e n by law but q uite o f te n
by c u s to m
I n th e c a se o f Un it ed Stat es R eprese n tatives th e only
ha ll b e res i de n t s o f th e
l e gal res i de n ce req ui reme n t i s that th e y s
1
o
s tat es f r m whi c h th e y a re e l ec ted
A fe w s tat es hav e p a ss
ed l a w s req ui ri n g a Unit ed Stat es
R eprese ntative to b e a res i de n t o f hi s d i s t r i c t but
IN
-
.
.
.
,
th e b es t l e gal auth o riti es h o l d th a t a p rovi sio n o f thi s
ki n d i s i n va li d b ec a u se s t a te la w ha sno p owe r to n a rrow th e
q ualifi c atio n s fo r a Federal represe n tative p rescrib ed by th e
"?
C o n s ti tutio n o f th e Un i ted Sta t e s
“
C o n gress woul d pr obably s o dec i de th e q u es ti o n s houl d it
c o me b e fo re it but th e p oi n t ha s n e ver a r i se n 3
So ou r prese n t pr ac ti ce thou g h ba sed u p on c u s to m has
fa s t en ed it sel f s o s t r o n gly u p o n ou r p oliti c al li fe that n o
c an d i d a t e n o m atter what hi s fa me o r a biliti es c oul d p o ss ibly
b e e l ec ted f ro m a d i s t r i c t in whi c h h e d i d not res i de Th e
pr oo f o f thi s s tat eme nt li es in th e fac t that desp ite th e
e ager n ess with whi c h m e n see k p ubli c o ffice w e n e ver h e a r
”
o f a recep tiv e c an d i d at e havi n g th e c ou rage to att emp t to
4
s t em th e c u rre n t o f thi s t r ad itional c u s to m
2
U S C o s tit u ti o A t 1 S
B yce I 1 9 1
seve l pl ces I h ve fou d e fe e ces to c e t i e ce p tio s i p ctic e to thi s
I
cus tom I f th ese we e d efi ite th ey wou ld b e b oth i te esti g d i s t uct ive b u t so f
I h v e b ee u bl e t o ve ify the m Amo g th ese the f ll wm g
two e mp les of m e p ese ti g di st i cts i
( ) N w E gl d h sb d
t li v e
C o g ess i whi c h th e y did
e p ese t i g C o g es
(b ) I N w Y o k d C hi c go th e e h v e b ee c ses o f m
th t i whi c h they es id e
t p t of th e c it y th
l di s t i c t s w hi c h li e i
s
i
d ifi
Re p ese t tive w h o soo fte hi s el e ctio moved t o oth e
(c) A c se of
di st i c t b u t by fo ce o f pu bli c op i i o w sfo ce d to es ig
A s to y ou t o f Ame i c po liti c l life of
tte mp t to dis eg d thi s ul e o f esid e ce
comes d ow to us the u th o ity of Joh H y Whe J mes A G field w s of the
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
“
.
1
n,
n
.
.
r
.
n
ra
n
a
n r
.
.
n
na
n
r
n
e
n
n
.
an
a
e
an
r
r
a
ere n
n a
r
n
on
a
an
ra
,
r
ar
,
:
o
n
n
r
an
n a
,
n
r
r
a
11
.
n
a
n
n
n
n
n
n
r
r
.
an
n
r
.
r
an a
n
a
r
r
a
r
en r
a
ar
a
r
n
a
,
n
r
r
n
en r
xa
r
n a
a
o
an
n
.
a
r
n
x
n
r
are
o ne o r
a
no
r
r a n
r n
r
n
n
o na
ec
.
a
a
r
a
.
.
,
.
4
r
ar
.
r
r
ar
a
o ne
n
G E N E RA L OB S E RVAT I O N S
12
N ow
thi s pr ac ti ce seems to u s A mer i c an s th e only re as on
abl e an d pra c ti c abl e on e an d on e s o n ecess a r y i f a represe nta
tive i s to b e h e l d resp on s ibl e to hi s c o n s titu e n t s that w e n e v er
give it a sec on d thou g ht O nly wh e n w e c on s i der that ou r
pr ac ti ce in thi s re ga rd d i ff ers f ro m that o f all th e l e ad i n g
natio n s o f th e wo rl d whi c h have represe n tative a ssem bli es
a re w e b r ou ght to a s k ou rse lves H ow ? a n d Why ? i s ou r
pra c ti ce s o d i ffere nt
I n th e Re i c h s ta g o f G erm a n y in th e C ha m b er o f D ep uti es
o f Fr an ce in th e E n gli s h H ou se o f C o mm on s a n d e ve n in
both th e H ou se o f C o mm o n s a n d S e n at e o f C anad a a lo c al
d i s t r i c t i s allow ed to go an ywh ere in th e re al m f o r it s re p re
s
e n ta tiv e a n d o f te n d o es s o
With Fra n ce a n d Germ an y w e a re n o t s o cl o sely c o n cern ed
B ut why in thi s o n e p oliti c a l c u s to m w e d i ffer so fr o m th e
m oth er c ou n t r y o r c o m i n g c lo ser h o me why thi s d i ff ere n ce
b e twee n u s a n d ou r n e i ghb o r o n th e n o rth both rec i p i e n t s o f
a c o mmo n p oliti c al h erita ge a n d o n th e s a me c ontin e n t wh ere
pr o p in q uity m i g ht b e s u pp o sed to b r in g c o mm o n p oliti c al
pra c ti ces ? Th ese q u es tion s seem interes ti n g e n ou g h to de
m an d a n a n swer
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
‘
.
.
,
,
,
.
o f th e p h e n o m e n a that att ra c t s th e atte n tio n o f th e
s tu de n t o f c ol o n i a l i n s titu ti o n s i s th e w a y in whi c h th e se ttl ers
repe a t ed ce rt a i n a rra n g eme n t s o f th e m oth e r c o u n t r y a n d d i d
n o t repro d u ce oth e rs
Th e y m o de ll ed th e i r cr i m i n al c o d e o n
th a t o f En gla n d th e y b a sed th e i r lo c al gover n me n t on that
o f th e h o me l a n d but th e y bui lt u p th e i r rep rese n tativ e
” 5
s
e n ti re ly a n ew
te m s
vs
“
On e
.
,
,
.
Whil e
thi s gives u s a goo d i de a o f s o me o f th e c o n t r a s t s i n
c olo n ial p oliti c al a c tio n y e t it i s n o t q uite acc u rat e A n oth er
A meri c an p o li ti c al w r it er s u ms u p th e m att er a dm i r ably
.
.
“
E a rly in th e hi s to ry o f th e c olo n i es va riatio n s in E n g li s h
s
l e de s of th e H ouse of Re p ese t ti ves it b e c m e d ou btfu l if hi s di st i c t wou ld e tu hi m
t th e pp o c hi
el e c ti o b e c u se of th e s t e gt h o f th e oppos it e p ty S M H y
we t i to dj o i i g di st i ct to s ou d th e v ot e s th e e sto th e p op ie ty of u i M
G field f om th e i di s t i c t
Alth ou gh it i s p ob bl e th t the e w s l oc l m o f C
fie ld s bilit y i th t di s t i c t y e t e ve y wh e e H
me t w ith th e e p ly
Wh h e d oes t li ve i
di s t i ct
B y c e I 19 4 N o t e
C h mi
II I 7 4
H i s t o y of U
me thod s b e g an whi c h e ve n tu a lly c a me
a
r
a
r
a
n
n
ar
ng
r a
n n
an a
r
r
'
n
a
“
r
.
.
n
a
no
,
.
n o ur
r
r
a
a
a
ay
r
r
r
r
a
no
r
o
.
r
a
a
rn
r
ar
r
r
r
r
r
r n
.
r
y,
a
e g arded
be
a
n
r
r
n a
to
r
a
.
n n ng
an
ar
,
"
.
ar
n g,
r
.
,
r
.
.
G E N E RA L OB S E RVAT I O N S
13
A mer ic an c h a ra c te ri s ti cs ; but A meri c a n i sms in p oliti cs lik e
Am e ri ca m s
ms
i n speec h a re a t to b e A n g li c a n i sms whi c h d i ed
p
” 6
out i n E n glan d but s u rvived in th e N ew Wo rl d
,
.
,
.
A ll w r it ers o n E n gli s h C o n s titution al H i s to r y ag ree that
th e o ri gi n al E n gli s h pr ac ti ce wa s fo r a memb er o f th e H ou se
o f C o mm o n s to b e a res i de nt o f th e c ou n ty o r bo ro u gh whi c h
re tu r n ed hi m Stubb s c all s thi s a req ui reme n t o f th e C o mmo n
L aw That it wa s th e c a se ca n b e see n f ro m th e wo rds de
”
co m it a t u tuo
in th e w r it s o f el ec tio n add ressed to th e s h er i ff s
o f th e c o untie s
Th e fi rs t En gli s h s tatute res t ri c ti n g th e c ou n ti es to th e
re tu r n o f a res i de n t a s a memb er o f th e H ou se o f C o mm o n s
7
1
V
was
H enry
a n d i s pe rha ps a s i g n that s o me de viatio n
fr o m th e o ri gi n al pra c ti ce had al re ad y spr u n g u p Thi s la w
wa s fo llow ed by se veral oth ers o n th e m ai n s ub j ec t o f El ec tio n s
th e pr in c i p al o n e o f whi c h wa s that 8 H e n ry V I 8 by whi c h
both e l ec to rs a n d e l ec t ed w ere to b e ac tually res i de n t in th e
9
n
c ou ty
I t seems to b e a p oint o f un ce rta inty with all w rit ers o n
th e E n gli s h C o n s tituti o n a s to j u s t wh e n th ese law s b e gan to
b e e vaded So me think a se a rly a sth e followi n g re i gn that
o f Ed wa rd I V 1 0 Un cer tai n a s thi s i s w e a re s u re that by
11
h
ti
me
o
f
E
li
z
ab
e
th
th e y w ere q uit e ge n era lly d i s ob e yed
t e
fo r in 1 57 1 w e fin d a bill int r o d u ced in th e H ou se o f C o m
m on s th e i n t e nt o f whi c h was to repe al a sto th e bo rou gh s
th e s tatute o f H e n ry V an d to l e gali ze th e i nn ovation whi c h
had spr u n g u p
Th e bill a ppe a rs to have b ee n d ro pped but th e de bat e
on i t whi c h o cc u rred o n A pril 1 9th ha s b ee n preserved fo r u s
in D E w e s Jou r n al ” Th e s u pp o r t ers o f th e bill a d van ced
th e a r gu me n t that a m a n c oul d not b e pres u med to b e wi ser
fo r b e i n g a res i de nt bu r gess an d al s o that th e whol e bod y o f
th e re al m a n d it s servi ce was m o re i mp o r tan t an d m o re to b e
respec t ed than a n y pr ivat e re ga rd o f place o r pers o n
.
“
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
’
’
.
,
.
0
7
9
d Ri se
Lo r
,
owth of A me i c Politics I
a nd
Gr
r
an
,
,
5
10
.
(1 4 1 3
11
(1422
12
Ta
s well Langm
e ad .
314
.
(1 46 1
(1 558
ou l
D E we sJ
’
'
rna
1 68 1 7 1
-
,
.
G E N E RA L OB S E R VAT I O N S
14
”
“
”
Thi s
s ay s H a llam
i s a rem a r kabl e a n d per ha ps th e
e a rli es t a sser tio n o f a n i mp o r ta n t c o n s titutional pri n c i p l e
that e ac h mem b er o f th e H o u se o f C o mm on s i s dep ut ed to
se rv e not o n ly hi s c o n s titu e n t s but fo r th e whol e ki n gd o m ;
a pr i n c i p l e whi c h m a rk s th e d i s ti n c tion b e tw ee n a m o der n
E n g li s h P a rli a me n t a n d s u c h dep utatio n o f th e es ta t es a s
we re assembl ed in se ve ral c o n ti n e n tal kin gd o ms ; a pri n c i p l e
to whi c h th e H ou se o f C o mm o n s i s i n de bt ed fo r it s w e i g h t
a n d d i gn ity
a s we ll a s it s b e n e fi c i a l e ffi c i e n c y a n d whi c h
n o n e but th e se rvil e w o rs hi ppers o f th e p o p ula ce a re e v e n
" l4
fou n d to ga in s
ay
,
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
Tho se who took th e oth er si de o f th e q u es tion a r g u ed
”
“
that th e ri ght s a n d pr ivil e ges o f th e c o mm o n m an ou g ht
to have m o re c o n s i der ation but th e i r m ain a rgu me nt wa s th e
i n ter fere n ce o f n obl eme n in e l ec tion s in favo r o f n o n res i de n t
,
-
n o m inee
s5
l
.
Th e lon ges t speec h rec o rded in th e de bat e wa s m ade b y
s o me u n n a med o r ato r in o pp o si tion to th e bill Th e a r g u
me nt whi c h h e ad va n ced in th e fo llowi n g q uotatio n i s without
d oubt th e on e that woul d b e m o s t c o mm o n ly u sed by tho se
who b e li eved in th e res i de n tial q ualifi c ation
H e s ai d :
.
.
We
who hav e n e ve r see n B erwi c k o r St M i c ha e l s M ou n t
alb e it w e look on th e M a ps
ca n but bli n d ly g u ess o f th em
th a t c a me f ro m th e n ce o r see L e tt ers o f I n s t r u c tio n se n t ;
so me o ne who m O b se rvatio n Ex pe ri e n ce a n d d u e C o n s i d e ra
tio n o f that C ou n try hath t a u ght c an m o re per fec tly o pe n
wh a t s hall in q u es ti o n th ere o f g r ow a n d m o re e ff ec tual ly
”l6
killfulle s
re a so n th ere u p o n tha n th e s
t oth erwi se w ha ts
o ev e r
“
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
B i s ho p Stubb s s ays that i t wa s d u e to th e p oliti c al j e al
ieso f th e Tu d o r ti mes that s t r a n g ers b e g an to c ove t an d
o us
c anvass fo r bo rou gh mem b ers hi p an d b e gan to e n c ou ra ge th e
town s to violate th e pr ovi s io n s o f th e a c t o f H e n r y V Thi s
s tatut e wa s o ft e n e va ded by th e ad m i ss ion o f c an d i d ates to
hip l 7
free burgers
H ll m I 26 6
I f this v iew of e p ese t ti o e i ste d i the U ite d S t tes th e e p ese t tives i
s would b e e le cte d b y e ch s t te t l g — p c ti ce whi c h i s o l y foll owe d w h e
C o g es
t
m t o f e p es
l e c ti o m ss o s oo fte
e t ti v es th t th e s t t e c ot
pp
t i t E
ie Eis
31 5
T s we ll I
D E w sJ ou
gm d 31 4—
l 1 69
T h b o ou gh s we e muc h g e t e o ffe d e s i v i ol ti g th e es id e t
we e
t th
th e cou ties Re p ese t ti o of cou t i es b y
es id e ts did t d e vel op till fte th e
cu s t m w swell es t bl ishe d m th e b o ou gh s
.
.
1'
a
a
,
.
,
N
n
r
r
n a
n
a
a
r
n
n (
n a
e
o
n
x
a
ar e
or l o n
r a rea
n
a
en
a
r
ra
r
r
n a
n
n
r
n a
n
a
a
an n
r c e
1‘
/au
a
17
e
n
o
r
.
a
ea
r a
r
r
a
n a
n
'
N
.
,
r
n
n
r
n
r
no n r
-
.
a
n
e
'
n
rna
r
no
n
,
.
ac
an
a
r
r
G E N E RA L OB S E R VAT I O N S
16
why s houl d s u c h a c u s to m a s thi s o n e w e hav e b ee n s tu d yi n g
gr ow u p in th e face o f law a ft er law on th e s u bj ec t ? T he
an swer c an b e gi v e n per ha ps in th e followin g th ree re a s on s :
,
wa sc o n s i dered
(a) I n an e a rly d ay it
a ha rds hi p not an
So thi s o ffi ce b ec a me o pe n to
hono r to serv e in P a r lia me n t
21
pro fess ional ca n d i d ates
m
b
th
e
pr
a
c
ti
ce
o
f
bo
r
ou
g
h
m
on
g
er
in
g
b
y
whi
c
h
s
o
e
T
o
()
can d i d at e un c onn ec ted wi th th e p lace was se n t d own asa
represe ntative by s o me i n fl u e n tial pers on o f th e b o r ou g h
Thi s gre w u p a s a res ul t o f th e g re a t s o c ial c han g es in E n g lan d
d ur in g th e se ve nt ee n th cen tu ry at w hi c h ti me th ere wa s a
g rea t shi f t o f p o p ul a ti on ca u sin g la r ge c i ti es to spri n g up in
no r thw es t ern E n gl an d a n d l e avin g o n ce p o p ulou s b o r ou gh s
pr ac ti c ally un inh abited
(c ) The di rec t p urch ase o f th e se at fro m th e c o rr u p t
22
m
a
c o rp o r ation o r f ro m th e li m ited bo d y o f free n
.
.
.
,
.
.
Ev en d own to 1 885 it wa s q uite ge n er ally rec o g ni z ed that
a c an d i d at e fo r P a r liame n t s houl d e ith er b e a res i de nt o f th e
c ounty o r at l e as t own pr o per ty th ere ; in f act a f reeh ol d
B ut to d ay it i s a w e ll
q ualifi c ation ex i s ted u n til 1 858
reco gni zed fac t in E n glan d that a m a n m ay o ff er hi mse l f f o r
e l ec tion in any bo rou gh o r c ou n ty re ga rd l ess o f hi s p la ce o f
res i de n ce 23
We hav e noted th ree re ason s fo r th e b e ginnin g an d
growth o f th e pr ac ti ce o f n o n res i den t represe n tation B ut
wh e n th es
e re as on s hav e al l d i s appe ared by re as on o f im
prov ed s o c ial c on d ition s an d th e R e fo r m B ill o f 1 832 w e
fin d no c han ge in th e pr ac ti ce
I n fa c t s u c h a c u s to m i s
pr ac ti cally n ecess ary u n de r th e C abin e t s y s t em o f E n g lan d ;
,
-
.
.
-
.
,
.
i l u s t ati o of th e i diffe e ce of th e b o ou gh s to ep ese t tio is sh own b y th
i c de t of T gt i D evo—s hi e which eve obt i ed ch te e emp ti g i t f om
s di g b u gessesto P li m e t H llsm M iddle Ages I I I 1 1 5
I
e ly d y th e b o ou gh s h d to eso t t o offi c i l ll e d m uc pt o w h o se
d ut y w sto see th t th e e l e c ted e p ese t t ive e d e e d se i ce P o itt 1 5 6
Th
b u ses i th e b ove we e e m ed i e d b y th e Refo m B ill of 1 832 lth ou gh i t di d
t ff ec t th e es id e t fe t u e
m
A few ye s g
wh o w s c did te f P li me t i li told M B y e
th t h e th ought c did t e sh ould l e s t li ve e e ou gh t o th e
ty i w hi h l
w s c d i d t e th t h e cou ld l oo k i to it f om hisw i d ow whil e s h v i g i th e mo i g
Thi s pa ti cu l
m s i ew w sp ob bl y i fl ue ce d b y th e f ct th t h is h ouse l y j us
t
outsi d e the cou ty i whi ch h e w s c did t e
n
n i
en
An l
n
r
o rn n
n
n
n an
18
ar
a o a
a
a
a
an
r
a
r
r
ar
n
an
a
at
a
n
V
r
e
x
n
r
.
a
rv
r
n
an
ca
.
rr
r
n
'
an
r n
ar
.
r
a
a
a
r
n a
r
a
,
r
n a
r
,
,
,
a
r
-
.
a
.
an
an
a n
.
a
a
r
n
a
r
n
r
r
,
r
n
a
r
n
a
a
ar
a
r n
n
a
e a
no
on n
ar a
r
.
n
an
a
a
n
r
or
ar
ar
n
n
a
r
n
a
n
a
a
an
a
n
.
’
ecl n
n
a
n
’
a
na ve
a
a
r
r c
.
n
c
rn n
a
ie
.
GENE RAL OBSER VAT I ONS
17
for the ministers are necessarily members of the House o f
Commons Oftimesa man w ho has attained great eminence
in some particular field o f government is defe ated for re
election in his home district because o f some tempora ry loc a l
“
d issatisfaction
B ut the English view which di ffers so much
from that o f the United States is that no local opposition
must be allowed to rob the country as a whole o f the services
of a very eminent man therefore he can stand for election
in any district o f the kingdom
I t is interesting a nd n o t al together idle to speculate o n
which of these two systems the Engl ish or that o f the United
Sta tes flowing from a common source is the most natura l
development for a free country No less a n authority than
M r B ryce gives as his opinion that the English practice
seems to be an exception d ue to special c a uses while the
practice in the United States is th a t which one would naturally
ex pect to fi nd in a free country where local self government is
fully developed And yet after all he feels that it would make
for better government if we should follow the Engl ish plan
“
Th a t the restriction o f te n rests o n custom n o t o n law
makes the case more serious A law ca n be re pe a led but
custom has to be unl e a rned ; the o n e may be don e in a moment
of happy impulse the other needs the te a ching o f long ex
”
p erie n ce applied to receptive minds
“
The fact is that the Am e ric a ns h a ve ignored in all their
legislative as in many of their ad m inistra tive arrangements
the d iff erences o f capacity betwee n man a n d man They
underrate the di fficul ties o f government and overra te the
capacities of the m a n o f common sens e Great a re the bless
” 25
ings of e q uality ; but what follies are comm i tted i n i tsname
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
-
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
n
las
p i m mini s
te s
wh h v st in th e H us f C om m sn t
t fi
pl
id
B y I 1 83 D vid Ll yd G g p snted
f
s
e t d his
has p s
te
ho m
y when m d p i m min is
s
ti tu
his
B ryc I 48 7
14
re
Of t he
re
ve
n e
e nc
e,
.
.
o
r
e
ace o
e co n
1'
r
re
a
e n ce
e
r
a
r ce ,
.
e
e
o
a
,
r.
.
a
e o
o
on
eo r e re
o
a o
re e
e
M
A SSA C H USE T T S
IN
order properly to understand the system of representative
government which existed in M assachusetts it will be well to
review briefly the origin and constitution of the general court
for by that name has the l e gislature o f M a ssa chusettsbeen
kn own from colonial times down to the present The Com
pany of M assachusetts Bay wa sa corporation the governing
I tso fficers were a
body of which wa sthe genera l court
governor deputy governor and eighteen assistants a ll to be
chosen out o f the freemen o f the company1 and by the freemen
o f the company in a nnu a l election
The composition o f the
court is shown by the following :
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
“
And that any seven o r more persons of the Assistants to
gether with the Gove rnor o r D e p ut ie Gove rnor soe as
ha lbe said e t a k e n h e lde and repu ted to be and
sembl e d s
s
ha lbe a f ull a n d s ufficien t Courte o r As
f or the
s
e m blie
handlin g ordering a n d d isp a tching o f all business
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I n M arch 1 629 t he company received a royal charter !
confirming the territorial gra nt which it had received from the
New Engl a nd Council the M arch previous 4 By this charter
f ull governmental a nd corporate rights were bestowed upon
the compa ny The charter provided for four annual sessions
o f the general court ; the last Wednesday in Hilary
Easter
5
Trinity and M ichaelmas
The general court w a sto have
the power of m a king laws and the only check imposed upon
it was that they were not to be repugn a nt to the statutes of
England 6
Fo r a year after the charter was granted to the company
it remained in Engl a nd During this time the general court
met at various times but the b usi ness transacted wa sonly
such business asany company interested in a colonization
scheme would need to perform B ut when in M arch 1 630
the company with itscharter removed to America by the mere
M s
sC l Rec ds1 10
I bid 1 4
I bi d I 1 1
I bid 1 1 1
I bid I 6—8
I bid 1 1 2
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
1
’
a
o
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
or
.
,
.
.
.
.
18
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
M ASSACH USETTS
19
act of removal the corporation became a colony and t he
general court became the la w making body o f that colony We
“
might also say that under the new conditions the term free
"
“
”
man is synonomous with stockholder o f the company a s
first organized The corporation was not a closed o n e so the
number of the members constituting it could be indefini tel y
enlarged The power to admit freemen was in the general
court 7
Not all who came with Winthrop and his associate s were
freemen in the sens e of being members o f the corporation
Besides there were inhabitants already o n the gro und
In
1 630 the o fficials o f the company that is governor and
magistrates were practically all the memb e rs o f the cor
8
i
n
r
o
a
t
o
resid
ing
in
M
assach
usetts
B ut at the first general
p
court held at Boston October 1 9 1 630 a large number o f
persons some of them o ld planters petitioned f or ad mission
as freemen 9 These not only were not admitted but the
officials o f the colony d rew themselves into a still more
compact oligarchy in d irect violation of charter The court
declared that a ssistants should be chosen by the freemen but
that the governor should be e l e cte d by the assistants and from
among their own number also th a t the governor and a ssista nts
should h a ve the power to make a n d execute laws and levy
10
taxes
I t was as a resul t o f the protest a gainst this a s
sumption o f extra charter powers that the system of deputy
representa tion came into existence f our ye a rs l a te r 11 Another
important factor in this was the rapid extension of settle
ments which m a de it very laborious i f not impossible for the
freemen to attend the general court in person and also the
great incre ase in the number o f freeme n
The years b e twe e n 1 630 and 1 634 were years o f r a pid
development o f the general court into a representative
assembly At the general court wh ich met on Ma y 1 8 1 63 1
a most important act was passed a cknowledging the violation
P lf y I 323
M s
sC l R
d s1 1 1
tu d
l i l his
t m f
m n is t usd
t f
Th s
t y will u d s
t d t h t this
ti
t th w
l v s v t By t ism t m wi th full p l ti l
i
nt
dis
ti
d s
ights d p ivil g s
Os
g d I 1 56
M s
sC l R s 1 7 9
-
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
-
.
,
,
.
,
.
1
a
o
.
e co r
.
en
e
,
,
co o n a
o
a
.
n
or
er
a
an
re
,
,
.
,
“
er
ree
e
”
'
no
e
_
n co
nc
ra
an
r
10
r
a
.
on
e
o
.
e
o
e
or
a
e or
er a n
.
ea n
i
o i
an
a
.
ec
H
,
,
.
oo
,
,
.
c
a
20
M ASSACH USETTS
of th e charter in the act of the October prev io usand
v idin g t h at
p ro
,
ha lbe
once every year att least a generall courte s
holden att which Court it s
ha lbe law full for the com mons to
o n or
s
o n s w ho m e
they shall desi re to be
p p o und any p s
p
" 12
c h osen Assista nts etc
,
,
,
,
.
”
“
T h e act goes on to sta te that a maj ority of t h e commons
ee ca use they ca n
shall s
o elect and also th a t if they shall s
13
remove one or more of the as
sista nts
The l ast sentence of
th is act contai ns the fa mous requirement of ci tizenship
“
peculiar to the New England Colonies Now th at t h ey h ad
a tes
t by which prospective citi zens could be measured a
large number of those who applied at the October se ssion of
An d at nearly every session
1630 were admitted a sfreemen
of th e court after th a t additions were made to the bod y of
freemen Th e next year s
a w still more power pu t into t h e
hands of the freemen At the general court which met on
M a y 9 1632 the right of election o f governor and deputy
governor was restored to the freemen assembled i n general
cou rt M assachusetts was now a pure democracy where ea c h
freeman h ad a place in the law making body of the sta te
I t isevident that even by this time the population h ad
spread into the su rrounding country for we find several towns1 5
mentioned which were to a ppoint two citizens eac h to con fer
with the court about raising a public stock I t se ems not at
all unnatural that a demand for r e presenta tion should com e
j ust assoon asthe expansion mentioned above rea ched the
point w h ere eac h freeman himsel f could not attend t h e
general court This demand ca me in 1 634 hastened perh aps
by th e fact that a tax had been levied by the assista nts the
year before Sho rtly before the s e ssion of the M a y court of
Mas
sC ol Recs 1 87
A
ly exa mp le f reta il
mm ns
To the end of th bod y f th
m y b p es
e ved
f h nes
t n d goo d men
d th t f
tim t
e
d red and g
likem s
m
it was
hall be admitted to the
m
s
u h as
m m b s f sm e f t h church es
f reed ome Of f 1 8 bod y Wba ck e but s
wit hin the
of the s
a me
ly mitts
Mas
sC ol Reco ds1 8 7
" T he s
ettl ementsb y t h
yea 1 632 w B s
S l m Wate rto wn Roxbury
t
t wn
hs
dD
e gus
asynn) Newe Town (C m b i d g ) Cha l es
te M as
sC ol Records
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
-
.
,
.
.
,
.
a
u
.
.
.
“
,
I'
.
.
o
e
or e
-
a
e co
a
ree
11
c
"
o
n ea r
a
or
e
are
e
o co
e
r
r
e no
er
o
o
o
o
.
a
.
an
o
o
e
.
.
.
r
,
.
,
e
f gs
a
r
r
e re
e
r
o
o
,
o n,
a e
an
o rc e
.
,
r,
.
,
.
.
M ASSACHUS ETTS
21
1 634 ,
representatives from the towns waited upon Governor
Winthrop
They a sked to see the patent and urged the
establishment of a system of representation 1 6
While the governor d id not V iew this re quest favorably
the general cou rt of 1 634 acted upon it An act was passed
providing that before every general court the freemen of each
planta tion were to choose two o r three deputies 1 7 These
were to have a part in the making o f laws granting of lands
and all publ ic business The election however of governor
and assistants was still to be left to the body o f fre emen
assembled in annua l Court o f Election 1 8 But the statement
that the towns could send two o r thre e deputies did n o t mean
that it w a sleft to their pleasure I n the Act a specific l ist of
towns (to the number o f 7 ) was given with the apportionment
for each For severa l years this continued to be the method
When a town was admitted to the privilege o f representation
the act by which it was so admitted always mentioned the
number of deputies it could choose
From the year 1 629 to 1 635 we have traced the develop
ment of the general court from the governing body of a
trading corporation through its attempt to become an
o liga rchia l governing bod y down to its expansion a sthe
representative legislative body o f a commonweal th I t had
not yet reached its fi nal form
Two more changes were
necessary but these both came within the next nine years
I n 1 636 the legislative equality of the two branches was
it
acknowledged 1 9 and in 1 644 the two branches ceased to s
20
n
together a so e house
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
’
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
“
Thus within a period o f fourteen years from the transfer of
the government the M assachusetts legislature had assumed
I t a lways bore however not only in n a me
itsfinal form
but in character the marks o f i ts origin As in the corporation
" 2‘
so in the colony the general court was t h e source of power
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
W i n t h p I 1 5 2 1 53
ed i s
t ad f
ent tiv s
p es
F
sv l y sthisisth wo d us
I bid I 1 70
sC l R
M s
d sI 1 1 8 1 19
t
tswhil
s
Aft thissp ti n th g v
p s
id d ve the As
is
S p k nn u lly
d
Os
g d I 1 58
I'
ro
1’
or
1'
a
1°
l
e ect e
'1
e
,
o
.
.
e
ea
oo
.
e
eco r
,
a ra
o
a
er a
,
.
,
ea r
era
er
a
,
.
r
e
n
o
1'
-
.
,
e
.
o
ern o r
re
e
o
r
re
a
r
.
,
,
e
.
.
an
e
t he
Dep uti s
e
MASSACH USETTS
22
court as it now stood w a sa wholl y elective bod y T h e
co llec
overnor
and
assistants
being
chosen
b
y
the
freemen
g
t ively while the deputies were elected b y a constituenc y in a
l ocal d istrict that isby towns “
At d i ff erent times we fi nd th e general cou rt pass
ing re
23 to which the towns had to conform i n
th ei r
i
r
n
q u eme ts
ed before th e
c hoice of deputies but nearly sixty years pas s
the
uestion
raised
regarding
residence
and
t
h
en
not
until
i
s
q
t charter had been taken away and a new one substi tuted
firs
for it T h e only reference to residence in an y act under t h e
o ld charter is found in a proposal o f the general cou rt in 1 644
I n an eff ort to decreas
e the growing expense of t h e cou rt d ue
to the grea ter number of d eputies seated eac h y ear the
November court proposed a measure to reduce t h e n umber of
d eputies to tw enty and to make the shires the u nit of rep re
T he
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
M
‘
s
en ta tio n
.
Two provisions of this proposal show th at the Engli s
h
“
And furt h er
i dea of representation w a sthe prevail ing one
e of i n s
o
to y e end y e ablest gifted men may be made us
weigh ty a work i t shall be at y e l iberty of y e freemen to choose
"
they shall s
ee best
t hem in their own shires or elsewhere a s
I n order to avoid the possibility of two shires choosing t h e
ame man th e election w asto be hel d on di ff erent d a y s in
s
v arious shires ; Suffol k voting first and send ing th e resul t
to M iddlesex which was to vote on the next fourt h da y send
i ng the resul t of her election and Su ffolk s to Essex and
Norfol k which were combined into one under t h is propose d
Evidentl y no action wastaken
s
ch eme of representation
ee nothing further abou t i t i n t h e
upon this proposition for we s
records About a year later the general court sough t to bring
t d but th N w E n gl and to wn
lly u d s
N ot th e to wn as
no w g n
u t
d
d ll l t i ns f d p ut i s
to be b y b all o t
I n 1635 th e gene l
F ro m
f t hi s
w
ki nd B f t hist h y h d f llowe d the E n glis
h
t his
d ate ll c l oni l e l t i s
p l an o f a s
ho w f h nds I t isf tun t f A m i p liti l life that we ea ly b o ke
f s mu h vil in t he mo t her co untry
a wa y f ro m
cus
to m whi h h d b ee n p d u t iv
h p d u n u s up ul us ffi i l uld b i n g ab out the ele tio n of
Und er the E n glis
d
Wh t h d y f l t i
n early any cand id at he fav
me the c o wd as
s
emb led
pe ch sw e m d ; h d id t m d s
pee h nd th n the s
he iff call ed
no mi n t i n g s
id bl t s
p d wit h th g t s
f o a vis v c v te T h e s
t u pr
e it her y e o no
I f th t w s k b
h ld t h us
c ry t g d y
h w of h
d s the s
h ifi decided
y tahu:ing a i w ga u ng l ly b l t w sn t us
e el eetio n g
fi
g
ed in Parliam ntary
until 18 72
e l ectio ns
(Stubb sI II 4 1 7 4 1 9
Mas
sC ol Recs I I 88—89
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
'
.
,
.
'3
ra
o
a
“
on
ec
a
o
a
a
re a
a
r
o e
e
o
er
.
.
.
e
e
.
"
V e
I‘
eac
e a
a
r
0
,
ro
c
.
a
r
e
a
en
c
c a
.
o n ca
a
e a
c
s
c
r
a
o
a
,
e
rea e
o
r
.
e ec
a
r
e
o
e
o
ca
r
“
.
a
co
a
'
o
o
e
er
e
e
er ca n
a e
a
.
e o re
o
e
e
o
on
o re
e
o
e o
o
ca n
e n
.
.
or
en
.
e
a
.
r
e ec
a e
n cr
o re
e
e
.
or
c
e
a
e re o
.
ro ce
oo
er
o r e re
"
a
a
r
co
n
e ra
e
o ar.
an
o
"
r
a
r
er
e
.
24
M ASSACH USETTS
outlying town and most o f them were also B oston o fficials at
the time Taking them in the order in which they have been
given we will examine the record of each
Thomas Clarke represented Newberry in the general
court of 1 67 1 and
I n the s a me court he w a sone of
Boston s deputies and had been fo r ten years Th is presents
an anomalous situation Careful search has been made to
31
see if it were possible that two men of the same name were
deputies that year but such was not the case Search was also
m a de to find any similar case but only one was found which
will be given later except in the case o f two neighboring
towns far distant from the seat o f the general court From
anoth er source we learn that Edward Wood man and Will iam
Titcomb two residents had been chosen deputies by Newberry
on M arch 6 1 6 7 1 B ut they must have declined to se rve for
shortly afterwards Richards and Clarke both Boston men
were chosen for the remainder o f the year 32
Humphrey Davy represented B illerica in the general
courts o f 1 666 6 7 and 69 ;33 and was Woodburn s represen ta
34
1
7
1
1
tive for the years 6 to 678 incl usive
Lieutenant Richard Cooke represented Dover in 1 6 70
and 1 67 1 a long with Richard Waldern a resident 35
Captain Edwin 36 H utchinson was a Boston deputy in the
general court of
I n the court of election of the year
1 670 and 1 67 1 we find him acting a sdeputy fo r Kittery
Still later in the years 167 2 and 1 673 he represented Wood
38
burn
Captain Thomas Savage w a sone of B oston s representa
in the general court o f 1 66 1 and 1 662 I n 1 663 he re p re
tiv e s
sC l R s V ol IV
M s
485 50 7
to n i
A C pt in T h m sM s
h ll p s t d B s
1 6 50 C l R cs IV
1
Al s C pt in T ho m sM s
h ll w sLy s p s t tiv f the y s1 659 60 64 68
tu i g t E gl
Th s w d iff nt m th l tt
d d u i n g th C i il War nd b
th C mm
pt i
w l th A m y (M s
mi n g
sC l R s IV
364 382
LewisH is
t y f Ly nn 9 1 1 06 1 46 1 48
t y f N wb
H is
y 6 78
Cu i
sC l R s IV
29 5 33 1 4 1 8
M s
I bid IV
48 5 50 7 55 1 ; V 2
449 485
I b£d IV
Appearssm pla s sEd wa d
320
M s
sC ol R s IV
l bi d V 449 485 50 7 55 1
,
.
.
,
’
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
’
-
.
.
,
.
.
’
.
'0
a
'I
o
.
a
ec
.
a
o
a
a
e e
e re
e re
a ca
a n in
.
.
.
or
o
.
,
,
,
ec
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
r
a
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
o
n
re en a
o
.
.
,
,
re
r
,
err
'
rn n
ea
.
ce
.
nn
er re
.
e
.
re en e
,
,
a
a
.
e
re
a
on
,
o
ec
e
o
,
o
.
e
a
a
en ,
,
rr e r,
a
ar
ar
o
or
,
,
a
a
o a
co
.
,
n
a
e
an
.
.
or
.
ec
e
.
.
.
ear
r
o
o
e
,
-
v
-
-
a
,
.
e
.
.
MASSACH USETTS
25
sented Hingh am and in 1 6 72 wa sdeputy for Andover The
first year h e served for Andover he waselected speaker o f the
House of Deputies 89
J oh n Ric h a rds represented Newberry in the years 1 6 7 1
7 2 73 I n 1 675 he appears as a deputy for H a dley 4o
Captain Will iam Davis the last man on the list was
Springfield s d eput y in 1 652 1 666 1 67 1 1 67 2 and 1 776
During one of the intervals o f time when h e was n o t serving
for Springfield he appears as a deputy for Haverhill in the
general court of
There were two other residents of Boston who ca n as
“
"
j ustly be called professional repre s
entatives as any of the
men in the l ist given above These are Captain Will iam
Ty n ge and Captain J ohn Hull
Ty n ge represented Boston in 1 644 and was at the same
ti me treasurer of the colony H e w as
also Boston s representa
tive in the October court of 1 646 and again in
In
1 650 he appears as deputy for Dover43 and in 1 649 and 1 651
for B raintree 44
H ull w a sone of the mint masters of the colony and though
a resident of Boston he was the first deputy to sit in the
gene ral court for Wes
tfie ld
Wes
tfi
e ld was made a town in
1669 and w a srepresented by Hull in th e years 1 67 1 to 1 674
inclusive I n the court of 1 6 76 he represented Concord and
in February court of 1 680 w asdeputy for Salisb ury 45
B ut non resident representa tive swere not confined to
B oston a st h e large number of cases given above might
ind icate This will be seen from what follows
As
has al read y been stated the first record that appears of
deputies togeth er with the towns they represented is in
it apart
I n the general
1 644 when the tw o h ouses began to s
,
.
.
-
.
.
,
.
,
'
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
’
.
.
.
.
.
-
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
M 888 C o l
.
.
Recs I V
1 . 4 1 7 1 , 485 . 50 7
.
.
IV
485 . 50 7 . 55 1 . 560 ; v 42
I I I . 259 ; I V
29 4, 362 , 485 50 7
.
.
.
b
I bi d I II 1 0 79 1 05
T h e is des
h
rd s
T he Genera l C ourt R
crep ancy in th
lled sdep uty f r Dover (C ol
IV
whil the Dep utiesR
ase p s ti g B ai t ree
(C ol Re s I II
M s
sC l Re s III 1 47 220 ; IV
37
I bid IV
432 485 507 55 1 ; V 2 9 8 2 60
‘1
0
I id
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
er
r
.
,
a
o
re e n
.
.
r
n
a
,
o
ere
e reco
a
.
.
e co rd
.
e
.
n
.
c "
,
,
.
.
,
,
c
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
sha ve him
e hi m
eco rd
hv
a
MASSA C H USETTS
26
court which met o n M ay 29 of that year we find the names
of Richard Dummer and Nathaniel S p arraw haw k a sdeputies
f rom Salisbury and Cambridge respectively
B ut at the
general court a year later the same men represent Newberry
and Wenham respectively 46 I n M ay 1 646 the records show
that Dummer and S p arraw haw k were again deputies from
their o w n towns as two years previous while Wenham is
represented by Lieutenant Duncomb a citizen of Dorchester
a uditor general of the colony
and a representative of his
hom e town in the general court of the year previous 47
Wenham s choice o f a deputy fi rst from Cambridge t h en
f rom Dorchester shows the tendency wh ich was plainl y marked
in the early days of the colony at least for the remote towns
to choose a representative either from Boston or some town
ne a r Boston
I ts choice of the auditor general il lustrated
another tendency which can be q uite plainly traced through
the records That was for the outlying towns to choose some
man of prominence ; some colonial o fficial if they could fi nd
one who was not already a deputy
I n the general court of 1 645 Gloucester was represented
by Hugh Prichard a resident of Roxbury and a d eputy from
there in the court of the previous year 48
Springfield first had a representative in the House of
Deputies in 1 649 This was J ohn J ohnson a resident of
“9
Roxbury
and surveyor general of the col ony 50 He had
been a deputy from his home town in the years 1 644 to 1 648
and was again in the year
This was a beginning of
a large number of non resident deputies which Sprin gfi eld
elected to the genera l court I ts second representative was
Edward Holyoke of Lynn w ho served for Springfi eld in
1 650 and
He had represented Lynn al most con
tin uo us
ly from 1 639 to 1 648 Then a s
ha s
already been stated
it was represented for five years by Will iam Davis of B oston
I n 1 653 it was represented by Captain H umphrey Atherton
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
-
.
,
,
.
.
,
4'
'7
H
‘1
sC o l
Mas
.
.
R s III
ec
,
,
1 , 10
I bid I II 54 62
t ti n f th
A oth illus
M s
sC l Re s III 1 83
.
,
,
n
a
,
er
.
o
"
.
ra
.
.
c
o
.
o
,
e
.
ym
t e n de n c
i
e nt o ned
I bid I I I
I bid I II
.
.
,
1 , 10
.
,
,
1 4 7 , 30 4
in th e
I bid
.
,
.
.
s We nh a m
IV
41 6
ca e o f
.
.
M ASSACH USETTS
27
resident of Dorchester a n d a representative from h is home
town continuously from 1 644 to 1 65 1 At this time 1 653
he wasmaj or of the militia surveyor general and speaker of
63
the House of Deputies
When the contest over n o n resi
dent representatives came with Governor Phipps in 1 693
Springfield was one of the towns involved fo r it was re p re
sented at the time by Benj amin Davi s o f Boston "4
Dover after being granted representation in 1 642 was
generally represented by a resident but we have already seen
that it wa sfo r a time represented by two Boston men T y nge
a nd Cooke
and Lieutenant J ohn B a ker o f I pswich was its
d eputy in the year
Kitte ry and York were represented fo r the first time in
1 653
I n the court of that ye a r as well as for three succeed ing
years Kittery was represented by J ohn Win co ll a resident of
Watertown and a deputy from his own town in
We
have already mentioned Kittery s re presentation by Edward
Hutchinson o f Boston
I n 1 67 9 5 7 it w a srepresented by
M aj or Richard Waldron o f Dover a prominent resident of the
Piscataqua country and a deputy for years from his o w n
town York generally sent a resident as its deputy to the
general court I t w a srepresented for years 58 by o n e of these
Edward Rushworth B ut in the December court of 1 660 we
find it represented by Francis Little fie ld a resident o f Wells ”
a
,
.
,
,
,
-
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
’
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
M as
sC ol
R s III 1 0 6 8 1 2 1 1 83 29 7 40 1 Thisd up li ti n f f i si th
h nd sf o m w s f t q ui t m m i l n i l t i m s
th fi s
t f ty y
ss
A p usl f th li s
hows
t f S p i gfi l d s p s t tiv s
f
t h at fo t h t l
t i ts p s t t i
t l f th l
di g
gt h f t i m t l s
w s
i th
t s
t
t d p ut y (1 650 ) t t h t i m
f th
f mily the Py h ns F m th d t f h fi s
wi th Phi pps(1 693) S p i gfi l d h d b
p s t d i tw t y ight g
l u ts I
twen t y f t h es t h d p ut y w s
m
J h Py h hi mslf sm ki s
it h by bl d
marri g
D avisth B s
t
m
t wh m P hi pp s b j
t d w s g
ds
W h th
s
u h a p t n al i s
t d i
th
t w is
d ub tf ul
B u t I 34 38
m is
y
f B k
M as
id
sC l R cs II I 1 83 T h issm u t i ity st th s
s
M s
Tw J hn B k s pp
f W lls d
f Ips
wmh S
i n th R e
ds
C l R s III 445
I bid II I 29 7 340 3 7 3 384 ; I V
1 20 1 82 22 2 320 3 7 2
I bid V 2 1 1
I bi d IV (I ) 1 20 1 82 222 255 32 1 4 1 7
n
d th
th m s
t imp
t
t
I bid I V
1 58 449
Th M y C u t w s
mos
s
If t w w
p snt d i but
ss
i f t h u t d u in g
t l g ly tt d d
mb C u t f
t he year t hi s
B ut i th D
w s
th
n wh
d p uty
e w w uld fi d it s
M y
1 6 60 we fi d a mu h l g
T wns
tt
th
t t h C u t of E l t i
d
which we e n t p snt d i th l tt n w h d d p uty p snt d q ui t n um be
ugh
d
which o l y h d
Thisw uld b
d p uty in t h f m
n w h d tw
to s
d tu i g t th p o
how t hat s
b us
in s
i h d
om
s f unus
u l i mp rta c w s
ul t
st t s s
ived d w th t f
w s t h t n ws f th R s
h d
ceed ings
to
ti
.
a
o
ne
a
ec
,
a
a
an
er
r
.
a
o
o
nc o
.
or
e
a
c
e
.
r n
e a
ea
e
a er
o
o
a
ec
.
.
.
0'
er
.
a
.
,
.
.
ar e
co r
e
n
or
o
r
.
one o
e
a
,
o
a
o ne o
.
.
oo
on
er
e
.
.
e n ce o
e re
an
n
.
er
ra n
-
,
r
co
an e
a
n
ea
e co n e
e ne ra
n
,
e
o
e o
e
e
e
o
n ce r a n
e
-
ec e
o
o
,
en
e ar
or
r
e co n ro
n
a
e
n
o
e re
,
ear
re e n e
o
er
o
e
o
nc o n
o
or
e
r
e
.
e
on
n
ce
o
,
,
.
,
en
e
a
c
o
a
re
e
.
.
e o
e
.
o ne
o
n
e
en
e
n
e
e
e
e
o
ere re
e
er
a n ce
er
or
o
r
re e
e
er
a
a
a
n e
o
ec
e
re e
o
o
a
.
n
an
r
an
e a
.
r
e n ce e n o
e
o
.
ee
a
e
o
e
e
ra
on
a
arr
an
i
i
ea r a
o
o
a
rn n
an
o
er
on i n
e ey i
r
r
e co
ece
e
n
r
o ne a n
on o
e
.
e
o
o
o ne
e
a
or a n
o
n
an a
o
e
a
n
o
a
.
,
a
e
a r er a
re e
,
.
.
e o
,
,
,
,
n
e
.
a
ee
.
er
a
.
a
n
,
,
.
a
r
,
n
an
n an
er
e
re e n a
re en a
ee n re
o
a
o
o
.
,
,
.
re
a
on
o
e
e
.
,
.
e
re
ca
.
,
n co o
'
e
a e o
a
ex
o
e
e
,
.
o
e
on
e co
ro
.
,
,
o
rn
o
.
.
ac
e
en
a
,
o i
re
r
MASSACHUSETTS
28
in the M ay Court of Elections Rushworth had been its
deputy This shows us that deputies were n o t always chosen
for the whole year a l though that was generally done
Portsmouth like York generally elected a resident bu t
in 1 654 Va lentine H ill o f Dover w asits deputy and i n 1 672
Richard Collicott o f Boston ;6 0 H ill represented h is home
town in several sessions 61
I n 1 658 M assachusetts extended its bounds still further
northeast a n d organi zed the territory around Casco Bay into
the two towns Scarborough and Fal mouth They were given
the privilege of sending o n e deputy j ointly to the general
court and two in special cases 62 I n the next court we find
63
them re presented by Edward Rushworth o f York
At
several courts they were j ointly repre sented by a citizen o f
one town or the other But in 1 67 3 a n d 1674 Scarborough
was represented by Peter B rackett o f B raintree B rackett
had been a deputy for his o wn town al most continuousl y
from 1 653 to
Fal mouth s only n o n resident w a s
Richard Collicott o f Boston who appeared for it in 1 669
I n 1 672 Coll icott represented both Portsmouth and Saco “
This is the second instance noted where one man appears as
deputy fo r two towns at the same time ‘56
Even before the Casco Bay territory came under th e
control o f M assachusetts the latter extended its j urisd iction
over Wells and Saco by a body of commissioners in J uly
1653 and the towns were first represented in the general court
of the next year They d id not send deputies regularly b ut
when they d id they were usually residents Saco s re p re
s
e n ta t io n by a Boston man has been noted above
n th
nt i u t i
f th g v
m nt i M s
s h usttsu d t h h t
The nt i
d i gsf t hi s
ss
s
p
i w
fi d t l g p tit i t th ki n g ;
t P arli m nt
nd
l tt t th g ts f th l y C p t i J hn L v tt Ri hard S l t ns
t ll nd
S i H n y As
hu s
t
sC l R s IV
449
(M s
WM s
sC l R s III 340 ; I V
50 7
I bid III 259 29 7 373 42 2 Unt il t h y 1 653 P ts
m ugh pp
si th eco d s
sSt wb y B nk I b v y its m w s h n g d a d it w sg t d th p ivileg
of s d i g
d p uty t th g n
l ut
I bid IV
360
I bid IV
S
p g 27
36 5
2 4 1 1 20 255 32 1 4 1 6 5 5 1 5 6 1 ; v 2
I bid IV
4 1 8 50 7
I bid IV
S
p g 24
N ow
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
’
-
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
’
.
.
o
e co
n
e
on o
a
ern
o
n
e
a
ac
e
n
er
e c
ar e r
e
.
re
.
n
ro cee
a
a
r
e
e
o
er
.
.
ra
0'
e a
r
'1
en
o
r
a
a
e
o
.
n
ee
a
en
ec
.
.
e
o
e
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
o
a n
a
on
o
e
o
o ne
e
e re
c
.
o
a
o
a
e
a
a
,
e
ear
era
ee
co
a e
.
.
e
.
e
,
,
.
.
,
e
.
,
n a
,
e
ec
.
on
o a
,
.
a
o
,
.
ne
e co o n
.
,
,
a
ere co n
o
a
.
,
e rr
on
,
na
r
e
ear
a
c a
or
e
o
n
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
a
a
ear
ra n e
n
e r
e
r
r
e
M ASSACHUS ETTS
29
N ew berry quite often availed itsel f of the opportunity of
s
e nding a non resident deputy to the general court
I n 1654
it was represented by John Saunders of Wells 6 7
Billerica as has al ready been noted was represented for
th ree years by Humph rey Davy of Boston Later in August
of 1 676 and in the February court of 1 680 itsdeputy was Job
Lane of M aiden 68
Beverly presents but one case of non residence representa
tion and then their representative was taken from their
n eighbor Salem
Beverly had been made a town in 1 668
but itsfirst deputy appears in the general court of 1 6 72 I n
that and the following years itsdeputy was Captain Thomas
Lathrop who had previously been a deputy for his o w n town
of Salem 6 9
Salem also presents but one case of non residence rep res
en
ta tio n ; that w a sin 1 6 77 when it had for a deputy Thomas
G raves of Charlestown Graves had already had experience
as
deputy for hisown to wn 7 o
Chelmsford is another town which hasbut one instance of
representation by a no n resident down to the time o f the
contest with Phipps At that time we find it to be one of the
towns which aroused the Governor s ire by returning a non
resident Previous to this in 166 7 it was represented by
Peter Tilton o f Hadley who had already had experi e nce as a
deputy for his own town and was returned for several years
thereafter 7 1
-
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
-
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
.
.
-
,
.
’
.
,
,
.
M as
sC o l
R s III 333 336 S u d sh d f m ly liv d i N wb rry (C l
Re s I II
S v
l ss f m v l u i th
ly y s f th l y whi h
mi ght b t k f
F
n
s
id t p s t t i
x mp l B i P nd l t pp ss
W tert wn in 1648 d f S t wb y B k i 1 6 52 Af t th m f
a d e p uty f
m ut h his m
St wb y B k w s h g d t P ts
pp s ft b th sd p uty d
in t h
ti
s H h d vid tly m v d t th P is t q u t i t y sm t im
b t w 1648 d 1 6 53 (M s
sC l R s I II
d s s d p uty f m C mb i d ge
si th
Th
m
f J s
e p h H ill s pp
M l d n nd N ewb ry but in
t w whil livi g
f t h s ss
p st
d id h
i
n th
H w s
ide t f C m b id g d whil s p s t d h ist wn i th
s
years1 6 46 nd 1 6 47 Wh M id w sst ff f m C mb i d g s sp t t wn his
iden waswi thi th n w vill g H w s d p uty f M id f th y s16 49 1656
res
th t p l
I
1 66 5 h m v d t N wb ry
i 16 6 7
d
t d s d p uty f
d 1 6 69
t ry f M al d n 1 8 1 1 82
C o y sH is
sC l Re s I V
2 41 72
(Mas
M s
sC o l R s V 99 26 1 476 C o ey H is
t ry f M aid n 204
I bi d I V
100 40 7 50 7 55 1
I bid V 7 7 98 1 32 1 84
I bid IV
H is
to ry of H d l y 58S
1 4 2 295 330 362 449 4 85 50 7 55 1 ; J udd s
'7
c
.
.
e
,
,
en
a
e
ra
e rr
a
ee n
n a
a
o
er
on
e o
a
e
.
'5
o
c
.
a
.
.
e
en
e
ec
.
,
”
,
,
,
o
e e ca e
e
e
a
ac e
,
e a
.
o
ca a
a
e
,
en
o
a
a
err
or
.
c
ear
a
e na
e o
e
an
e
o
e
a
a
r
or
e
o
.
a
o
o ne
o
e a
en
n
e
a ce
a
'
o
e
,
e
-
.
an
e
e
o
ea r
n
o
n
a ra e
.
n
e
o
a
or
r
a
re e n e
r
or
e
re en
ro
.
-
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
er
e
a
o re
a
ro
o
a
'
.
o
e on a
e
.
ear
e
re
.
r an
e
e co o n
o
n
e re
e an
r
.
an
e reco r
n
a
ea r
e
n
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
e
an
,
na
.
e
e,
a
e rr
e
er
e ear
or e
.
ra
ea r
en
a
er
,
.
ec
.
a
a
e
e
o
.
o
n
n
r
o
or
a
o
n o ne o
a re
on
en
o
er
o cc
or
a
.
n
o
e
.
a
or
o
.
ce
e
a
an
o
a
.
a
n
e
.
o
re e n a
re
e
an
c
er
.
en
,
an
e
re
o
n
a
.
,
ca e
re
-
a
e na
a
.
,
o
an
er co n ne c
o
.
e ra
or no
or
e
ec
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
a
e
.
.
MASSACH USETTS
30
H adley wa sg iven
representation in the general c o u rt in
166 1 and from that time until 16 7 2 i t wasquite re gu larly
represented b y residents I n the above year and a gain in
1 6 73 and 1 683 its deputy wa sHenr y Phillips of Boston
while in 1 675 it was represented by John Richard s also o f
Boston 72 I n 1673 d uring the M ay Cou rt whi c h a sthe an
nual court of elections w a s considered most i mporta nt
Hadley was represented by the t wo residents Peter Tilton
and Samuel Smith but in the fall court Smith was repl a ced by
Phillips a Boston resident I t had also been repre s
en te d in
1 669 by William Halton of Northampton 73 who w asalso a
deputy for his own town from 1 664 to 1 6 7 1 with but few i nter
missions " I t was d uring one of these years that he was
deputy for Hadley
No deputies sat in the general court for Northampton u ntil
I n the M ay court of that year we fi nd Sam u el Smith
1 664
75
and William Lewis both residents of Hadley and who had
represented Hadley previous to this time and d id a g ain
76
i
subsequently to t
I n August court o f 1 676 Northampton
wasrepresented by Henry Phillips of Boston 7 7
A retrospecti ve glance at the instances which have been
given will show at once that it was the d istant towns whi c h
availed themselves o f the privilege of electing non residents
“
”
to represent them in the general cou rt B ut the word d ista nt
meant something di fferent then from what it does now I t
is said that it took people in Sprin gfield three day s of ard uou s
ridin g to reach the capital Such towns as Boston Charlestown
Dorchester Roxbu ry Watertown Lynn and Camb rid ge
were always represented from among their o wn citizenshi p
An inspection will also show I think that asthe se venteen th
century progressed the towns availed themselves less and less
of this privile g e While the l aw and custom permitted non
resident representation yet the towns preferred to ret u rn
their own citizens as deputies except when distan c e weather
ex pense or some other consideration intervened
1 1 3 50 7 56 1 ; V 42 42 1
Mas
sCol R ecs IV
1bid 1v
mo
41 8
l bw 1v
I bi d I V (2 2 41 7 2 1 1 7
IV
m 142 295 33 1 449 485
I bi d v
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
-
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
7'
n
.
"
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
u
.
,
"
..
,
,
.
.
.
n
.
.
.
.
.
.
M ASSACH US ETTS
32
of this date six prominent colonists former assistants bu t
who had been left out o f the c oun c il as named in the charter
were chosen councilors while ten in all of those named in
ix wa s
the charter were displaced by new men Amon g the s
Elisha Cooke a prominent B oston man H iselec tion was
promptly negati ved by Phipps probabl y be c a u se he had
82
vi gorously opposed Phipps appointment
This veto of Cooke s name added fuel to the d issatisfac tion
already felt toward Phipps M any were opposed to the whole
o wo u ld
scheme of government under the new charter and s
The
hav e opposed any governor under su c h con di tions
subj ectin g of laws to a double veto with the lon g period o f
un certainty till word could come of royal approv al or dis
approval wasvery dista steful to the colonistswho had been
ac c ustomed to making their own laws without let or hindra n c e
I n addition to all the above the go vernor had been invol ved
in two street brawls first with B renton the royal collector of
customs and then with a Captain Short commander of a
royal fri gate
The newly elected House of Depu ties met on M a y 3 1
1 693 an d elected Will iam Bond speaker
I t w asth e day
following that the governor refused to appro ve Cooke 83
The ne gati vi ng of Cooke w asthe turning point in Phipps
c areer as governor for soon thereafter petitions and letters
poured in for hiswithdrawal while in the general co u rt he
arrayed against him an opposition which he sou g h t to c r u sh
and did by the enactment of a non resident repres
entativ e
a c t There were some non residents in this body M aj or
e nt a sdeputy for Sprin gfield b ut
J ohn Py n c hon had been s
wascho s
en a member of the Council s
o Benj amin Davi s o f
Boston w as
selected a shis successor 84 Daniel Allen of B oston
represented Oxford 86
I t was not lon g until the governor was in a contest
with the House o ver a bill entitled
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
’
.
’
.
.
N
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
’
,
,
-
,
,
-
.
.
,
.
.
,
H utchins
on (Se cond Ed ition) I I 70 Co oke had 0 p os
e d t he new d arter
Ph i ppsand M ath r favo d it All thre w re th c olony sg
in E ngland ii t the
g nts
Colonial Pape s(1693
1 11
Mas
sActsnd Res
ol vesVII 2 1
1 bi d v1 1 20 29
0’
,
,
e
re
e
.
r
N
.
a
.
e
e
'
e
.
,
,
.
II
,
,
.
.
.
MASSACHUSETTS
“
fo r
An Additional B ill
”
Representatives
33
Regulating the House of
.
This failed to pass What its provisions were we do not
know for n o copy o f i ts has come down to us There was also
a di ff erence be tween the governor and the house over the
treasurership of the province
The house proving s
o re
fra cto ry the governor d issolved it o n J uly 1 5
On this date
Sewall writes in his diary
.
,
.
.
.
,
Abou t noon M r Willard prays the As
e m bly m e n
being sent fo r Presently after the Governor stands up and
dissolves the Assembly Was much d isgusted about the o ld
Treasurer and about the n o t passing o f the Bill to regulate
” 3“
the House o f Representatives
“
.
,
.
.
,
.
Writs were issued for the election of a new House of
Deputies to meet on September 2 7 1 693 B ut a quorum did
not appear no deputies coming at all from the counties of
Hampshire and York and on September 28 new writs were
issued fo r a session to be held on November 8
When
the newly elected House met it elected Captain Nathaniel
B y field speaker
He though a resident o f Boston rep re
sented B ri stol at this time 88 and other non resident re p re
s
en ta t iv esappeared ; Daniel Allen o f Boston as deputy for
M arblehead 89 and Captain J ohn B rowne of M arblehead as
deputy for M anchester 90
By this time the opposition to the governor i n the colony
becoming s
o great and s
o many persons were demanding
wa s
hisrecall that his supporters desired the general court to
petition the king for his retention as governor This matter
met strong opposition in the newly elected House an o p
position which centered in B oston
I n addition to having
her citizens frequently chosen to represent outlying towns
Boston had a larger representation than any other town
of the province By an act passed November 30 1 692 entitled
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
-
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
“
,
An Act for Ascertaining the Number and Re g ulating the
"
House o f Representatives
I bid VII 2 9
S w all I 380
I bid VI I 30
Mas
olvesVI I 29
sA c ts nd Res
I bi d VII 30
,
00
e
,
'7
3
,
'0
a
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
MASSACH USETTS
34
her representation had been raised by special enact
91
ment to four N 0 other town had more than two
The governor s opponents char ged that because of the
obj ection of the Boston men to vote for a petition favorable
to the governor he determined to reduce Boston s power in
the House 92 At any rate he had a clause inserted in a bill
already before the House which read as follows :
“
That not any Town in this Province shall ch use any
Represe n tative unless such be a Freeholder and Resident
" 93
in that Town o r Towns such are chosen to Represent
.
.
'
’
.
,
.
,
The title of the bill into which this was inserted was
R e p re s
en
An Act to prevent defaul t o f Appearance of
”
ta tiv esto Serve in the General Assembly
“
.
I ts other provisions di ffer but little from former laws
of the colony on the same subj ect I n all probability it was
the same bill which failed to pass in the M ay pre vi ous
Whatever brought o n the contest the governor and H ouse
were soon in con fl ict O n November 1 3 the House demanded
the privilege o f appointing their o w n sergeant a t—arms Their
messenger and doorkeeper were appointees of the governor
and council and the House fel t that their i nterest woul d l ie
with the power that appointed them 94 On Friday Novem
ber 1 7 the speaker adj ourned the House until Tuesday the
When the H ouse met
l t without consul ting the governor
on the l t the governor sent them word that he had d is
missed the speaker They a t once sent a committee of five to
wait on the governor and to ask him for what cause he d id th is
He repl ied :
.
.
,
,
.
-
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
“
for sund ry d isorders committed in the house
"
.
The matter was arran ged without the speaker being d is
missed by the entering o n the record the House s a ckno w l
request for pardon and promise not to
ed gme n t of error
,
’
,
,
Mas
sAc tsand R s
ol v sI 88
b l ow
Se two l t te rs
s
54
Lawsof Mas
55 ; 1 7 42
54
1
of the P ovince of Mas
sBay I 14 7
Mas
olv sVII 39 1 Arc hivesVol 4 8 22 1
sAc t sand R s
e
.
e
e
e
e
.
04
’
.
.
48 .
.
.
r
.
,
,
.
e
e
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
Act s
a nd
R sol v
e
e
s
M ASSACH USETTS
o ffend
35
95
again
On the very next day the House approved
fourteen items in an account bill but d id n o t approve a pro
posed grant o f £ 500 to the governor 96
On this same d ay the Council sent to the House the pro
posed no n residence Act This at once brough t a protest
from the House signed by twenty o ne members 97
.
.
-
.
-
,
4‘
alleging the vote was contrary to Charter Custom of
England of the Province hindered men o f the fairest estates
from Representing a Town where their Estates lay except
” 9
8
also resident ; might prove destructive to the Province
,
,
,
,
.
There seems to be some doub t whether the twenty one
represented the adverse vote o n this measure o r whether th is
w a ssimply a signed protest
The vote o n the final passage
was twenty four to twenty six as w e shall see below That
this was simply a protest is borne out by the fact that it was
signed by only tw o o f Boston s representatives Townsend
and Thornton 99 On a bill aimed specifically at their city
we should expect them all to vote adversely which they
probably d id
The bill was fi nally passed o n November
by a vote of
26 to 24 in the House and 9 to 8 in the Council
I n the latter
body the l ieutenant governor opposed the measure while
Sewall supported
I t will be remembered that he had
acted a sdeputy fo r We s
tfi
e ld in
I n the opposition which this constitutional innovation
aroused I ncrease M ather w a scharged with being its author
as
much as Phipps I f this charge was true it is only another
example of the influence o f the clergy in the early pol itical life
That the M athers were active in the
o f M assachusetts
pol itical life o f the time is well known as is Cotton M ather s
part in obtaining the new charter and Phipps appointment
S wall I 385 ; M s
olv sVII 39 1 Coun cil R csVI 309
sA ctsan d R s
Colonial Pap s(1 69 3
209
209
MassActsand R s
ol v sVII
Colonial Pap s(1 693
" S wal l I 38 5
Boston s p sntativ sin thiscou t w
Majo P Townsnd
I bi d
1 386
Edwa d B l oo m fi l d Cap t in Th o p hil usF a y and Ti mothy Tho nton Boston R cs
olv sVII 44
sA ctsan d R s
16 60 1 7 0 1 2 1 6 ; Mas
m A c ts
an d R s
olv sI 1 48
m fid
I " Sewall I 38 7
I 57
-
.
-
-
.
’
,
.
.
.
-
.
.
’
,
’
9‘
e
a
,
’0
er
'1
e
e
'
'9
.
.
.
.
r
e
e
,
.
.
.
er
,
,
re
re e
.
e
e
.
.
r r
e
.
,
,
e re :
r
e
e
a
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
e
.
.
e
-
e
.
e
.
r
,
.
.
n
.
.
en
r
.
e
e
,
.
MASSACH USETTS
36
as fi rst governor under it
Considering the part M ather
played in the appointment and also taking into consideration
that he was in a sense the governor s spiritual father it is not
strange that he would have some weight with the administra
tion Under date of J une 8 1 693 Sewall records that there
“
was great wrath among the people about M r Cooke s bein g
" ‘ 03
refused and tis supposed M r M ather is the cause
I n a letter o f J une 1 2 1 694 most o f which will be quoted
later from Nathaniel B y fie ld to J oseph Dudley i n London
regarding the n o n resident act B y fie ld charges that M ather
inspired the
I n an account of New England s a ffairs
written by a Boston man a few years after the events we have
enumerated took place we find the following :
I t is said that anno 1 693 there were some Boston
gentlemen representatives from some o f the out towns
th
but n o t agreeable to the then Rev 1 M
r ; Mr
.
’
,
,
,
.
’
.
'
.
,
,
,
,
-
,
'
,
“
,
,
-
,
.
.
.
.
great interest with the weak Go v Phipps and with the d e
”
v o t io na lly bigoted house procured this act
,
.
.
,
Whatever may be the truth in the above char g es we d o
know that M ather was a great ad mirer o f Phipps H isl i fe
of Phipps is highly eulogistic throughout and the character
which he ascribes to him are hardly borne out by con
is
tics
temporary evidence When he says
.
.
,
“
had the country had the choice of their own governor
tis j udged their votes more than forty to o n e would still
have fallen upon him to have been the man ; and the Gen
eral Assembly therefore on all occasions renewed their peti
”
ti ons unto the king for h is continuance
,
’
,
,
he certainly let his zeal impair the truth of hisstatement
The law of November 28 1 693 was first operative in
e ffecting the choice o f deputies for the general court of M ay
The puzzling thing is that we d o not find protest
30 1694
after protest pouring in from the towns against th is i nter
m S wall I 3 7 9
Colonial Pa pe s(1 693
294 29 5
m DouglasSu mm a y I 506 H ut c hins
on q uot sth abov but d oesnot vi w it
ymp athetically and c llsatt nt i on to Douglas habit of ju d ging m n sactio nsby his
s
on l f i nds
h i p d is
l i k fo th m (H ut chins
on I I 7 5
pe s
Magn li I 20 2 20 7
.
,
,
.
,
e
,
1 0‘
,
,
r
.
a
In
a
a,
,
e
e
,
e
e
.
,
.
e
e
r
.
e
-
'
e
or
r e
r
,
,
a
r
,
'
MASSACHUSETTS
37
ference with a deep seated custom Springfield is the only
one which did send such a protest but did it by the hand of a
non resident deputy d irectly in defiance o f the law against
which she protested
I n town meeting o n M ay 1 7 1 694
Captain Benj amin Davis of Boston was chosen deputy and
was instructed to lay before the general court the clause in
the charter that the
-
.
,
-
.
,
,
,
my
“
Representatives fo r Ye Ge n “ Corte
” 1 07
chosen in the Province
be accepted when
a
.
B ut Springfield was not the only town which violated the
new law for when the House met o n M ay 30 1 694 there were
six deputies representing towns in which they did not live
When the governor heard this he played a Cromwellian part
by rushing into the House hatless and ordering all non
residents to leave
The only contemporary evidence we have of the events
at this particular time is contained i n two letters We can do
no better than to quote t hese quite at length I n a letter
d ated Boston J une 1 2 1 694 Nathaniel B y field wrote to
Joseph Dudley in London an account o f this session of the
general court 1 08
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
(I
I had been returned for B ristol Capta in Davis
for Springfield Samuel Legge for M arblehead Captain
1 09
D isley
for Oxford Timothy Clarke fo r C he ncfo rdn o and
Ebenezer T ho rn to n l l l fo r Swansea On our coming in the
governor said that there were many more of the gentlemen of
Boston than could serve for that town and that for reason
which he would give later I Davis Dudley
Clarke and
112
Captain Foxcroft
should not be sworn
The rest being
sworn not without confusion I told the Governor that the
House of Representatives were proper j udges o f their own
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
Bu t sH is
to y of S p ingfi l d II 334
I " Colonial Pap s(169 3
29 4 295
I ” I n th l tt sof th ti m an d v n in the pub l i c co dsth w sg at va iation an d
a pp a nt c a l ss
ns
p lling of p o p nam s T h nam Dis
l y d o snot app ar
sin t h s
in th R co dsand n ith w sOxfo d p snt d in that ss
s
ion but Cap tain Du d l y
of R oxbury w sM d fi ld sd puty (MassAc tsan d R s
olv sVII
Thisisth m an
m ant without m u c h d oubt fo th na m Du d l y app a slat in th l tt
" Ch l m s
fo d— Actsand Res
olv sVII 45
" I Sho ul d b
B nton I bid VII 45
I " Th c o dsm ak no m ntion of a p sntativ of thisnam but s
u c h a m an is
mentioned by Se wall
as
o f th s
ign sof the p eti ti on of p ot s
t
r
'
r
e
r
,
.
,
er
e
e
re
e
er
e
re e
e
-
e
r
e
e
e
a
e
e
e
e re
r
.
e
re
re e
.
,
e
r
ere
e
.
,
r
re
e
e
r
e
er
,
e
e
,
e
e
er
.
.
,
.
,
re
e
re e
e
e
.
o ne
e
er
e
e
e
e
e
a
e
e
e
e
re
er
.
e
r
e
r
.
r
e
re
r
a
e
e
1
e
e
er
'
.
r
e
.
MASSACH USETTS
38
members
but he commanded silence ; and when Samuel
L egge having held up his hand among the rest ca me forward
to sign he was stopped by the governor fo r be i ng a non
e among o u
cuo rs
resident o f M arblehead After some d is
r
selves we five agreed to go again to the governor and Counc i l
with mysel f as spokesman to claim to be sworn in as d uly
elected members We d id so accord ingly and I make the
claim though the governor kept forb idd ing me to speak
and threatened me if I did not hold my tongue We then
returned to o ur o w n House having told the Governor that
what we had done w a sthe least we could do I n th e House
o f Representatives Captain L egge took his stand and said he
would n o t go o ut fo r all the governor until rej ected by the
House The governor hearing o f this came d own to the
representatives in fury without his hat said he had heard
t hat a member against whom he had obj ected had refused to
leave the House unless the House put him o ut and that he
wished to know w ho it was L egge at once came forward
and the Gov said he had nothing against him and wished
he had been returned fo r Boston in which case he could
freely have embraced but as to the others if the House
d id not turn them out he would turn them o ut h imsel f Now
if the making o f such a l aw (which we hope y o u will get
negatived ) and the refusal t o swear d uly elected members
be allowed s
o that a governor shall be abl e to pack the
Assembly farewell to all good ; and I shall find another place
to live in
That law is contrary to o ur Charter though to ou r shame
be it spoken w e infringe o n our o w n privileges simply to be
revenged of particul ar persons M r J M 1 13 said a month
ago that but for mysel f that law would no t have been
passed
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
‘
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
‘
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
The other letter 1 14 bearing date of November 1 1 694 w a s
evidently written by a visitor in the colony to a friend in
London We have not the name of either the writer or the
addressee
,
,
,
.
.
“
I t was very surprising to me to see the laborious methods
taken to obtain an address from the general assembly here
for the continuance of Sir Will iam i n the government The
opposers were gentlemen principally o f Boston who were too
m I n th R co ds
i mm d iately following th sinitial sw fin d th p nth s
is(Jos
hua
I n c as Math )
M oo d y
H utchins
on 1 1 7 9 30
,
.
,
e
or
1“
e
re
r
e
er
e
.
.
-
,
e e
.
e
e
are
e
MASSAC H US S ET TS
40
beer called a tavern keeper in a poo r obscure countr y town
remote from all business ; thus this countryman will not be
d i verted from the most necessary and beneficial labor of cul ti
a te
v a tin g the ground
his proper qualification to a tten d s
t
aff airs of whi c h he may be supposed grossly and i n vi n ci bl y
i gnorant ; thus the poor township by gentlemen at large
servin g g ratis or generously as the quota of the townsh i p Wi ll
be free d from the growing charge o f subsisting a u sel es
s
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Governor Phipps action seems to have settled the matter
in M as achusetts for all time I n 1 695 and again in 1698 the
General Court prescribed the form of writ to be used i n
ca lling a meeting of that body These t wo are practi c all y
identical the latter one reading in part :
’
s
.
.
,
“
Will iam the Third
to our Sheri ff
We
command that upon receipt hereof you forthwith make o u t
your Precepts directed unto the Selectmen of each respecti v e
Town within your Precinct Requiring them to c ause the
Freeholders and other I nhabitants o f their se v eral Towns
duly Qualified
to assemble at such Time and Pla c e
as they shall appoint to Elect and Depute one or more
persons (being Freeholders and resident in the same Towne )
"
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
11 7
The next time we find the matter mentioned isin an a c t
entitled
,
An Act in addition to an act enti tled An A c t for As
certa ining the number
and regulating the House of Rep re
“
‘
,
passed on April 24 1 731 I t contains the usual residential
qual ification
Nothin g further appears in M assachusetts law s
o the re
q uire men t must have become a fully a cc epted part of state
law and custom
I n the constitution of 1 779 1 780 the prin
11 9
l
cip e wa s
maintained the matter not even bein g d is cu sse d in
.
,
.
’
,
-
.
Douglas
sS u mm ary I 50 7
" M as
sActsand R s
olv sI 3 1 5 ; Actsand Laws1 18 1 19 Act N o 80
" I bi d I I 59 2 593
" Journal of the C onvention
Senat Chap I Sec I I Art V : Ho us
C ha p
e
I II Art IV
1"
I
.
e
.
1
.,
.
.
1
Sec
.
.
,
e
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
,
-
.
e,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
1.
MA SSAC H USS ETTS
41
the convention Some qualifications for representatives were
”
debated 0 but the
that h e should li v e in the district
represented had by this
become s
o well establ ished that
it found no opponents
.
.
m
Journ al of the Convention
.
7 7 , 1 25
.
N E
W
PLY
M
O UT H
governing body of New Plymouth as in the other New
England colonies was the general court This consisted of the
governor assistants and all the freemen o f the colony Until
1 632 the settlement was compact and hence it was no hardship
fo r the freemen to attend the three annual meetings of the
Court But about this time outlying settlements began to
spring up a n d we find Governor B rad ford and others be
moaning the fact l
The first reference to the expansion of settlements found
in the records of the colony isin 1 636 when a committee co n
sisting of four from Plymouth two from Sci tuate and two
from Duxbury (Dux burro w ) was appoin ted by the general
court meeting o n October fourth o f that year to j oin wi th the
governor and assistants in cod ifying the laws of the col ony 2
An expansion o f settlemen ts brought with it the inevitable
demand fo r representation and th is was granted o n M arch 5
1 639 by the following act :
TH E
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
“
Whereas complaint was made that the freemen were put
to many inconveniences and great expenses by their continual
attendance at the Courts
I t is therefore enacted by the
Court for the ease of the several Colonies and Townes within
the Government That every Towne shall make choyce of two
of their ffree me n and the Towne o f Plymouth o f foure to the
Committees or Deputies to j oyne with the Bench to enact
ha lbe j udged to be
and make all such laws and ordinances as s
good and wholesome for the whole
.
.
Here follows a provision by which the freemen at the general
court of election could repeal any l aw so passed and enact
one to suit themselves The act then continues :
.
and that every Township shall beare their Com
mittee scharges and that such as are not ffreeme n b ut have
taken the Oath o f fide lit ie and are masters of fa my lie sand
I nhabitants of the said Townes as they are to beare their
part in the charges of their Committees s
o to ha v e a vote in
B adfo d H is
to y of Ply m outh 303
P ly m outh R co dsI 43 44 ; X I 6
r
r
.
r
,
e
.
42
r
.
.
-
,
.
N EW PLYM OUTH
43
the choyce of them pro vided they choose them onely of the
ff ree m en of the said Towne whereof they are ” 3
.
At a general court which met o n J une 4 1 639 deputies
from seven towns appeared as a result of the privilege granted
4
B ut this does n o t mean that N ew Ply
by the above law
mouth s general court was at once changed from a primary
to a representative assembly
This transition was not
completed for a number of years for freemen still appeared
in person at the annual court of Election 5 This act of 1 639
plainly lays down a residential q ual ification and that it was
obeyed i s shown by a careful checking of the lists of deputies
“
”
committees between 1 639 and 1 646 the d ate o f the next
or
la w o n the subj ect
Such a checking fail s to reveal a single
violation o f the residential requirement
The law referred to above passed on October 20 1 646
c onfirm ed the practice o f all freemen coming to the court of
election but the opening sentence shows th at a residential
q ual ification was still operative fo r deputies :
,
,
.
’
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
“
Whereas the Townes formerly were to send their deputies
(which must arise o ut of " their freemen ) to attend the 3
6
general Courts
.
Plymouth laws were all revised in
the law of 1 639 regard ing Deputies reads :
I n this revision
I t istherefore enacted by the Court and the
authorities thereof
that every towne shall make
choi s
e of two of their ff ree m en
provided they choose
them only o f the ff ree m en of the same towne whereof they
"9
are
.
Also the law of 1 646 when revised retained exactly the same
wording it formerly had
The next and last revision of law in New Plymouth colony
was in 1 67 1 Article 7 of the chapter on Courts reads :
.
.
I t isEnacted That each Township in this J urisd iction
do Annually Elect and Choose one o r two fit men out of the
Free men for their Deputies
Ply m outh R co ds X I 3 1 ; B igham Laws 6 3
1 bid X I Part s1 1 an d II I
1 1 26
I bi d
I bi d
II I 1 7 4 ; X 1 1 55
X I 1 69
I bid
B igha m 259
I bi d X I 5 4
“
,
,
.
,
'
'
'
e
r
.
r
,
.
.
,
7
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
'
,
H
.
,
,
.
.
.
r
.
.
.
NEW PLYM OUTH
44
While this does not specifically mention that onl y a resident
must be chosen yet in the l igh t o f what had gone before a
residential qualification is impl ied wi thou t a doubt
So we have in New Plymouth the interesting example of a
colony di ff ering from all her New England ne ighbors in regard
to a residential qualification fo r d eputies in the general court
The question which naturally presents itsel f is Why this
d i ff erence ? The colony Records themselve sgive usno a n
swer neither do the contemporary writings o f the time such
those o f Governor Brad ford and Secretary M orton Hence
as
any reason assigned must be pure inference
But several possibilities suggest themselves The amount
o f importance to attach to any one of them must be left to
the j udgment of the reader :
(1 ) Considering the compactness of the colony d uring
most of its separate existence it is not surprising that in
practice the towns chose residents to represent them T he
surprising thing is that it w asrequired by l aw
(2) No city developed at the political centre of the colony
in M assachusetts o n which the remote towns could d raw
as
for abl e representatives Plymouth (town ) had a hard time
to hold her own and at the time of the colony s absorp tion
by M assachusetts there were several towns in the colony
which rivaled her in size and importance
(3) New Plymouth never developed a politica l conscious
ness as did M assachusetts for example : No political partie s
developed and no governor s
o far as the records show ever
met with any opposition on election day The posi tion and
title of freeman with i ts attendant privileges and d uties were
no t eagerl y sought a s
in some colonies On the other hand
that dignity with the political responsibil ities attached was
often evaded
(4) The explanation for which we are searching may be
found in Plymouth s strict conformance to English law
The contrast between New Plymouth and M assachusetts in
this regard isplainly evident on every page of the colo nial
records Writs which in M assach usetts were issued i n the
name of the colony in Plymouth were issued in the name
of the ruling sovereign of England whil e the royal commis
io nersof 1 664 who were received with scant courtesy by
s
M assachusetts were loyally welcomed by New Plymo uth
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
’
.
.
,
,
,
.
NEW PLYM OUTH
45
I n a ll things New Plymouth was loyal to English law and
tradition
,
.
I n England at this time although non residence re p re
s cutation was common yet the strict letter o f the law de
m a n ded that a member of the House of Commons must be a
resident of the county or b o rough returning him 1 0 I n New
Plymouth the requirement may thus have been a conscious
adaptation of Engl ish law despite the tendency of English
practice
-
,
.
.
Chap te I
N ot I n an att mp t to fin d if any tow in th c olony v att mp t d to viol at th
ide nt to p snt it in th g n al c ou t I hav ch c k d
q ui m nt of sn d ing a es
ys
t m atical ly d tho oughly v ry li s
t of d l gat swhi c h app arsin the reco ds N ot
s
as
ingl ca s of non s
i d nc p sntation iss
hown
1'
S ee
r
.
e:
re
re
e
e
e
r
an
e
e
n
e
r
-
re
re
.
e
e
e re
e
re e
e
e
e
re e
e e
e
e
er
e
r
er
e
.
e
,
e
e
e
r
.
e
e
.
N E
W
M
H A
PSH I R E
T H I S colony presents the most varied legislative history o f
any of the New England colonies I n 1 64 1 M assach usetts
extended her control over what was called the Piscataq ua
territory and from that date u ntil 1 6 7 9 the towns of t his
territory were represented in the general court o f M assa
chus
e tts The cases o f non resident representation d uring
these years have al ready been given in the C hapter on M assa
.
-
.
s s
chu e tt
.
When Randolph was urging h is claims against M assa
chus
in 1 6 77 the Privy Council submitted the conflictin g
e tts
claims regarding territorial and governmental control of New
Hampshire to the law o fficers of the crown Two points of
their decision were :
.
(1 ) M assach usetts northern boundary extended three
miles north o f the M errimac and
(2) M assachusetts had n o rights o f government over
New Hampshire l
’
,
.
Through the e fforts o f the M ason heirs aided by Rand olph
M assachusetts was ord ered in 1 679 to withdraw govern
mental control from New Hampshire By a commission wh ich
passed the Great Seal September 1 8
provision was
made fo r a president and council
Th is w a sbrought to
Portsmouth o n J anuary 1 1 680 by Edward Randol ph a n d
according to Belknap the local men named in it as president
and council rel uctantly assumed their new d u ties 3 Their
reluctance shows that the change was n o t a welcome one
There is little doubt that the maj ority of people of the colony
wished to remain under the government o f M assach usetts
Besides the six men named a scouncilors by the com
mission the council and president were authorized to choose
three other councilors
The president and five councilors
were a quorum fo r transacting b usiness 4 The commission
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
l
Pap s 16 7 7 1 680
H a mpshi P ovin cial Pap s I
C o lo nia l
N ew
er
-
.
re
r
er
,
B l kna p I 1 7 5
N H P ov Pap sI
e
.
,
37 3
46
.
t
.
,
.
r
,
,
.
er
,
,
375
.
NEW HAM PSH I RE
48
and elaborate and wa ssimilar to
those which Great B ritain was beginning to issue to royal
governors With only one provision of this are we interested
That is the one providing for the continuance of the assembly
The governor wa sgranted full power and authority :
um
from time to time as need shall requi re to s
mon and call general a s
s
em bly e sof the freeholders with in
your government in such manner and form as by the advice
o f o ur said Council y o u shall find most conven i ent for our
12
Service and the good of our said province
H iscommission wa slong
.
.
.
,
.
’
The period from 1 679 to 1 686 was New Hampsh ire s first
experience as a separate provincial government D uring this
time seven general assemblies met the last o n e convening on
J uly 22
During C ra n fl e ld sadministration he wa sin
constant trouble with the various assemblies and one would
scarcely meet until angered by some act or by itsrefusal to
do his bidding he would dissolve it Consequently the legisla
tive record for that period is very brief Of these seven a s
we know the names o f only the deputies constituting
s
em blie s
the first o n e So there is absolutely no way to tell to what
extent if any non residence representation w a spracticed in
New Hampshire during its first experience as a separate
province
From the arrival of J oseph Dudley as President of the
Dominion o f New England on M ay 25 1 686 to the uprising
against Andros on April 1 8 1 689 New Hampshire was again
a part o f an association of colonies arbitrarily combined into
one government I t was d uring this period that the re p re
s
en ta tiv e assemblies of all New England were in abeyan c e
When the o fficials of the Dominion had been sent to
England a sprisoners the commonwealth governments of N ew
England at once re assumed their old form New Hampsh ire
a royal province but without a royal o fli cial in it w a sleft
without government of any kind
.
,
’
,
.
.
.
-
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
-
.
,
,
,
,
either by royal commission union with other colonies
" 14
or federation of the towns themselves
“
,
,
.
u
N H Lawa I
.
.
.
.
50
.
I bid u
1. 74
.
I bi
d I
.
,
,
259
.
N EW HAM PSH I RE
49
This portion of New Hampshire history has been called the
Second Period of Local Sel f Government 1 6 A strong e ffort
wa smade to bring about a federation of the towns
Three
of the towns favored this but Hampton wa sd ivided into two
factions over the question A proposed form o f government1 6
w asdrawn up by a convention composed o f deputies from
each town which met in Portsmouth o n January 24 1 690
Hampton s obj ection together with the knowledge o f their
inadequate means of defence in the war whose ravages were
j ust beginning forced the towns of New Hampshire to
again turn to M assachusetts
On February 20 1 690 a
petition signed by about 350 inhabitants o f New Hampshire
w asd rawn up praying to be taken under the protection of
M assachusetts 1 7 The governor and council of M assachusetts
approved th is petition on February 28 1 690 and it was co n
firmed by the general court o n M arch
During this second union with M assachusetts Portsmouth
I n 1 690
w a sthe only town which sent deputies to Boston
itsdeputies were El ias Stileman and J ohn Foster
The
former w a sa resident o f Portsmouth but the latter lived in
Boston He was one of the town Commissioners at this time
”
and also one of the three commissioners for cond ucting the
first I ntercolonial War which had al ready begun I n 1 69 1
her deputies were J ohn Pickering a citizen and Richard
Wald ron of Dover 20 I n 1 692 Waldron again represented
Portsmouth this time se rving alone
At this time it w a sthe wish of a maj ority of the people of
New Hampshire to remain under the government of M assa
and petitions were sent to that e ff ect to the agents of
chus
e tts
M assachusetts Who were in England soliciting for a new
charter 21 What brought forth these petitions wasthe knowl
edge that Samuel Allen a merchant o f London who had
pu rchased the M ason Claims was striving to have h imsel f
appointed governor of New Hampshire Allen s importunate
-
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
’
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
’
.
1'
u
'7
N H
I bi d
N H
I bi d
.
.
.
.
.
Laws I LXXX II
I 260
P ov Pap sII 34 39
I 26 7
.
,
.
.
1°
.
r
,
l '
.
.
,
er
.
.
,
,
-
.
N H Laws1 378
I 14
I bi d
B lknap I 239
.
.
.
e
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
400, 40 1 , 420, 843
.
NEW HAM PSH I RE
50
demands were granted and a commission was issued to him as
governor on M arch 1
By this J ohn Usher a merchant
o f Boston and a son in law o f Allen was named as lieu tena n t
H iscom
governor
Usher was in L ondon at the time
mission provided fo r an assembly which the governor could
call with the advice and consent o f the council M embersof
the assembly were to be elected by freeholders after each one
had taken
“
the oaths appointed by Acts o f Parliament to be
ta ke n in s
tea d o f the oat h s o f Allegiance and Supremacy and
” 23
subscribed the Test
,
,
,
-
-
,
,
.
.
.
’
.
I n Allen s i nstructions he was again cautioned to make sure
that members o f the assembly were elected only by freehold ers
’
“
a
sbeing most agreeable to the custom o f England
’4
Nine men besides Usher were named in the instructions as
constituting the council Three were to be a quorum b ut no
important act was to passed with less than five present
except in an emergency
Government under the new r é gime began with the arri v al
o f Usher on August 1 3 1 692
The first session of the general
assembly was held o n October fourth ? 6 This assembly
numbered tw elve and all the men were residents of the
towns they represented An act passed o n the last day of the
session wa so n e regulating the pay of the represen ta t ives 26
They were to receive three shill ings per day
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
“
to commence from their coming out until their return
home allowing one day fo r coming out and one day for re
”
t urning
.
This was to be paid by their respective towns 27
Lieutenant governor Usher was n o t popular in New
Hampshire and he was opposed at every turn by the anti
Allen party T o them he w a sthe embodiment of the o ld
M ason claim to territorial rights I n addition he never lived
N H Laws I 499
I bi d
1 5 10
I bi d
I 503
I bi d
1 51 7
F o m thisti m on in th co dsthiswo d isusd ins
t ad of de p uti s
N H Laws I 53 3
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
1'
e
r
.
.
*4
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
e re
.
r
r
e
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
e
e
.
NE
W HAM PSH I RE
51
in the province b ut continued to reside in Boston Finally
this opposition succeeded in having William Partridge a
citizen of the province appointed l ieutenant governor H e
was appointed J une 26 1 696 and took o fli ce December 1 4
Partridge acted a sl ieutenant governor until Sep
tember 1 5 1 698 when Governor Allen appeared in the
province2 9 for the first time H is commission was still opera
tive although L ord B e llo mo n t shad already been issued a s
governor of New York M assachusetts and New Hampshire
New Hampshire s seventeenth general assembly ad
j o urned shortly after Governor Allen s arrival that is on
October fourth ? o On December 1 8 1 698 he issued a summon s
for the next assembly I n this summons appears for the fi rst
time any specific reference to a residential qualification for
representatives
Because of the extra—royal tone of the
summons quite a long quotation is given :
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
,
,
.
’
’
,
,
,
,
.
.
“
William the Third by the Grace of Go d King etc
To our Sheri ff or M arshall o f our Province of New Hamp
shire Greeting :
We command that upon receipt hereof you forthwith
make out your precept directed unto the Selectmen o f each
respective Towne withi n o u r Province of New Hampshire
requiring them to cause the Freeholders and other I nhabitants
of their several Townes d uly qualified to assemble at such
time and place as they shall appoint to elect and depute one
or more persons (being freeholders and residents in the same
towne ) accord ing to the number set and limited by the Act
of the General Assembly
to serve fo r and represent
them respectively in a great and General Court o r Assembly
by us appointed to be convened
I n New Castle upon
Thursday the fifth day o f January next ensuing
Hereof you may not fail at your peril
Witness Samuel
Governor and Commander in Chief in and over
our province of New Hampshire aforesaid Given at New
Castle under the Public Seal of o ur said Province the 1 8th
day of December in the tenth year of our reign A D 1 698
By Command
” 31
S AM P S O N S H E AFE Secy
N H LawsI 506
N H L ws I 5 1 5
N H P ov PapersII 283 284
N H P ov Pap s II 2 7 7
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
u
.
.
.
.
a
r
'0
,
.
.
.
er
,
,
.
'1
.
.
.
.
.
r
.
.
.
.
,
,
-
.
N EW
52
‘
HAM PSH I RE
I f we seek a reason for this new qualification for representatives
it isnot easy to find That it was mea nt to be emphatic is
hown by the parenthesis which appears in the summons
s
Non residence representation had not been the practice
in New Hampshire since it had been given a separate form of
government From the appointment of Governor Allen to the
time this summons was issued ten general assemblies had met ;
most of them of tw o sessions A careful checking of the lists
of representatives shows but o n e case o f non resident re p re
I n the assembly o f M ay 1 5 1 695 Newcastle was
s
e n ta tio n
represented by Elias Stileman o f Portsmouth
He had
represented Portsmouth in October 1 692 and M arch
Neither had the governor met with sharp opposition center
ing in o n e town as was the case between Governor Ph ipps and
Boston I t may be possible that the same req uirement forced
upon M assachusetts by a royal governor furnished the in
ce n tiv e fo r this
Since this rule was not by order of the council or by en
a ct m e n t o f the assembly but by proclamation the question of
its legality might be raised Turning to the governor s com
33
:
mission we find the foll owing
.
.
-
.
.
-
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
'
.
“
And we do hereby give and grant unto your full power
and authorit y with the advise and consent of our said Council
from time to time as need shall require to summon and call
assembl ies o f the freeholders within your government in such
m anner and form as by the advice o f o ur Council you shall
fi nd most convenient for our service and the good o f our said
p ro v mce
”
.
The clause in the abo ve
“
v eni ent
”
in such manner and form— you shall find most con
probably gave the governor ample authority for his
proclamation And it was obeyed When the assembly met
o n January 5 1 699 there was n o violation of this order such
aw in M assachusetts immediately following the e n
a swe s
a ctme n t of a residence qual ification for deputies
N H LawsI 1 3 5 1 7 545 57 5
I bi d
I 5 03
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
1'
.
,
,
,
N EW HAM PSH I RE
53
Lord B ello mo n t now arrived in New Hampshire and was
recognized as governor o n J uly 3 1 1 699 An assembly which
met at his call and the first o ne elected since the o n e chosen
under Allen s new rule enacted a law regarding qualification s
of representatives in which residence was not mentioned
But before we examine this it will be well to take up L ord
B e llo mo n t sCommission and I nstructions
The portion of hiscommission referring to an assembly
reads exactly as the quotation given above from Governor
Allen s Commission "4 I n his instructions two clauses only
refer to the assembly By o n e he is admonished to see that
members of the assembly are elected only by freeholders and
by the other he was ordered to red uce the salary of the
members to a point where it would not be to o heavy on the
towns
He was however to use his d iscretion about the
latter 35 The first assembly under Governor B e llo m o n t met
on August 7
On the seventeenth a law was passed
entitled
,
.
’
.
’
.
’
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
“
An Act to Return Able and Su fficient J urors to Serve in the
Several Courts of J ustice and to Regulate the Election of
Representatives to serve in the General Assembly within
” 37
this Province
.
This law was approved by B ello m o n t shortly before leaving
the province 3 8
The clause of th is act referring to representatives is entitled
.
“
Qualification of Representatives and Electors
”
and reads in part :
“
And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid
th at no person inhabiting within this province other than
freeholders of the val ue o r income of forty sh illing per annu m
upwards in land or worth fi fty pounds sterling at the least in
personal estate shall have any vote in the election of R ep re
s
e n ta tiv e s
; or be capable of being elected to serve in the
39
General Assembly
,
.
,
,
,
.
u
N H Laws I
I 6 23
I bi d
I 635
I bi d
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
6 1 2 620
-
bd I
" I bi d
I
I bi d
I
"
.
I i
.
.
.
,
,
65 7
.
,
,
640
.
,
,
659
.
NEW HAM PSH I RE
54
Whether no mention of a residential requirement was
a pproved by Governor B ello m o n t as he had a perfect right
to do under his instructions or whether th is omission of any
reference to residence wa sa studied one on the part of th e
a ssembly and it chose this way of putting itsel f on record as
o pposing the requirement laid down by the former governor
are questions W hich the available data d o not answer B ut
there isnot doubt that the people of New Hampshire re
garded the coming of B e llo m o n t as a return to their ac
governmental forms and regulations
Belknap
c ustomed
a fter speaking o f the return of Partridge to the o ffice of lieu
tenant governor and the reinstatement of some of the council
whom Allen had removed says
“
The go v ern m e n t wa sn o w modelled in favour of the
p eople and they rej oiced in the change as they apprehended
t he way was opened for an e ffectual settlemen t of their long
” 40
continued di fficulties and disputes
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
Under succeeding governors we find no attempt to impose
a residential requirement upon the province in the choice of
its representatives although they had or at least some of them
h a d as much authority to do so as did Allen
For example
Joseph Dudley s commission which was issued J uly 13 1 7 02
T he clause in this which gave him power to call an assembly
reads exactly as d id the corresponding clause in Allen s and
41
B e llo mo n t scommissions
The commissions of later governors were worded slightly
d i ff erently and were perhaps meant to leave the rules and
r egulations governing the assembly in its o w n hands
J ona
than Belcher became governor of New Hampshire in 1 730
commission read s in part :
H is
,
,
,
,
.
’
,
.
’
’
.
.
.
“
And we do hereby give and grant unto you full power
a n d authority with the advice and consen t of your said
C ouncil from time to time a s
need require to summon and call
G eneral Assemblys of the Freeholders and Planters within
y our Government in manner and form according to the usa ge
42
o f our Providence o f New Hampshire
B lkna p H is
to y of N ew H a mp s
hi e 1 305
N H P ov Pa p rsII 368
I bi d IV 6 38
.
‘0
e
.
.
r
r
r
.
.
e
.
,
.
,
,
.
u
.
,
.
56
N EW HAM PSH I RE
the liberty o f voting in the town parish o r precinct, where
such his estate shall be al though he be not an i nhab i tant” i n
4‘
sai d town parish or precinct at the time of such electi on
,
,
.
,
Belknap says of this that it
was the only act which could be called a con
s
titutio n o r form o f government established by the people of
New Hampshire ; all other parts o f their government bein g
founded o n royal commissions and instructions B ut this act
was defective in not determining by whom the writs should
be issued and in not describing the places from which Rep re
should be called either by name extent or p o p ula
s
e n ta tiv e s
” 46
tion
,
.
,
,
~
,
,
.
This e ff ect which Belknap points o ut is apparent as one reads
the records There was contest after contest between the
governor and assembly over the right to grant new tow ns the
right to representation
I t seems clear from the governor s commission and from
the practice that had been followed in New Hampshire from
the first that it was the governor s privilege to name a new
town in the election writs whenever he though t the cond itions
there j ustified it The most bitterly contested case of this
sort occurred in 1 749 when the House and Governor Went
worth came into conflict over this very question On J anuary
1 0 1 749 the governor vetoed the House s choice of speaker
because they refused to seat tw o members chosen from
Chester and South Hampton The House stood fi rm that the
granting of the right of representation to a town was by its
own action and not by the king s writ
Nothing w a sac
complished the whole life of the assembly as i t was kept under
short adj ournments and prorogations until the triennial act
dissolved it 47
The first and only case of non residence representation in
New Hampshire which I have been able to find was i n 1 749
.
.
’
’
.
.
'
,
,
.
’
.
.
-
s
abov a ct p ov id d that th ss
ion of th as
s
em bly p as
ing t h ac t s
hould nd
s
is
on Ap il
a nd that t h p
On of t h a c t s
houl d a pply to t h c hoi ce of s
u c cee d
e m bli s
ing as
s
B lkna p II 90
N H P ov Pape sVI 7 4 7 7 F anoth int s
ting p has
e of thi s ntent s
ee
hi sa Royal P ovin ce 1 39 1 4 1
F ry N w H a mps
e
The
r
1 3, 1 7 31 .
4'
e
e
0
,
.
e
e
ro v
e
I
e
e
S
e
e
e
e
.
,
.
e
r
r
,
.
r
.
re a
,
.
-
.
r
or
er
-
.
.
e re
co
NEW HAM PSH I RE
57
when Richard Waldron (the third o f the same name ) appeared
as a representative for Hampton 48 He served in this capacity
until 1 752 Wald ron was a resident of Portsmouth and the
leader of the opposition to Governor Wentworth Adams
in h is Annals o f Portsmouth says :
.
.
.
( I
but soon after Governor Wentworth commenced his
ad ministration h e suspended M r Waldron as Counsellor
removed him from o ffice and appointed Colonel Atkinson
Secretary and Andrew Wiggin J udge o f Probate He re
mained a private citizen until the beginning o f the year 1 749
when he was solicited by hisfriend s in town to be a candidate
to the General Court which was to meet in January ; but he
absol utely refused I n the meantime the town o f Hampton
elected him their representative without giving him any
previous intimation o f their design ; they notified him of their
choice by a Constable and after some consultation he ac
” 49
ce p te d the appointment
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
When the assembly met Waldron was elected speaker but the
Governor negatived the choice This was the beginning of
the contest already noted above
The provincial period o f New Hampshire closes with no
residential qual ification for representatives in force and
though not forbidden we have seen that non residence
representation was not practiced One reason fo r this was
the fact set forth in the following statement o f Governor
Belcher I n 1 733 the Assembly60 complained to Belcher of
his frequent d issol utions He repl ied :
Nor do I see any great I n co n v e nie ny in the dis
sol ution o i an Assembly since there are but twelve Towns in
the Province that send Representatives and of which the most
remote isnot a day s j ourney from the place where you
51
commonly s
it
.
.
,
.
-
,
.
.
.
I ‘
’
.
New Hampshire d id grow slowly a sit su ff ered severely from
I ndian raids in all the intercolonial wars
Not until the
period between the last intercolonial war and the Revol ution
.
Dow H is
to ry of H a mp ton I 56 7 ; N H P ov Pa p sVI 7 0
Ad ams 1 9 1 1 9 2
hi s
sm bly isth c or e c t t m f o th low hous of N w H a mps
Ge ne al As
th c o
ct t m
1 7 7 5 Ge n al Cou t is
w making bo dy f o m 1 6 7 9 to 1 7 75 Aft
I N H P ov Pape sIV 698
1'
.
,
,
,
r
.
.
er
,
.
.
-
.
,
N
la
e
r
e
r
r
-
‘
.
.
r
.
.
r
,
.
.
er
er
r
e
er
er
e
e
r
re
e
rre
er
.
'
58
NEW HAM PSH I RE
did outl y in g settlements spring up in any number D u rin g
those years the assembly increased constantl y in nu mbers
and at the end of the provincial period had thirty fo u r mem
bers
New Hampsh ire claims the d istinction of bein g the fi rst
sta te to adopt a c onstitution in response to th e s u ggestion o f
the Continental Congress A convention of repres
enta tives
from the towns met in Exeter on J anuary 5 1 7 7 6 and re
sol ved themselves into a house of representati ves a sthe y had
been authorized to do The rules under which the y had been
elected were similar to those in force when the state wasa
royal province
The towns were not required to choose
residents 52 I mmediately after assuming the authorit y of a
house of representatives the body d rew u p a form of g o vern
ment for New Hampshire 53 This is called the state s first
constitution Asit was hoped the war would be o f brief
duration the instrument w asneither complete nor pre c ise
No qualifications fo r either representatives or councilors were
in c l uded in it
I n 1 778 a constitutional convention met at Concord “ to
frame a new instrument of government b ut what the resul t of
their labor w aswe do not know for the j ournal of the c on
v en tio n has not b ee n found
B ut the following y ear 1 7 79
a constitution w a sframed submitted to the people and re
“5
d
ec
The clause of this respecting represen ta ti ves read s
t
e
j
asfollows :
.
-
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
’
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
“
All male inhabita nts of the State of lawful a ge payin g
tax esand professin g the protestant rel igion shall be d ee med
le gal voters in choosing counsellors and representati v es and
havin g an estate of three hundred pounds equal to sil ver at
ix shillin gs and eight pence per ounce one hal f at le ast
s
whereof to be real estate and lying within this State wi th th e
"
qualifications aforesaid shall be capable of bein g elected
,
,
,
.
,
-
,
,
,
.
,
The nex t attempt to frame a constitution wasin 1 781
The con vention met at Concord in J une and finished its
work
.
H Prov Pa pe sV I I
b VI II 2 5
b I X 834 837
N
I id"
I id ,
.
r
.
.
.
,
.
-
.
.
-
.
,
6 06
.
9
b d IX
I bi d I X
I i
.
.
.
.
.
.
837 842
-
839
.
.
S9
NEW HAM PSH I RE
in S eptember ,
and it too was rej ected at the polls ‘57 This
co n vention made a d ecided change from the customar y prae
ti c e of representation I n the plan submitted to the people
there were to be fi fty members of the House of Representati ves
appor tioned amon g the counti es a sfollows :
.
.
Rockingham twenty
Straff ord eight
H illsborough ten
Cheshire eight
Grafton four
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
Th es
e were to be c hosen by county conventions out of their
own num ber instead of by the people d irectl y Each town
ha vin g ratea ble polls could select one delegate to said co nv en
tion and larger towns in proportion The qual ifi c ations for a
dele gate to these conventions were that he should be a
Protesta nt
“
and for two years next precedin g hiselection an inhabitant
of the town parish or association for which he may be
chosen ;
,
.
,
.
.
,
When
the convention assembled it wa sto di v ide each co u nty
on the following basis :
Eac h county shall contain a smany distri c ts asthe same
shall have representa tives and the d istri c ts in each county
ch al l be s
o d i v id ed by the respective annual c on ventions a s
ea ch shall conta in equal number of re te able polls or asnear
“
,
,
a
,
srn
5"
When this
had bee n done :
ea ch convention shall elect by a maj orit y of written
votesout of the members wh o are chosen to compose su c h
con v e n tion a representative for each district ; and l ivin g
” 5°
withi n the district for which he may be c hos
en
(4
.
The con vention probably fel t this matter of elec tin g
re pres
entatives would meet with obj ections for in its address
to the people it said :
F or this
co ns
titution in full s N H P ov Pape sI X 852 877
sof the Conv ntion f F am ing a N w Cons
titutio n etc 39
An Addres
I bid 4 1
I bid 40
ee
'0
e
.
.
.
.
or
r
.
r
.
e
r
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
NEW HAM P S H I RE
60
“
This mode will be found perhaps as free equal and
perfect asany that can be devised The obj ection that i n
this way each town will not know nor have the power of
designating its own representative will perhaps on ex
amination be found one o f the strongest ar g uments i n i ts
” ‘1
favor
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
Their idea wasthat representatives would be chosen without
the bitter partisan rivalry which sometimes accompanied the
town elections That the plan was rej ected can be seen from
the new constitution which was submitted to the people in
1 7 82 and from the add ress accompanying it
I n this a shad
been the custom the towns were the unit of representation
52
The qualifications of representatives were as follows
.
,
.
.
,
'
“
Every member o f the house of representatives shall be
chosen by ballot and for two years at least nex t preced ing his
election shall have been an inhabitant of this State hall have
an estate within the Town Parish or place which he may be
chosen to represent of the value of one hund red pound s ;
shall be at the time of his election an inhabita nt of the Town
Parish or place he may be chosen to represent ; shall be of the
Protestant Religion and shall cease to represent such Town
Parish or place immediately on hisceasing to b e qual ified
63
aforesaid
s
,
,
.
,
,
.
Here we have fo r the first time a definite law requiring
a representative to be a resident of his d istrict B ut th is con
s
tit utio n shared the fate o f its predecessors and was rej ected
Another convention met in Concord in J une 1 7 83 The
64
constitution framed was adopted October 3 1 1 783 and went
into e ff ect on J une 1 1 7 84 I ts provisions regard ing q ualifica
tions for representatives “ are exactly the same as those of the
proposed constitution o f 1 7 82 and so do not need to be re
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
p ea ted
,
.
We have now reached a point where we have a residen tial
qualification fo r representatives written into the fundamental
law o f New Hampshire and this fact automatically close so ur
study o f this state
sof th Conv ntion f F a m ing a N w Con s
An Add s
titution tc 1 1
F r c o mp l te co ns
titution s N H P ov Pa p sI X 87 7 89 6
I bi d
I X 88 7
I bi d I X 89 6 9 1 9
I bid
I X 9 0 7 908
.
‘1
0
0'
e
re
o
ee
e
.
.
.
.
.
r
e
.
r
.
er
.
,
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
or
e
.
.
“
u
.
-
.
.
.
.
RH O DE
I SLA N D
T H E independent settlements around Narragansett Bay were
given the opportunity of becoming a colony by the charter of
M arch
This was pecul iar in that while relieving them
somewhat from the encroachments of their neighbors on three
sides it yet left to them the organization of a government
The first assembly under th is charter d id n o t meet until
M ay 1 647 at Portsmouth 2 The principal reason fo r this
delay was the independence o f each local town Natural con
probably had something to do with it I t is al together
d itio n s
probable that b ut fo r the constant pressure from their terri
tory h ungry neighbors union would not have come even at
Th is assembly was both a primary and a re p re
th is date
A maj ority of the freemen were present
s
e n ta tiv e assembly
3
while Providence sent representatives
Three towns Provi
dence Newport and Portsmouth were named in the charter
but Warwick was now admitted to equal share in the govern
ment 4 The o fficial name of the colony accord ing to this
charter w a sProvidence Plantations
The assembly of M ay 1 647 declared the government to be
H
Democratical that is to s
a government held by
ay
y consent of all or the greater parte o f
y e free and vol unta r”
the free inhabitants 5
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
-
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
6
I t also provided for the use of the ballot in all elections
This assembly d id not pass a specific act creating a general
court asthey assumed t he form and functions of such a body
B ut in an obscurely worded paragraph they did provide for
” 7
“
representation of the towns by committees of six
A
specific provision w a smade for a court of election to meet
annually on the first Tuesday after M ay 1 5
.
.
.
,
I f the weather h i nder not
”8
.
J oh n Coggeshall w aselected president along with four assist
I 1 56
I bid
R 1 Col Recs I 1 43 1 46
1 bi d
I
1 48
147
I bi d
Sta p l s Annalsof P ovi den c 6 1
I bi d I 1 49
A nol d I 202
I bi d
R I R cs I 1 48
I 1 49
,
.
.
.
.
,
-
,
'
.
0
’
.
'
.
e
.
.
.
r
.
e
e,
’
.
'
.
,
.
.
61
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
r
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
RHODE I SLAN D
62
ants one from each town Later in the session under the
heading General O fficers provision wa smade for all of these
9
to be chosen at the annual court of elections
I n referring to
the legislative body o f the colony we will use the word assembly
although that was not its correct name until after the charter
“
of 1 663 Before that date it was called the Representative
”
”
“
Committee or the General Court of Commissioners
usually the latter
When the second a s
e m bly met at Providence on M ay 1 6
1 648 we find six representatives present from each town
Also at this time the representative system was definitely
established by the following :
I t is ordered that six men of each Towne shall be chosen
in whom y e General Courte shall continue : and each Towne
here shall have the choice of their men if they please ; or if
" 10
any town refuse the Courte shall chose them for them
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
“
,
.
,
In
the assembly ordered that
1 650
“
a committee of six men of each Towne shall be chosen
out of each Towne to meet four dayes before the next General
Courte and to have the full power of the General As
s
e m blie
and each committee man to be allowed two shillings and s
ix
1‘
pence per man a day by the Towne that chose them
,
,
.
Again in October
,
,
1 650 :
“
Ordered that the representative committee for the
ix discreet able men and
Colonie shall always consist of s
chosen out o f each towne fo r the transacting of the aff airsof
12
the Commonweal th
,
,
,
.
Both of these acts o f 1650 would seem to be open to the
interpretation that the towns were l imited to a choice of
”
citizens as committee men
Whether this was the case
cannot be definitely stated There were cases of non resid ence
representation as we shall s
ee later but these all may have
been the result of the assembly exercising itsrigh t of fil lin g a
town s quota o f committee men in case the town fa iled to
elect its full number
“
.
-
.
,
,
’
.
R I R cs I
.
e
.
I 1 bi d I
0
.
,
.
.
,
209
.
.
19 1
H
.
bd 1
I bi d I
I i
.
,
.
,
.
.
22 8
.
229
.
RHO DE I SLAN D
64
years from 1 647 to 1 655 the names of the commissioners are
grouped together without any reference to the towns from
which they came But the names o f the towns appear often
enough to enable usto find some instance o f such representa
tion if it had been practiced at all On the other hand in the
very first assembly which met after the passage of the above
act an assembly which met at Portsmouth in J une 1655
we find o ur first instance of non residence representation
Hal f of Providence s committee were residents o f Newport
From this time until the new charter of 1 663 there are many
cases o f this all o f which will be given later Reference ha s
already been made to the power of the assembly to fill out a
town s quota o f commissioners Tw o other phases of this
appear in Rhode I sland which di ff er from the practice in any
other New England colony
The assembly o f August 1 659 met in Portsmouth
I ts
first item of business was to suspend Robert Westcott a com
missioner from Wa rwick because o f aid he had given New
Im
Plymouth in territorial claims against Rhode I sland
med iately after his removal we find this :
.
.
,
,
,
-
.
’
.
,
.
,
’
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
“
I t is ordered that o ne of the four (here follow the named
ha ll be chosen by th is Assembly
of four Warwick citizens ) s
by votes to serve as a commissioner in the roome of Robert
16
Westcott
,
,
.
John Weekes was chosen 1 7 This is in decided contrast to
M assachusetts where in case a man was suspended from the
general court his town w asat once notified to choose a s
uc
cessor
The first assembly under the charter of 1 663 passed a law
for filling vacancies among the deputies as they had then
come to be called I t was
.
.
,
.
,
“
That at the Court of Election in
Dep uty esshould be chosen into the
Deputy Governor or Assistants that it
o left out to se rve in the
such o fficer s
” 18
chosen for that present court
,
,
,
,
case any one of the
o ffice of Governor
should be law full for
roome of the deputy
,
.
I R I R cs I
‘
.
.
e
.
,
,
420
.
bd
I i
.
,
420
.
II
,
33 34
-
,
RHO DE I S L AN D
65
How this worked o ut in practice is shown by an incident in
1 666
At the court o f election o f that year there was a
change of governors and also in several assistants
The
assembly which convened immediately after the court of
election ordered :
.
.
H
that the Generall S e rga n t be sent unto M r
Bened ict Arnold M r J ohn Card M r Edward Smythe and
M r J ohn Greene that it being by law their liberty to sitt and
act in this present assembly as Deputies the Courte d o e de
” 19
sire their assistance
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
Arnold h ad been governor and the others assistants but all
had lost their places at the election to men w ho had been
returned as deputies I t was j ust such an occurrence as the
law of 1 663 w a sframed to meet
I n the records o f the Rhode I sland assembly in its early
years we find reference to the strange fact that quite often the
president o f the colony w a schosen moderator o f the assembly
while assistants were n o t infrequently chosen as deputies
This would be inexpl icable if we did n o t keep in mind that in
Rhode I sland the legislative and executive functions were
separate The president and assistants by virtue o f their
20
f
n
f
o
o ffice were o t members o the court
commissioners
Treating the towns in alphabetical order we will now take
up the cases of n o n residence representation appearing before
,
.
.
.
.
.
-
1 663
.
N EWPO R T
I n assembly o f J une 1 655 we find this item of business :
Captain M orris in y 6 Roome o f John Gould and William
” 21
6
Ly the rla nd in y roome of John Greene both fo r Newport
The names o f Greene and Gould both appear as the d uly
elected commissioners fo r Newport but they evidently d id
no t appear
Whether the vacancies were filled by the fou r
commissioners of Newport who were present as provided for
by the law o f
or whether the whole assembly suppl ied
the vacancy as in the case of Robert Westcott the record does
,
.
“
.
,
.
,
,
n
’0
R i
.
.
R cs I I
Os
goo d
e
,
.
,
1 4 7 1 48
-
,
1 , 358
.
N ot
e
.
u
.
R
.
I
.
R co ds
e
r
1 , 23 6
.
.
RHODE I SLAN D
66
not show One provision at least of the law of 1 65 1 was not
carried o ut I t provided that such vacancies should be filled
from among the citizens o f the town where the assembly was
in session This would mean that tw o citizens o f Portsmouth
where the session was being held would be chosen to fill the
vacancies M orris was a resident o f Portsmouth23 but Ly the r
land lived in Newport 24
The assembly of 1 659 met at Portsmouth One o f New
port s commissioners to this was Captain Randall H o uld e n
He was a resident o f Warwick25 and a commissioner for War
wick for years 26
I n the assembly o f M ay 1 660 which also met at Ports
mouth William Harris o f Providence was o ne o f Newport s
commissioners I n the October session he appear for h is own
town 2 7 I t seems queer that Harris could have been elected
to any o ffice especially outside o f his o w n town He was the
head o f the M assachusetts faction in Rhode I sland and a few
years before this Roger Williams had had him tried on the
charge of high treason fo r the promulgation o f the doctrine
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
’
.
.
‘
,
,
’
,
,
.
.
.
,
“
to
that he that can say it is his conscience ought
” 23
yield subj ection to any human order among men
no t
.
I n October 1 660 J ohn Sweet of Wa rwick where the
assembly met served as commissioner for Newport He had
had previous experience as commissioner fo r Warwick 2 9
,
,
,
,
.
.
PR O VI D E N C E
Providence has the distinction of being the first Rhode
I sland town to use n o n resident commissioners
She also
employed them to a greater extent than her sister towns
I n assembly o f J une 1 655 which met at Portsmouth
hal f o f Providence s commissioners were Newport men
They were William Dyre James Barker and M athew West 30
Barker again represented Providence in assembly of M ay
1 661 which met at Newport 31
R I R cs I 300
I bi d
I 364
I 301
I bi d
I 2 7 2 3 02 4 32
" I bid
I 302 4 1 9
I bi d
I 300 30 1 3 1 6
I 24 1 508
I bi d
I bi d
I 43 7
I 24 29 9 428 431
I bi d
-
.
.
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
1'
1°
.
e
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
-
,
3'
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
3'
3°
.
.
,
.
,
,
3|
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
RHO DE I SLAN D
67
The assembly o f M arch 1 656 met at Warwick One o f
Providence s commissioners w a sBenedict Arnold
Arnold
was one of the prominent men of the colony and had formerly
been a resident of Providence 32 but n ow lived in Newport 33
He later represented Providence again in an assembly which
met in Portsmouth in M ay
J ohn Tripp o f Portsmouth and a commissioner fo r that
town in several assemblies represented Providence in an
assembl y which met in Portsmouth in October
I n M ay 1 657 the assembly met in Newport Providence
chose a resident o f that town Henry B ull as one o f her co m
missioners
B ull had formerly been a commissioner for
Newport 36
Providence d id not have another non resident co m
missioner until the assembly o f M ay 1 660 which met at
Portsmouth I n this it was represented by William B ren to n g”7
president of the colony and a resident o f Portsmouth 38
About this date he moved to Newport and later served several
times as a commissioner fo r that town
The assembly o f August 1 66 1 met in Portsmouth Again
we find hal f o f the commissioners fo r Providence were non
residents They were : J oseph Toney o f Newport Philip T a bo r
39
f
of Portsmouth and John Anthony also o Portsmouth
Torrey had a long record as a commissioner fo r Providence
He represented that town in the following assemblies :
,
,
.
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
-
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
At
At
At
At
Warwick in October 1 660
Portsmouth in August 1 66 1
P ortsmouth in October 1 663
Newport in November
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
During the time covered by the above session he had also
served his own town twice in October 1 662 and in M ay
With Torrey in October 1 663 Edward Thurston
also of Newport served as a commissioner for Providence 42
" I bi d
R I R cs I 1 4 3 1 327 ; Stapl es48
I 82 1 09 2 99
I bid
I 300 30 1 447
I 30 0 ; Stapl s4 8
I bi d
I 42 8
I bi d
I 43 1 447 50 4 508
I bi d
" I bid
I bi d
I 300 304 50 1 345
I 49 2 50 1
I 8 7 300 304 354
I bid
I 30 1 50 4 50 7
"I bi d
I 42 7
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
'1
.
e
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
e
.
.
.
.
'0
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
-
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
“
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
“
,
8
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
RHODE I SLAN D
68
The assembly O f November 1 663 met at Newport to hear
the new charter read which had j ust been brought by Captain
George Baxter 43 At such an important time as this Providence
had two n o n residents among her commissioners J oseph
44
Torrey mentioned above and Richard Tew also O f Newport
Staples says these two men were elected by the other com
missioners to replace Roger Williams and Stephen Arnold
45
w ho had been elected by their townsmen b ut failed to attend
,
,
.
-
,
.
,
,
,
.
P O R T S M O UT H
I n assembly o f M ay 1 657 which met at Newport Ports
mouth was represented by two Newport citizens J ohn
46
Greene and Edward G ree m a n n
This Greene should not
be confused with the Greenes o f Warwick These were father
and son and the names always appear as J ohn Jr or J ohn Sr
in their frequent appearances as Warwick commissioners
I n an assembly o f November 1 658 which met at Warwick
one O f Portsmouth s commissioners was Benedict Arnold of
Newport After th is Arnold served twice more in this ca
p a city for Portsmouth ; in assembly O f M ay 1 659 at Provi
47
n
f
1660
dence ; and o e O October
at Warwick
The M ay assembly o f 1 659 met at Providence I n this
Portsmouth had three n o n resident commissioners : Benedict
Arnold mentioned above Roger Williams of Providence and
Joseph Clarke o f Newport Arnold and Clarke were both
colony O fficials at this time Arnold being president 48
Thomas Greene o f Warwick twice served as a commis
io n e r fo r Portsmouth
First in assembly O f M ay 1 662
s
which met at Warwick and then in one of J une 1 662 at the
same town 4 9
W A RWI C K
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
-
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
Warwick s first non resident commissioner was Bened ict
Arnold of Newport 50 a man who has the unique d istinction
of having represented every town in the colony He was a
" I bi d
R I Recs I 508
I 300 394 40 8 431
I bi d
I bi d 1 30 1
I 299 30 1 40 7 408
" I bi d
Stap l s 1 35
I 30 2 468 480
R I R cs I 30 1 354
I bi d
1 300
-
,
.
u
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
“
«
.
‘5
u
.
.
e
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
e
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
'0
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
RHODE I S LAN D
69
commissioner for Warwick in an assembly which met at Ports
mouth in M ay
I n the fall session o f 1 656 which met at Portsmouth
J ohn Sanford O f Portsmouth wa so ne of Wa rwick s com
missioners Sanford was one of the most prominent men in
the colony and served his home town in many a s
e m blie sas
commissioner At this time he was general recorder treasurer
and clerk o f the court of commissioners 62 He is a good
ill ustration of two practices common to all the colonies
,
,
,
’
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
(a ) M ultiplication of o ff i ces in the hand s o f o ne man
(b ) Tendency o n part o f towns when choosing a non
resident representative to pick some prominent man pre
fe ra bly a colony Ofli cia l
.
,
.
of Warwick s commissioners in assembly o f M ay
1 66 1 which met in Newport were William Dyre and Peter
Wallman Both were residents of Newport and the latter was
at th is time sol icitor general of the colony He later appears
53
as a commissioner for Portsmouth but h ad evidently moved
there 54
I n assembly o f August 1 66 1 half of Warwick s com
missioners were non residents This assembly met at Ports
mouth The non resident commissioners were J ohn Porter
of Portsmouth Thomas B rownell o f Portsmouth and Will iam
Dyre of Newport 55
This brings us down to the time of the new charter But
before taking it up let us examine briefly a very curious
custom regarding representatives in Rhode I sland which is in
marked distinction from the practice in other colonies I n
this state a man could be a commissioner in the assembly and
yet not be a freeman o f the colony That he be a freeman of
a town w asthe only requirement
“
The path to the provincial su ffrage lay through freeman
ship O f the towns ; he Who had been accepted as an inhabitan t
O f one of the towns and admitted as o n e of its freemen could
hope as a matter o f course to be granted the colonial free
manship The charter o f 1 644 unlike that O f 1 663 d id n o t
R I Recs I 337
Po t s
m outh Town R co ds9 7 1 00
R I R cs 1 300 30 1 44 7
I bi d 1 52 300 336 345 326 50 1
I 30 1 302 43 7 447 468
Ibd
T WO
’
,
,
,
.
.
.
’
,
,
-
.
-
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
'1
.
.
.
r
.
.
,
,
e
'5
'1
u
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
'
i
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
e
.
,
.
,
r
,
.
.
.
.
70
RHODE I SLAN D
s the word freemen but simply incorporated the l n
habitants o f the th ree towns Yet the practice wa sto req uire
‘4
u e
'
,
”
.
a formal vote and ad mission to the town and then a similar
” 56
entrance into the colonial freemanship
.
An example of the practice mentioned is Obad iah Holmes
who was a commissioner fo r Newport in M arch 1 656 bu t Wa s
n o t made a freeman o f the colony until the Court o f Election
in M ay
Edward Erman served as a commissioner for
Providence in M arch 1 658 but was n o t admitted as a free
man o f the colony u ntil May
That the same practice
was followed after the new charter was O btained is shown by
the following case : Nathaniel Waterman served a sa deputy59
for Providence in 1 668 He was ad mitted as a freeman of the
colony in
The new charter which reached the colony in November
1 663 made several changes in the names O f governmental
agencies which changes w e shall follow hereafter First the
name o f the colon y was changed to Rhode I sland and Provi
dence Plantations 61 The name o f the law making body was
changed to Gn e n e ral Assembly ; commissioner to deputy ;
and president to governor These changes brough t Rhode
I sland into similarity to the other New England states The
charter provided fo r a governor deputy governor and ten
assistants all O f whom were named in it and w ho were t o
continue in o ffice until M ay 1 664 when the colony would
have the privilege o f electing whom it would to these Offices62
Provision was made fo r two annual sessions o f the assembly
o n e o n the first Wednesday in M ay
the other o n the last
Wednesday in October 63 I nstead O f meeting in d i ff erent
towns o f the colony all sessions were to he held at Newpor t
A change was made in the apportionment o f deputies New
port was still to have six Providence Portsmouth and
Warwick four each W h ile any other towns which might be
M K i l y 440 44 1 ; R I R cs I 263 2 80 340 3 8 7 426
R I R cs I 326 32 7 336
I bid 1 336 387
Thist m w susd aft c ha t of 1 663 w nt into f ct
R I R cs I 222 364
I bi d
II 6
II 7 8
I bi d
11 8
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
-
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
5°
n e
c
'7
.
-
e
.
.
5'
60
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
6|
,
.
,
e
a
e
.
.
.
,
,
er
.
e
.
-
.
‘3
.
.
,
,
er
,
r er
e
e
e
.
.
N
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
72
RHO DE I SLAN D
while the records for the assemblies o f M ay 1 692 and for the
years 1 693 1 694 and 1 695 are missing The records for the
other years are incomplete but show the following cases of
non resident representation
,
,
,
.
,
-
.
J AM E S T OWN
Jamestown was represented in the assemblies O f 16 79 80 8 1
"0 and a
69
by J ohn Fones (or Fo a n e s
a
resident
of
Kingston
)
holder of many prominent o fl‘i cesin the colony
-
-
,
,
P O R T S M O UT H
There is not a clear case of Portsmouth having employed
a non resident as a deputy d uring this period
I n the assembly o f M ay 1 683 one of her deputies was
Thomas Greene 7 1 Now Greene w asa resident O f Warwick
and a deputy for Warwick in several assembl ies I t is very
probable that this is an error o f the secretary as five deputies
are listed for Portsmouth and only three for Warwick As
four was the allotted number for each of these towns and
no more Greene s name probably should have been l isted
under Warwick
PRO VI D E N C E
Providence furnishes the first example O f non residence
representation under the charter O f 166 3 I n October 1 672
Thomas Borden o f Portsmouth 72 was deputy for Providence 73
Providence was represented by Edward Smith of Newport
in May
Smith was a former resident of Providence “5
Ten years later in 1 685 M aj or J ohn Coggeshall of Ports
mouth 76 served as a deputy for Providence 7 7
-
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
’
,
.
-
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
WA RWI C K
I n assembly O f M ay 1 680 Warwick was represented by
Robert B urdick who was a resident of Westerly and later
represented Westerly 7 8
R I R cs III 29 84 89
I bi d I 300
" I bi d
Up d ik I 33 3
II 465
R I Recs III 1 2 1
I bi d
I I 39 6 5 2 7
Stap l s6 1
R co dsof th Town of Po tsmouth 163 1 7 4 1 7 7 2 12 228
" I bi d
R I R cs III 16 7
I I 388 ; III 68 84 1 2 1 1 6 7
,
,
,
0'
.
e
.
1o
7|
e,
.
.
7‘
'7
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
e
.
,
7°
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
N
.
.
,
7'
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
e
r
e
r
.
,
.
-
.
,
,
-
,
-
-
.
,
,
.
RHO DE I SLAN D
73
WE STERL Y
I n 1 6 79 the deputy for Westerly was Joseph Jencks "
The records do not enable us absol utely to decide hisplace of
residence but they point to Providence
I n assembly of 1 680 both of Westerly s deputies were non
residents They were Henry Tew and Edward Thurston
both of Newport Tew was a military o fficer of the island
while Thurston served as a deputy for his town in several
assemblies 8 0
The d i ff erence in the number of instances of n o n residence
representation between the period preced ing the charter of
1 663 and that following it is very striking
This later period
isalso characterized by an ind i ff erence o n the part O f the
towns in sending deputies to the assembly From 1 647 until
1 663 there was not a single assembly at which all the towns
were not represented This may have been d ue to the as
s
e m bly spower O f filling a town s quota O f deputies in case
the full number d id not appear
To meet the conditions which arose after 1 663 the colony
at first used less stringent measures than d id her sister colonies
The records of other colonies are full o f cases where fines were
lev ied against this town o r that for failing to send deputies
Contrast with that method the following
I n September
1 666 the deputies and assistants from Warwick did not
appear at Newport s
o the assembly voted that a boat be p ro
cured and sent to Warwick
to signify to the M agistra tes and D e p uty e so f tha t
”
towne the Cour t s desire of their advice and assistance
.
.
’
.
,
.
.
-
.
.
.
’
’
.
.
.
,
.
,
“
.
,
One of Newport s deputies was delegated fo r this mission
81
and the whole expense was to be borne by the colony
Finally in 1 67 2 a long act waspassed levy ing a fine on
assistants and deputies for non attendance
One of the
provisions of this was an oath 82 to be taken by all deput ies 33
This had never been required before and O pposition developed
against it Providence protested that
R I R cs III 29 I bid III 84 9 7 1 2 1 1 50 332 368 R I R s II 15 1
R I R cs II 47 4
Engag m nt w sth wo d usd in Rh od Is
l and
’
.
-
.
.
.
7'
3’
.
“
.
e
e
.
,
e
.
,
”
a
'0
e
.
r
.
.
e
,
,
.
e
.
,
.
'1
0'
.
.
.
.
ec
.
,
.
.
.
e
.
,
.
.
74
RHODE I SLAN D
“
charter
it is contrary to the liber t ies granted
to
us in our
34
.
at the very next assembly Warwick s deputies refused to take
the engagement 85 The requirement for deputies to take an
engagement was repealed in
I t had led to much
trouble and Wa rwick had been deprived o f representation
d ue to the refusal o f its deputies to conform to the require
ments
We have seen that prior to 1 663 the assembly or general
court of commissioners as it was then called met alternately
ig
in the four towns o f the colony The charter o f 1 663 d e s
n a ted Newport as the place o f meeting
This continued to be
the seat o f the assembly until 1 683 when it was voted to hold
the fall session annually at o n e o f the mainland towns either
Providence o r Warwick The next year provision was made
t hat the fall session should al ternate between Warwick and
Providence 87
Until near the close o f the century Rhode I sland s legisla
ture met in a single body Agitation for d ivision into two
houses began as early as 1 644 I t was especially active in
16 65 ; while in M arch 1666 the division into two houses w a s
made B ut the assembly o f September 1 666 voted to
’
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
’
.
.
,
,
.
,
“
sit together
,
”
and to defer final action o n question
October session This session after
‘
separation until the
of
.
“
long and serious
”
debate decided to make n o change 88 The division was
finally made by the act o f M ay 6
I n discussing other colonies we have seen that the ex
tension o f settlements was accompanied by an increase in
non residence representation
I n Connecticut to account
for s
o little representation o f this kind at a certain period we
.
,
-
.
I“
u
s1 55
I Re cs I I
S tap le
R
.
.
.
I bi d
.
,
" I bid
.
.
I I
0°
.
.
,
,
4 82
37
.
II 63 1 24 1 30 1 3 1 1 44 1 45
III 3 13 ; Lawsan d Ac tsof R
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
b d II 5 84
I bi d
1 11 1 2 5
I i
.
,
.
.
,
1 50 . 1 5 1 , 1 80
.
1 63 6 1 7 0 5 39
-
.
.
,
.
.
16 1
.
75
RHO DE I S LAN D
h a ve
o ffered as a reason the proximity O f the towns to navi
gable water I n Rhode I sland both O f these hypotheses seem
to fall down for d uring the period o f 1 647 1 663 when the
s
ettlements were proximate and all o n navigable water
there was by far a greater use o f n o n —residence representatives
than at any later period o f the colony s history Tw o things
explain this very satisfactorily however First the unusually
large number O f deputies six allotted to each town which
naturally caused many vacancies and secondly the power o f
the assembly to fill these vacancies with residents o f the
town where the assembly was sitting
As the century d raws to a close the custom o f employing
n o n residents as deputies was evidently disappearing but no
law appears on the statute books forbidding it
I n continuing this study into the eighteenth century
actual cases O f no n resident representation have been given
only for the first ten years This was a long enough period to
show the practice which without doubt existed until there was
a definite law o n the subj ect This practice was fo r the towns
to choose a n o n resident only in extreme cases generally
preferring o ne o f their o w n citizens
Kingston used tw o no n resident deputies d uring the fi rst
ten years o f the eighteenth century and each time she called
on Westerly queer as that seems considering the geographical
position o f the two towns I n October 1 7 05 she was re p re
sented by Edward Larkin w ho represented his home town the
following year I n the M ay assembly o f 1 70 7 Kingston was
represented by Christopher Champlin of Westerly Champ
l in w a sa prominent man in the colony and had previously
represented h is home town 90
New Shoreham was the name under which the residents
In
o f Block I sland became an integral part o f the colony
the assembly of October 1 705 they chose as their deputy
91
f
Captain Nathaniel Niles a resident o Kingston
I n this
connection it is interesting to note that in October 1 705
.
-
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
-
,
.
-
.
.
-
,
.
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
9°
91
Rhod Is
land R co dsI I I
b d II I
I i
.
,
r
e
e
.
,
pd ik I
55 0 ; U
e.
.
,
68
550 . 56 4 ;
.
435
.
IV
.
3
,
17
.
224
.
,
76
RHO DE I SLAN D
while Kingston went outside her boundaries for a deputy one Of
her own prominent citizens waschosen by a neighborin g town
Newport in 1 701 chose as one of its deputies one of the
prominent men of the colony M aj or J ohn Coggeshall o f
Portsmouth whom we have already met as a deputy for
92
Pro vidence and who quite often represented his home town
Richard Green o f Warwick a prominent man in Rhode
I sland affairs represented Portsmouth in the Assembly o f
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
During this period of ten years Providence but once made
use of a no n resident as deputy and that one time they chose
an experienced legislator as was so often done by the towns
making use of non resident deputies The man chosen to
represent Providence in M ay 1 709 was James B rown a
resident o f Newport He had represented his home town in
1 706 07 08 and did so again in September
The last instance of non resident representation d urin g
this period was in 1 709 when Will iam Wilkinson o f Provi
dence represented Westerly 95 in the October session of the
Assembly
As has been said above a checking of the l ists o f deputie s
through the first seventy or eigh ty years O f the eighteenth
century would in all probability show now and then a case
of non resident representation until the practice was declared
unlawful 96 J ust when that was we cannot definitely state
but it was between the years 1 7 7 2 and 1 7 83 A careful search
-
-
.
,
,
,
.
-
-
,
,
-
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
-
,
.
.
R I R co dsIII
r
e
.
.
.
1 85 . 3 1 0 42 8 . 47 2
.
.
R csof Po tsmouth
e
.
r
.
.
1 63 1 74, 2 1 2
.
.
b d III 443 4 73
" I bi d
1 1 1 56 4 ; IV 1 7 4 7 6 7 69 7 7
I bi d IV 80 1 28
I t isint sting to not that in R ho d I s
land w hav not found a s
ingl ins
ta nce
of a d p uty p snting two townsat th s
am ti m ss
o m ti m sha pp n d in Con
ti ut an d Mas
s
achustts I n thisconn ction th followi ng may b of int s
t
W h asthisAssmb ly at th last ss
s
ion mp ow d s
u c h I nhabitant sof t h
Town of N wp o t sw F m n th of at th ti m it w stak n Pos
ion of by th
ss
s
En my to m t at P ovi d n c on th si t nth insta nt and choos
to p s
e D p uti s
e nt
th
ai d Town ; who acco d ingl y m t and a mong oth schos Paul Mu m fo d E s
s
q
who having p u chas
tat in Ba ington and m ov d th with hisfa m ily isals
o
ed an Es
l ct d a D puty f th s
aid Town of Ba ington ; wh by a Va can cy ism ad in th
Dep uti sof N wp o t ; I t isth fo Voted and R s
olv d That s
u ch I nhabit ntsof th s
ai d
Town of N wp o t sw F m n th of at th Ti m it wa stak n Pos
ion of s
ss
s
sthan S v n b mp ow d t me t togeth
afo s
ai d cons
is
ting of a nu m b of not l s
at th Stat H ous in P ovi d n c on Tu sd ay the Sixth Day of May n xt at Fiv o clo ck
in the aft noon to choos
P s
on in the Roo m of th sai d Paul Mu mfo d
e anoth
— A p il 1 7 7 7 5
R print sof R I Actsand R solves
"
I i
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
fl
.
9°
re
nec
re e
ere
r
ee
.
re e
e
e.
e
e
e
e
e
re
or
e
ere
er
e
-
e
r
e
e
e.
.
.
e
re
e
re
e
e
e
e
e
e re
,
e
e e
e re
o
e
e
r
,
,
e
a
,
,
.
,
e
e
e
re
r
ere
ere
:
e
e
e
er
e
e
e re
e
e
er
er
a
er
,
e
e
.
e
e
ree
.
e
e
,
re
e
e re
rr
ere
a
e
ee
e
r
r
x
e
e
e
rr
e
r
e e
e
r
e
e
e re
e
e
e
e
ere
a
,
e
e a
e
e
.
e
r
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
c
“
.
.
.
.
.
ere
e
,
,
.
.
e
e
a
e
e r.
’
e
r
"
.
RHODE I SLAN D
77
t hrough
all the Colonial Records and Digests Of Colonial
”
L aw fails to reveal the exact statute which established a
residential qual ification fo r deputies in the General Assembly
The dates given between which the requirement became
o perative were arrived at in the following manner :
During the eighteenth century Rhode I sland issued eight
vol umes (digests ) of colonial law The dates of these were
1 705 1 7 1 9 , 1 7 30 1 744 1 752 1 7 6 7 1 7 7 2 and 1 798
I n the
first six the law on the subj ect o f representation is practically
I n the d igest fo r 1 76 7 w e fi nd
t he same
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
“
An Act regulating the M anner o f admitting Freemen and
”
directing the M ethod o f elec t ing O fficers in the Colony
,
,
,
.
The portion of the act bearing directly on qualifications for
deputies reads
And be it fur t her Enacted by the Authority aforesaid
That n o Person shall be elected to the place o f a Deputy to s
it
in the General Assembly o f t his Colony but such as are
Freeholders 93 therein and Freeman o f the same and that each
respective Town shall elect their N umber o f Deputies as
s tated in t he Charter a t t he aforesaid Town M eetings in
April and August 9 9
,
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
.
’
.
There is certainly nothing in the above law limiting the
towns to the choice o f a resident as deputy
The d igest published in 1 772 has the following title page :
.
“
Acts and L aws of the English Colony o f Rhode I sland
and Providenc e— Plantations I n New England in America ;
”
M ade and Passed since the Revision in J une 1 7 6 7
" I n c on s
i d ing th natu of th s Dig s
tsit m us
t not b fo gott n that they
p snt only to a s
m all xt nt th lawsgov ning th Colony T h s
tatut sof Engl and
w th al l awsh f o m th b ginning unti l 1 744 ; f o m that ti m onl y c tai n of th
tatut sof Englan d w in fo c
s
I nt odu ction to Dig s
t of Rho d I s
land Colonial Lawsof 1 7 1 9 1 1
A f hol d q ualification fi s
t app a d in 1 7 24 I t w schang d f o m ti m to ti m
f
ing At th ti m of th abov q uotation
th
a ct
th a m ount
q ui d d if
t w s
q ui m
n ct d by th Autho ity afo s
aid that no P s
on whos
ov
An d b it fu th
hall b p m itt d to vot
act sa F m an in any Town M ting in thisColony
s
but s
u ch only who i nhabitantsth in an d who at th Ti m of s
u ch th i voting and
a cting
al ly and t ul y p os
ss
sd in th i wn p o p Right of a R al Es
tat within
thisColony to th full valu of Fo ty Pounds whi ch s
hall nt f Fo ty Shill ingsp
annu m b ing an Es
tat of F s
i mp l F tai l an s
t t in R v s
ion whi ch q ualifi s
th
no oth P s
on to b a F m an at l ast an Es
tat f a P s
on sown Lif
l d est
sQual ity s
u c h a F hol d An d that no Es
tat of a l s
hal l ntit l any P s
on to
sn of s
t h F e d o m of th Colony
Ac ts8 Lawsof R I 1 7 6 7 7 8
Actsand Lawsof R 1 767 86
.
,
“
9
re
er
e
e
re e
ere
e re
e re
re
e
e
00
re
er
“
r
e
er e a
e
er
r
e
r
e
e.
te
e ex
ree
:
,
.
ee
"
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
e
or
.
e
.
a e
or
e
er
er
e r
re
e
e
ee
e
er
or
e
e
.
r
or
-
e
or
e
.
.
e.
-
er
.
-
e r o
.
er
e
r e
e
re
ree
r
ee
e
er
ree
0'
e
e
e
o
e
e
e
.
e
r
a
ere
e
.
er
e
e
e . or
are re
.
a
.
e
e
are
,
re
er
e
.
e
.
e
a :
en
e
r
e
e
e
.
”
r
re
e
r
e
ree
re
er
e
e
e
.
e
r e.
r
e
e
r
ere
e
e e
er
e,
r
er
.
e
'
e , or
e
e
e e
er
78
RHODE I SLAN D
o it is
This vol ume contains no law on representation s
fair to
assume that the law quoted from the digest Of 1 76 7 was still
in force
In
however the following law was passed regard
ing the representation o f New Shoreham (Block I sland ) :
,
.
.
“
Be it enacted by the General Assembly and by the
authority thereof it is enacted That the freemen O f said town
when legally convened in town mee ting
o f New Shoreham
fo r choice O f Representatives t o the Ge n eral Assembly be
and they are hereby authorized and empowered to choose
any person being a freeman O f any town O f the s t ate w ho is
seized in his o w n right O f a freehold estate in the said town
o f New Shoreham to represent them in the General Assembly
Provided nevertheless That such person s
o elec t ed be n o t
allowed to act o r vote as a freeman o f t he town o f his residence
d uring the time he shall represent the said town O f N ew
Shoreham as a Deputy ; and that this act shall n o t be brought
” 1 01
into preceden t by any other town in this State
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
The law j ust given evidently arose o ut o f a concrete case
affecting New Shoreham which came before the Assembly in
J une 1 7 83 What this was we can see from the foll owing :
.
,
“
Whereas from the insular Situation o f the Town of New
Shoreham it will often be impracticable fo r the Deputies o f
the said Town w ho reside therein to attend this Asse mbly :
And whereas the Freemen o f the said Town influenced by the
aforesaid Consideration have made C hoice O f Ray Sands
Esq an I nhabitant o f the Town o f South Kingston who is
seized O f a freehold Estate in the said Town O f New Shore
ham to represent them in Generall Assembly ; I t is there
fore Voted and Resolved That the choice O f the said Ray
Sands as aforesaid be and the same is here by approved and
that the Freemen of the said Town O f New Shoreham be and
they are hereby empowered to choose any Person being a
Freeman O f any Town in the State w ho is seized in his o w n
right O f a Freehold Estate in the said Town O f New Shoreham
t o represent them in General Assembly ; any Law Custom o r
Usage to the contrary notwithstanding ; Provided n e v e rthe
less That such Person so elected be n o t allowed to act or vote
as a Freeman o f the Town o f his Residence d uring the Time
Thisisa m a ginal d at whi c h a pp a sb si d thislaw in th Dig s
t of 1 7 98
1 7 98 89—
90
T h Publi c Lawsof R
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
r
1 0'
e
e
e
.
,
r
e
.
e
e
e
.
C O N N E C T I C UT
FR O M the very beginning o f the Connecticut settlement
Hartford was the political center A general court met here
on M ay 1 1 637 composed O f magistrates and deputies from
the three towns whose inhabitants had emigrated from
M assachusetts Each town sent t wo magistrates and three
1
deputies Each town s d eputation was called its committee
From this date until 1 639 whatever constitutional author
ity the Connecticut government had it d rew from M assa
it having been
chus
e ttsthrough its relation to that colony
governed fo r its fi rst year by commissioners appointed by the
general court o f M assachusetts
I t is probable that these
commissioners at the end O f their O fficial term o f o ffice
summoned the general court of M ay 1
The Fundamental Orders were adopted at Hartford o n
J une 1 4 1 639 The body by wh ich this was done was probably
a convention o f all the freemen O f the colony This was
Connecticut s constitution until the royal charter O f April
.
,
,
.
'
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
’
23 , 1 662
.
By the Fundamental Orders two annual sessions of the
3
f
general court were provided Each o the three original towns
was to send four deputies and any towns that might be added
later were to be granted such number o f deputies as the
general court thought proper in proportion to the number of
inhabitants 4
The spring session of the general court w a sl ike the M ay
session O f the M assachusetts court in that it was a court of
election By the Fundamental Orders this was to be held on
the second Thursday in April B ut this date proving in co n
v e n ie n t it was changed in 1646 to the th ird Thursday in M ay
This session was attended by all the freemen of the colony
for the purpose of choosing the governor depu ty governor
and at least six assistants From the very beginning C o n
Conn Col R cs 1 1 9
H a tfo d W th fi ld Winds
o
Os
good I 305
Conn R cs I 2 4
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
l
.
.
3
.
.
e
r
-
.
,
,
.
.
r
.
80
ea
.
e
.
,
.
er e
.
.
r.
CON NECT I CUT
81
n ecticut
used the ballot and a system o f nominations All
voting at the court Of election was by ballot Persons for
whom votes were cast were nominated by the secretary
who could only nominate some one proposed in a previous
general court 6
The governor was simply the presiding o fficer o f the
general court which in Connecticut did no t d ivide into two
Houses until October 1 3
The functions of the general
court were administrative legislative and j ud icial
For a
legal session there had to be present at least four assistants in
add ition to the governor and a maj ority o f the d eputies 7
”
“
However in 1 66 1 the river towns obtained a modification
of this rule I n an act of October third o f that year the towns
were requested to reduce their representation by half because
o f the growing expense of the general court
I n addition it
was provided that in case a general court had to be called at a
time inconvenient for outlying towns it should have power to
act with less than a maj ority O f the deputies in attendance
provided that some were present from the river towns and
there were present also the requisite number of magistrates 8
The Fundamental Orders contained a unique provision by
which the general court could be called in session by the
freemen against the opposition o f the colony O fficials Under
such circumstances the maj ority o f the freemen could order
the constables o f the several towns to call a meeting o f the
general court Then after choosing a M oderator they were in
legal session 9
The royal charter O f April 23 1 662 gave Connecticut the
constitution which was to last it through its colonial period
and well into its history as a state This provided for a
representative assembly much like that already in existence
10
al though the charter used the words General Assembly
I t provided for tw o regular meetings second Thursday in M ay
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
1 bid
Conn Col R cs I 2 1 2 2 1 40
I 24
IV 26 7 282
I bi d I 3 7 2
I bi d
D ue to the d ath of the gove no
I bid I 2 3
d t h ab sn ce of th d p uty gov no
th e w sa ca s of thiskind in 1 653 (Conn R cs 1
es
Gen al Cou t isu sd in t h c olony co dsuntil th d ivis
ion into two hous
O ctober 1 698 (Reco dsIV
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
r
r
"
e
.
r an
r
e
e
er
,
.
.
.
a
1° "
6
7
.
.
.
,
'
'
er
e
e
e
re
.
.
e
.
.
e
.
,
r
e
e
e
er
r
C O N NECT I CUT
82
and second Thursday in October Other sessions could be
called by the governor The number of deputies each town
could send was limited to two
,
.
,
I f
exceeding tw o e Persons from each place Towne
or Citty w ho e shall bee from ty m e to ty m e thereunto Elected
o r Deputed by the maj or parte o f the freemen o f the respective
oe
townes C itty e sand Places for which they shall bee s
elected o r Deputed etc 1 1
no t
,
,
,
’
.
,
Nothing in the above could be construed to restrict re p re
s
e n ta t iv e sto
residents O f the towns sending deputies s
o
Connecticut followed the common English practice o f the
time
I t is impossible however to check any actual in
stances O f n o n resident representation prior to Court of
Elections of M ay 1 67 0 ; fo r in the record before that date
the names o f the deputies only are given and no t the names of
the towns wh ich they represented
Taking in alphabetical order the towns wh ich show in
stances o f n o n resident representation we have the following :
B ranford was p re p re s
e n te d in the M ay court of 1 693 by
William Ely 1 2 a resident O f L yme and a deputy of Lyme 1 3 for
l4
r
years in the general co u t
Fa irfie ld was represented in M ay Court o f 1 684 by J oh n
B urr a resident and J ohn Taylor1 5 o f Windsor 1 6
Farmington was represented in General Court o f October
1 693 by Ensign Thomas J udd o f Waterbury
He at the same
time was deputy fo r his own town The same thing was the
case in Court o f Elections in 1 700 only here J udd s name
appears as Lieutenant 1 7 He was a deputy from his own town
almost constantly from 1 684
Greenwich made greater use O f non residents as deputies
,
.
,
,
-
,
.
-
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
,
.
-
Conn R cs I I 5
I bid
IV 9 2
IV 3 532
I bi d
T h E d ito of th Conn c ti c ut
co dsthinksthat thisis
o of th c olony
sc tary an d that El a
St nt snam s
houl d b subs
titut d sB anfo d sd p uty
Whil thisisp ossib l su ch an o ha d ly s msp obab l T h only thing favo ing
s
u ch a vi w ist h fact that St nt p snt d B anfo d f y a s Th w asin th co d s
s
sin t h us of p op na m s
of th ti m m uch ca l s
ns
Conn R cs II I 1 39
I bi d 1 1 223 Stil sH i s
to y of W in ds
o 1 26 2 24 228 352 Thisna m fu nis
hes
an illus
t ation i not 4 Pag 52 I n Conn cti cut co dsthi sn m a pp ea s sTyl
in S ch n ck sH is
to y of F fi ld sTy l but in Stil shis
to y sTaylo
IV 1 0 4 1 0 5 1 50 3 1 8 3 1 9
I bi d
I bi d
IV 3 52 1
ll
1‘
e
e
.
.
r
e
.
e
e
re
e
ze r
e
e.
e
15
re e
.
10
,
.
.
,
e
.
.
r
e
r
ee
r
r
e
r
r
,
er
r.
e
on
a ir
r
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
-
.
e
or
e
e
.
.
e
a
.
e
r
'
r
e
e
.
r
r
e re
.
.
e re
.
r
.
.
re
_
'
-
,
a n e rr r
e
e
.
.
e
:
.
e
1'
.
,
r
re e
e
.
o
r
e
e
re
,
e
err r
e
e
re
'
e
e
e
17
'2
.
,
,
e
.
a
er,
.
.
e
’
r
a
r
e
.
,
a
e
r
r
.
r
a
e r,
CONNECT I CUT
83
than perhaps any other Connecticut town One man w ho
often represented it as well as other towns in which he d id not
reside was John B anks a lawyer of Fa irfield 1 9 This shows
the special prestige o f lawyers in the legislative field which we
have to day had its beginning even at this early date Banks
represented Greenwich in October 1 67 3 ; Court O f Elections
1 677 ; Octob er 1 677 and October
I n all the above
cases Banks was at the same time a deputy from h is home
town while in October 1 677 he represented the three towns
21
f
Greenwich
F
i
r
fi
l
and
Rye
I n the last three Courts
O
a
e d
mentioned above B anks had associated with him as Fair
field s other deputy William Pitkin o f Hartford 22 who was
deputy fo r Hartford at the same time he was serving for
.
.
,
-
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
,
Fa irfie ld
23
.
These two men Banks and Pitkin furnish more examples
“
”
of double representation than can be found in the whole
legislative history of M assachusetts up to the abolishment of
non reside nce representation in 1 693 M assachusetts shows
no case of a man representing three towns as Banks d id in
1 67 7
I t is interesting to speculate whether in cases like this a
deputy would have three votes o n any measure before the
General Court The records are silent on the subj ect but it
seems very probable that such was the case
I n October Court of 1 683 the deputy for Greenwich was
Joseph Theale 24 He was a resident o f Stamford and had
represen t ed his home town quite O ften 26
Haddam had as its deputy in the General Court o f October
1 673 John Gilbert 26
Gilbert though a no n commissioned
O fficer in the militia was q uite an important personage in
military aff airs having been employed a smessenger fo r the
colony on several long j ourneys He l ived in New Haven 2 7
Lyme furnishes th ree instances of n o n resident re p re
s
e n ta tio n
I n October 1 6 76 its deputy was Joseph Peck 2 8
,
,
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
-
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
-
.
Conn
I bi d
I bi d
1 bid
" I bi d
I bi d
'9
“
1!
11
24
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
R cs II
,
Sch n ck H is
tory of F i fi ld I 35 1
I I 20 9
I II 16
II 300
H untington H is
to y of Stam fo d
II 5 1 8
Conn R cs II 209
I I 300 3 1 8 ; III 1 6 1 7
II 524
1 bid
" I bi d
I II 1 2 1
II 286
e
.
,
,
.
52 1 ;
300 3 1 8 ;
.
e
a r e
.
,
.
.
25
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
r
.
3°
,
.
,
.
27
.
e
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
r
.
.
63
.
CON NECT I CUT
84
a resident of New Haven 2 9 I n J une 1 692 and M ay 1693 it
3o
was represented by I saac B ro n s
B ronson was a resident
on
31
of Waterbury being one of the patentees of that place
32
He later represented his home town
M iddletown is one o f the towns from which because o f its
proximity to the seat o f government we should not expect to
find any examples o f non residence representation B ut we
have two examples here I n October 1 6 7 6 one o f its d eputies
was J ohn Graves I n this same session Graves represented
h ishome town Guilford 33 Graves is a good example of wh at
was plainly a practice in Connecticut d uring the seventeenth
century that is the long continuation in o ffice o f a deputy
who had proved himself able and worthy Graves represented
his town at no less than t wenty eight sessions o f the General
Court 34
I n the October session o f 1 696 one O f the deputies for
M iddletown was J ohn Hall w ho at the same time represented
his town of Wallingford Prior to this he had been Walling
ford s deputy and later represented both it and M iddletown
in several sessions 35 A causal glance at the Records migh t
seem to indicate that this name J ohn Hall might be that O f
The name w asa common o n e occurring
tw o d i fferent men
O ften in the records which makes it hard to trace M iddle
town had had a John Hall but he died before this date o n
January 22
The Wallingford Hall lived until
Preston in M ay 1 693 September 1 693 and October
1 694 was represented by Lieut John M organ 38
M organ
was a resident of New L ondon and had been a deputy for that
town in tw o sessions of the court in
I n M ay 1 693
Preston was also represented by Captain Benj amin B rewster
w ho was a resident O f Norwich 40 and was a deputy for that
town almost continuously from 1 689
Another Nor
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
-
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
-
.
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
Conn Recs II 8 7 524
w I bi d
IV 7 5 92
B ons
on H is
to y of W ate bury 1 40
“ I bi d
IV 1 7 4 1 9 7 2 83 319 32 7 343 481
Ad am sMi ddl town Upp H ouss57 2 5 7 4
DavisH is
tory of Wallingf o d 7 50 75 1
Conn R cs IV 9 1 10 2 1 30
" I bi d
IV 1 5 2 3 9 3
.
.
.
'1
.
.
r
,
,
.
.
r
,
.
N
.
er
.
.
e
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
-
.
.
.
,
-
.
Conn Recs I V 1 9 7
l bi d
II 28 7 525
I I 1 26 286 ; I II
I bi d
.
.
e
r
.
.
,
.
.
e
,
’7
r
.
.
,
'7
.
,
498
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
‘1
IV
I bi d
IV
,
.
,
,
69 9 3
3 19 7
.
-
.
.
.
.
359
.
.
.
.
16 1 55
-
.
CONNECT I CUT
85
W ich citizen who acted as deputy for Preston was J ohn Tracy
.
This was in M ay 1 695 Tracy had had previous legislative
experience a sa deputy from his home town 42
Rye a town in the extreme western part of the colony
employed J oh n Banks whom we have met already ex
iv e ly as its deputy
te n s
I n fact he is the only non resident
that ever represented the town Between the years of 1 6 70
1 680 he was Rye s deputy in eight sessions of the general
court five of these being courts o f elections 43 Rye was in
Connecticut until 1 683 when by terms o f an agreement be
tween the agents o f the two colonies regard ing the boundary
a new l ine was run which placed Rye in New York Upon
petition Of Rye and Bedford in 1 696 they were received back
into the colony of Connecticut but by an order of king in
Council of M ay 2 7 1 700 they were put back under the
j urisdiction of New York 44
Stonington was represented in October Court of 1 67 5 by
J ohn Gilbert of New Haven
We have already had an in
stance O f his serving fo r Haddam 45 I n October Court of 1 686
Stonington was represented by James Avery 46 o f New L ondon
Avery was also a deputy fo r his home town in this court and
served it in that capacity fo r many sessions between the
years 1 665
I n M ay of
I saac Wheeler of
Fa irfie ld4 9 was deputy for Stonington
Stratford was represented by J ohn Wells in September
1 689 and October 1 693
I n the meantime he had represented
New Haven at a Special General Court held February 21
The colony records give no cl ue as to his place of
“
residence but the name was a common one in Stratford so
that was probably his home
Waterbury had as one o f its deputies in the general court
of 1 690 and again in 1 693 L ieutenant John Staley He was a
Conn R cs IV 1 30 1 38
II 1 2 7 1 4 7 1 70 1 80 1 84 3 1 8 ; III 2 48
I bi d
I bi d
1 1 15 ; IV 1 9 1 1 9 2 328
p snted H artfo d in 16 7 7 isa d iff nt
I bs
d I I 26 5 5 24 Jonathan G ilb t who
G ilb t H e liv d in H a tfo d (R csII
" S c h n ck H i s
II I 44
to y of F i fi ld 274 ! sq
I bi d
I II 2 253
Conn R cs IV 2 87 1 0 4
I bid
M S
IV 66
O cutt H is
to y of St atfo d
I bi d
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
-
.
,
.
’
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
0
.
4'
0
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
'
4'
er
e
,
.
e
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
er
.
r
r
e
.
re
e
.
.
ere
,
.
-
r
re e
5°
.
ee
r
a r e
r
.
e
.
.
,
.
,
r
.
,
.
.
r
r
.
e
e
.
CON NECT I CUT
86
prominent citizen of Farmington and represented Farmington
in both o f the above years as well as at many other times I n
the records for the court o f 1 690 we find the name appearing
once as Lieutenant Stanley and again as Captain Stanley
which might lead to the supposition that two d i fferent men
were meant
B ut Stanley w a sn o t made a captain until
M ay
s
o evidently the d i ff erent titles were employed
because the same man appeared as deputy for two towns
A study o f the data for Connecticut shows several contrasts
t o the situation in M assachusetts
First n o n residence representation in Connecticut was
evidently increasing in the latter years of the seventeenth
century This was probably d ue to the fact that new inland
towns were springing up Nearly all the towns of the colony
up to the year 1 680 were either on or near navigable water
Secondly o n the whole there was less non residence re p re
The more
s
e n ta tio n in Connecticut than in M assachusetts
com pact colony central location o f the capital and the factor
of navigable streams al ready mentioned all had a part
without doubt in prod ucing this resul t
The end o f the cen t ury brough t no change in the law or
custom governing representation Asthe century d rew to its
close it witnessed however a rad ical change i n the organiza
tion o f the general court On October 13 1698 the cour t
divided into two bodies called the Upper and the Lower
House 53 Each was to have the righ ts and privileges common
to bica rm e a l legislatures o f the time
T o give all the examples o f no n residence representation
throughout the eighteenth century would be both ted ious and
unnecessary Let it su ffice to say that the practice was not
changed Connecticut w a snot incl ined to change her political
customs in fact boasted o f their stability ; and this one
particular custom lasted well on into the period of her state
hood We have no J ournal o f the Proceedings O f the General
Assembly after 1 7 80 until comparatively recent times ; but
a brief glance at that O f the last few years before 1 780 will still
.
,
.
,
.
.
-
,
.
.
.
-
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
-
.
.
,
.
‘2
Conn Recs IV
.
.
,
,
23. 4 7 9 2
.
.
b d IV
I i
.
.
.
26 7 , 282
.
CO NNECT I CUT
88
the General Assembly
And that no person shall be
accepted a Deputy in the General Court that is n o t known to
be a Freeman of this state and regularly chosen thereunto
by the Fre e m e n of that town for whom he serves
.
,
,
.
Exactly this same wording is kept in a publication O f
the laws O f the colony and state of 1 786 1 796 and
Before this last publication of laws w a smade the agitation
had started which was to give Connecticut a new constitution
and incidentally place a residential qualification on re p re
s
e n ta t iv e s
in the state legislature Hollister says that
,
,
,
.
as early as 1 800 petitions began
through the state asking fo r the choice o f
council and representatives in Congress by
demand fo r a new consti t ution was fought
lines the Democrats demanding it and
saying let well enough alone
“
,
.
n
i
‘
to be circulated
members o f the
d istricts 64 The
o u t along party
the Federalists
pressing were some o f the wrongs real or fancied which
existed under the old charter that the fight centered around
them and such questions as the one i n which we are especially
interested were overshadowed
The contest lasted twenty years growing more and more
bitter This was partially d ue to the religious q uestion being
pushed to the front as the dissenting sects grad ually increased
in number Their part in it is clear when we remember that
Connecticut had an established church for the support O f
which everyone was taxed unless he could show that he was
a member of some other denomination H o w the members
of the established order viewed the new movement we can see
from the pen of one O f their ablest ministers and one by the
aw that he had been on the wrong side
way who afterwards s
and waswilling to ad mit it
SO
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
“
The ambitious minority early began to make use of the
minor sects o n the grounds O f invidious d istinctions thus mak
ing them restive SO the democracy as it rose incl uded nearly
all the minor sects besides the Sabbath breakers rum
Actsand Lawsof Conn
p 28
p 1 26 Th Publi c Statute Lawsof th
State of Conn
not 1 8 p 203 ; note 2 1 p 204
H ollis
t H is
to y of Conn II 5 1 2
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
e
.
e r,
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
e
e
C O NN ECT I CUT
89
selling tipplin g folks in fid e ls and ru ff scu ff generally and
” 65
made a dead s
e t at us of the standing order
-
,
,
,
,
.
I t isa l ittle di fficult for us at this distance to realize j ust
how bitter su c h a con fl ict could become The following will
ill ustrate O n Au gu st 29 1 804 the Republicans held a con
v e n t io n i n New Haven
the sole obj ect O f which was to de
mand a new constitu tion Every j ustice of the peace w ho
attended that c onvention was impeached and tried by the next
general assembly 68
I n an atte mpt to dissipate the rising storm the assembly in
1 81 0 o ff ered to d ivide among certain denominations a portion
of the s
um re c ei v ed from the United States fo r the state s
Revol utionary expenses But the Baptists and M ethodists
refused their share and the offer only added fuel to the flames
Year b y year the Democrats gained headway until in
1 81 7 the v ictory came
A coal ition was formed of all the d is
aff ected interests and the party adopted Toleration as both
its name and its motto
I n the election of this year the Toleration party fought not
only for a new constitution but also for the repeal of the
“
”
Stand Up Law requiring open votin g They argued that
publicity intimidated men from voting as they wished ; for
their cred itors and those to whom they were under obligation
knew how they voted When this subj ect was under
discussion in the O ctober session of the assembl y a M r
M C lella n speakin g for a con ti nuan ce of the o ld method said
in part :
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
’
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
'
.
,
is said that men will not dare to stand up and
let it be known who they vote fo r— and pray what is it if a
freeman in Woodstock is to vote for a man in Fairfield County ?
Such is the independence of freemen that not one would be
" ‘7
und uly aff ected by declaring his choice
It
,
.
The nominee for governor of the Toleration party was
Ol iver Wolcott a member of one of Connec ticut s O ldest
families He had howe ver resided in Washin g ton and New
'
,
,
.
0‘
,
Ly m an B ee cher Autobiograp hy I
H ollis
ter II 5 1 2
.
.
.
.
.
,
34 2
.
'7
Conn c ti cut Co u ant N ov
e
r
,
.
4
.
18 1 7
.
CON NECT I CUT
90
York for a long time and in the eyes of his political O pponents
th is had had a bad e ff ect on him One said that by his a b
sence
He had unfortunately lost all the pecul iar habits
and manners o f a citizen O f Connecticut and forgotten the
” ‘
policy o f his ancestors 53
‘
,
.
,
‘4
,
.
were all the attacks o n Wolcott O f this mild character
I t w as openly and persistently charged throughout the
campaign that he had burned the War and Treasury b uilding
at Washington while Secretary O f the Treasury in order to
cover up his embezzlement o f publ ic money
The Federal ist nominees were Joh n Cotton Smith for
governor and Jonathan I ngersoll fo r lieutenant governor
These two were also representatives o f two ill ustrious Con
The feeling o f these men and their sup
n ect icut families
porters cannot be better stated than by the following add ress
to the Freemen o f Connecticut publ ished in the Courant
M arch 4 1 8 1 7
N or
.
,
,
.
-
.
.
,
,
,
.
“
At an early period O f this country o ur ancestors made for
t hemselves a cons t itution and form O f government which has
continued with little variati o n fo r almost tw o centuries and
has the ad vantage O f experience which gives stability O f a
governmen t The administration has been s uch as to secure
t o the people civil and religious liberty to as great an extent
as has fallen to the lo t O f any portion O f the h uman race
Provision fo r the d istribution o f j ustice and the support O f
schools literary and religious institutions secured t o all their
civil rights the benefits o f education a n d the enj oyment O f
religion with the most perfect freedom as to the righ ts of
conscience
A government from which i ts citizens have
derived such important advantages has deservedly possessed
their confidence and support and has thereby been enabled
t o exist unimpaired even under revol utionary convulsions
M embers O f the legislature and the officers o f the govern
ment o f this state were till o f late years uniformly elected
by the freemen un in fl ue n ced by political parties
“
Unfortunately a party has been organized in this state
who deny that we have any constitution and C laim that o u r
government is a usurpation ; w ho have been and are no w
Conn c ti cut Cou ant Ma c h 1 8 1 8 1 7
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
“
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
e
r
,
r
,
91
CONNECT I CUT
pursuing with indefatigable and persevering ind ustry every
measure in their power to undermine and overturn o r to
e ffect a change in o ur state government To attain their
obj ect
they have even pressed in to their service the
cause of religion and have endeavored to excite d iscontent
and dissatisfaction among particular d enominations of
Ch ristians and to impress them with a belief that they are
treated with intolerance
“
Connecticut has hitherto resisted all the attacks that
have been made o n her constitution and government Her
course has been honorable to her freemen we feel an honest
pride in a review of i t
To enable us to preserve and hand
d own to posterity unimpaired this fair inheritance which
we have derived from our forefathers nothing is wanting but
a faithful discharge of the important d uties which devolve on
every freeman
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
I n the campaign speeches the statement was often made
by the Federaliststhat
.
“
Connecticut is the oldest government in Christendom
”
,
“
and the aim of their opponents was spoken o f as Over
”
“
turning the government O f the state and Revolution
Some even went so far as to suggest that divine vengeance
would be meted o ut to innovators
.
.
“
To attempt to disturb the generall order and peace of
this little state is to war against the best tempered good that
heaven bestows on man
I t is ingratitude
I t is impiety and if you persist and throw the state i nto the
hands o f irrel igious and unprincipled men you will meet with
” “9
the frowns o f a righteous providence
.
.
.
Election date wasApril 1 7 1 81 7 Wolcott was elected
and with him an assembly a maj ority of whom were favorable
to a new constitution The Federal ist press at once began to
picture the evil s that would re sult
.
,
.
.
“
I nstead then of our present truly popular and republi can
system we must expect o ne more aristocratic and more nearly
conformed to the monarchial plan— that is a governor to
form a distinct independent branch o f the legislature a senate
probably like many of the professed republican states fo r
A l tt s
ign d Senex— Conn C ou ant Augus
t 1 9 1 81 7
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
9°
e
er
e
.
r
,
.
.
C O N NECT I C UT
92
three or four years the state d ivided into d istricts and each
” 7°
d i strict to become of course the theatre of demagogues
,
.
,
,
I n M ay 1 81 8 the le gislature authorized the call ing of a
constitutional convention
I t met Au gust 20th and soon
completed itswork The people of the state then voted o n
the new constitution O ctober 5 1 81 8 givin g it a maj ority of
ou t of a tota l v ote of
When the constitutional
titu
convention met a committee was appointed to draft a co n s
tion for the consideration of the con vention Art 1 11 Sec
I I I of this draft reads :
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
“
The house O f representatives shall consist of electors
" 7‘
residing in town from which they are elected
,
.
This chan ge in custom a century and a hal f old in Con
n ecticut evidently aroused no opposi tion for we rea d in the
J ournal :
,
“
The Third Article relating to the Legislative Depart
ment was then read and considered by sections and after an
” 72
amendment varyin g the style only was approved
Conn Cou ant Sep tem b r 2 1 8 1 7
Journa l p 7 9
l bi d p 2 2
An atte mp t w sm ad to d is
t i ct Sena torsals
o (Jou nal 9 29) but
w sun s
u ces
s
f ul
They w e el c ted at l a ge unti l 1 82 8 (Amend men tsA t I I and I I I )
,
,
,
,
r
.
,
.
a
c
,
.
e
.
.
,
.
.
a
.
.
.
,
er
e
e
r
r
r
.
.
.
r
.
.
.
W
N E
H AV E N
should be kept in mind that for the first few years of its
existence New Haven colony and town were o n e
I t was
founded by the l ittle company o f Puritans which followed
Davenport and Eaton from England and politically was
en tirely independent of any colony al ready established
The first pol itical meeting o f which w e have record held
in the colony was the famous gathering in Newman s barn
J une 4 1 639 At th is it was decided that the Bible was the
sole and su fficient guide in a ffairs o f government as well as in
private matters Davenport presented the query which was
affirmed by open vote
IT
.
.
,
,
’
,
,
.
,
.
,
Whether the S crip t ursd o e holde forth a perfect rule fo r
the direction and government o f all men in all duties which
they are to performe to Go d and men as well in the govern
ment o f fa m y ly e sand commonwealths as in the matters of
” 1
the church
“
.
The political body here formed consisted only
members
church
of
.
“
it was agreed upon
All having spoken
as o n order whereunto every o n e that hereafter should be
ad mitted here as planters should s
ubm it t and t e s
te fi
e the same
by s
ubs
cribe in g their names to the order namely that church
members only shall be free burgesses and that they onely
” 2
shall chuse magistrates and o fficers among themselves
,
,
,
.
The governing body o f the colony from the date of the
signing of this agreement J une 4 1639 to October 25 1 639
“
”
was seven magistrates or seven pillars of the church
The body of freemen assembled chose twelve men fit for this
o ffice and from this body of twelve seven were chosen by lot
The seven magistrates voluntarily resigned their places o n
October 25 1 639 and the whole body of freemen elected a
magistrate and four deputies to manage the public a ff airs of
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
‘
N ew
’
I Di d"
,
H av n R c o ds 1
I 15
e
,
e
r
,
.
12
.
.
93
NEW HA V EN
94
the plantation 3 I t was also decided that these o fficers were
to be elected yearly at a general court to be held in the last
week o f October 4
he occupied w a sby
New Haven s only title to the land s
purchase from the I ndians in 1 638 I n 1 640 further pur
chase was made both o n the mainland and on Long I sland
I t w ason these later purchases that the towns of Stamford
B ranford and Southold were establ ished The first two by
fie ld ; the
seceders from the church and town o f We a t he rs
latter by a company o f folk directly from England I n all
these sales New Haven stipulated that the new towns were to
look to her as the pol itical center o f the colony J ust what
this political connection was to be seems quite indefinite as
can be seen from the agreement with Stamford which reads
.
.
’
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
Thirdly that t hey j oin in all points wi th this
” 5
plantation in t he form o f government here settled
,
.
The formation o f a united government politically and
territorially was directly due to New Haven entering the New
England Confederacy in
She had had two commissioners
present at the meeting at Boston at which the articles of union
were drafted and signed After their return a general court was
convened at New Have n October 2 7 1 643 in wh ich fo r the
first time the outlying towns were represented The towns
met o n a basis o f equality M ilford Guilford and Stamford
each sending two deputies 6 The form o f government adopted 7
was similar to that existing in the neighboring colonies with
the exception o f the requirement o f church membership for
freemen I t provided fo r a general court o f governor depu ty
governor magistrates and two deputies fo r each town
All were to sit as o ne body The court was t o meet in two
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
H av n R co dsI 2 0 2 1 T h wo d p l antation isco mm onl y usd in th R co ds
in p aki ng of a town sl o cal affai s I n cont ad is
tinction to thisth wo d ju is
d i ction
w su sd i n
f i ng to a s
t i ctl y col on i al m att invo lving th unit d inte st of s
ev ral
towns
1 21
I bi d
Atwat H isto y of th Colony of N w H av n 1 7 5
It s
hould b bo n in m ind that p io to thi sMilfo d and Guilfo d had b en p ol it
F i fi ld f o m its
i lly in d p n d nt of N w H av n
sttl m nt b l ong d to Conn c ti c ut
and thusk p t N w H av n f o m b ing a t ito ial unit
N w H av n R c o d s 1 1 1 2 1 1 5
I
S
N ew
e
e
.
e
_
r
re e rr
e
r
e
-
.
,
’
e
a
r
r
.
e
r
er
e
r
e
e
“
e
”
r
re
e
.
‘
.
.
,
,
5
a
e
e
ca
e
e
7
e
e
r
er.
r e
e
r
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
r
e
r
,
err
-
.
.
.
.
r
a r e
.
e
r
r
r
e
.
e
r
e
e
e
r
e
e
W
N E
YORK
D UR I N G the Dutch rule in New York there was no le g islature
Government centered in a director and council The director s
authority came from a mercantile company in the Nether
lands while the council was a small body mainly composed of
the d irector s appointees Attempts o n the part of the colo
to influence affairs in any way were always opposed
n is
ts
After the capture o f the colony by the English the royal
charter o f
simply substituted an English d uke as pro
He was
p rie to r in place o f a group o f Dutch merchants
given authority
.
’
.
,
’
.
.
.
“
to correct punish pardon govern and rule all such
the subj ects o f us Our Heirs and Successors who may from
time to time adventure themselves into any of the parts o r
”
places aforesaid
,
,
,
.
w a salso
He
given authority
“
to make ordain and establish all manner of Orders
Laws directions instructions forms and Ceremonies o f govern
ment and M agistracy fit and necessary fo r and Concerning
the Government o f the territories and I slan ds aforesaid
,
,
,
,
.
There was reserved however to the colonists the right of
appeal to the King in cases where they fel t j ustice had not been
received at the hand o f the proprietor o r his agents
One o f the first steps taken by the royal commissioners
after the surrender o f the colony was to issue a proclama
tion promising the people protection
,
,
.
,
“
and all other privileges with h is M aj esty s subj ects
" 2
’
.
With the examples of M assachusetts Connecticut and
“
”
V irginia before them we know what privilege was most
highly prized by the colonists Without doubt it w a srep re
s
e n ta tio n in the government
I n addition to the proclamation this hope was strength
B d head I I 6 51
Journal of the L gis
lativ Coun cil I ; I nt od u ction I II
,
,
.
.
x
2
ro
.
.
,
e
e
r
.
96
,
.
97
NEW YORK
ened by a letter written by Gove rnor Nicholls late in August
1 664 to Captain Young of L ong I sland
I n this the governor
thanked those who had ta ke n up arms in helping establish
the English rule Further than that he promised that
,
,
.
,
.
“
Deputys shall in convenient time and place be sum
m o n ed to propose and give their ad v ise in all matters tending
to y e peace and benefitt of Long I sland " 3
,
.
That the gov ernor had no authority to make such a promise
isevident from readin g hiscommission 4 B ut he kept his
promise to a certain extent though quite evidently not as the
people understood it A few months later he addressed a
“
"5
circular to The I nhabitants of Long I sland in which after
recoun t ing the trials of the Long I sland towns he ordered :
.
.
“
That upon the Last day o f this present He brua ry at
H em p s
te e d upon Long I sland shall be held a Generall meet
ing which is to consist o f D e p uty e schosen by the M aj or part
of the freemen onely
,
,
.
Further reading makes it quite evident that what the governor
had in mind in calling this assembly was to settle the numerous
boundary disputes which existed between many o f the towns
I n resp onse to this proclamation two representatives from
each of seventeen towns6 met the governor at Hempstead on
M arch 1 1 665 The only record we have of the business
transacted isan address to the Duke of York 7 and the orders
issued in connection with two suits over boundaries We have
noticed that only Lon g I sland towns were represented at
the above assembl y For that and other reasons which are
obvious the gathering could n o t be di g nified by the name
legislative assembl y
Time went by and N icho llsmade no mov e to call another
as
sembly
There were murmurin gs especially on L ong
I sland which had the largest proportion of English in ha b
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
Journal of the Le gis
l ative C oun ci l I ; I ntrod uct ion IV
B od h d I I 653
Journa l of the Legis
lative Co uncil I ; I nt o duction IV
p snting them m ay be found on p ag
T h n m sof the to wns
a nd t h men
of I nt o d u ction to the Jou nal of the Le gis
l ativ Coun c il Vol I
N Y Col Doca I l l 91
.
r
ea
,
,
a
e
e
r
1
r
.
.
.
.
re
,
.
re e
e
r
.
.
.
,
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
five
NEW YORK
98
But matters d id not reach an acute stage until N icho lls
was leaving the colony having been replaced by Lovelace
Then in November 1 669 petitions from eigh t towns were
presented to the Court o f Assizes praying fo r the red ress of
several grievances the principal o n e 8 being that an assembly
had not been called from time to time as promised by Governor
Nicolls The reply they received was
I n answer to y e l s
t head wherein they desire to have
D e p uty e sto be Jo y n e d wi t h y e Governor and Council
I t doth not a p p ea re that Col N icho llsmade any such prom
9
ise
ita n ts
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
“
.
.
.
Nearly a year passed before the towns had another
opportunity of making a protest This opportunity grew out
of an attempt o n the part of the governor to levy a tax to
repair the palisade surrounding the fort at N ew York M any
of the L ong I sland towns refused to contribute and while their
stated reasons di ffer the principle back o f the refusal was the
same in every case Fo r instance one town agreed to contribute
.
.
,
,
,
.
“
if they might have the privilege that other h is M a
"
subj ects in these parts have and do enj oy
ty s
j es
Another stated its refusal
’
.
“
men
because they were deprived
of
the libertys
of
English
’7
.
I t is interesting to note that these remonstrances were publicly
burned before the city hall in New York
There now followed the period of reoccupation by the
Dutch which lasted until 1 674 The return of English rul e
was marked by the appointment o f Ed mund Andros as
governor I f there was much agitation d uring histerm of
o ffice for an assembly the only hint we have of it is i n tw o
letters from the Duke of York to the governor I n 1 6 75 he
wrote :
.
.
.
.
“
touching Generall Assemblys which y e People th ere
seeme desirous o f i n im itaco n o f their neighbor col onies I
u mm a y of
F
as
swhole p iod s th H is
to i cal I nt od u ction to th Jou nal
thi
of th L gis
l ativ Coun ci l
Jou nal of th L gis
lativ Counc il I nt odu ction V I VII
,
8
r
or
er
ee
e
r
r
_
e
9
e
e
r
.
e
e
e
.
r
,
.
.
e
r
NEW YORK
100
The duke n o w yielded to the demand of his colonists b ut
there is no doubt that his impelling motive was an economic
14
one
On M arch 28 1 682 he wrote to B ro ckho llsas follows :
.
,
,
I send this to tell y o u that I intend to establish
such a forme o f government at New Yorke as shall have all
y e advantages and p riv ile dge sto y e inhabitants and traders
there which H is M at s other p la n taco n s in America do e
enj oy particularly in y e choosing o f an Assembly and in
all other things as nere as may be agreeable to y e laws of
England 1 5
'
,
,
,
.
Colonel Thomas Dongan was now appointed governor by
the d uke and among his d uties was the carrying o ut of the
promise of an assembly Considerable space was given in his
I nstructions1 6 to this matter As soon as possible after h is
arrival he was to issue a summons calling an election o f re p re
s
e n ta t iv e s The assembly was to consist of not more than
eighteen members They were to have freedom of d ebate but
all measures passed were to be subj ect to the assent and
d issent o f the governor The proprietor was also to have a
negative o n all laws Regarding revenue all laws o n the sub
j e ct should plainly state that the money raised was fo r the
express use o f the proprietor and no bill decreasing the
revenue could be passed without the prior consent of the
proprietor
Late in August 1 683 Governor Dongan issued writs for
the election o f representatives to the assembly 1 7 The date
set fo r its meeting was October 1 7 and the place o f meeting
was to be Fort James in New York City The assembly th us
chosen met at the appointed time and place
I ts j ournal
having been lost the names o f most of the men comprising it
are not known
This assembly s
a t for th ree weeks and
passed fourteen acts only one of which aff ects thi study
This was an act entitled
Jou nal of th L gis
lativ Council I XVI F q uit a d iff nt i w how v
s B o d h ad I I 3 7 3 37 4
N Y C l Do cs I II 3 1 7
I bi d II I 33 1 334
Jou nal of t h Legis
lativ Counc il I X I This f n c als
o c ont insth na m s
of t w s d is
t i ctsnti tl d to p snt t i on an d th nu m be of p sntativ sas
ign d
s
to fi
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
s
.
,
:4
r
ee
1‘
e
.
.
17
,
o
r
r
eac
or
-
e
,
e
or
.
e
ere
V e
e
er.
.
,
.
e
r
.
.
.
.
.
,
e
-
,
,
.
1°
o
e
r
.
e
e
re
,
re e
a
,
re ere
.
e
r
e
a
re
re e
e
e
e
e
NEW YORK
10 1
The Charter of Liberties and Priv ile dge sgranted by his
Royal Highness to the I nhabitants o f New Yorke and its
” 18
dependencies
“
,
.
This stated that
Charter was enacted
t he
“
by the Governor C o un ce ll and Representatives
"
Generall Assembly met
,
now i n
,
,
.
And further
,
“
That the Supreme L egislative authority under his
M aj esty and Royal Highness J ames Duke o f Yorke Albany
etc L ord Proprietor of the said Province shall forever bee
and reside in a G o v e rn o ur C o unce ll and The People mett
”
in a Generall Assembly
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
Another provision
was
,
That according to th e usage cus
to m e and practice
of the Realm o f England a sessions o f a Generall Assembly be
"
held in this Province once in three years at leaste
“
,
,
,
,
it
.
Representatives were apportioned
was provided that
to
the counties [9 and
“
every freeholder within this Province and freeman
in any corporation shall have his free choice and vote in the
electing o f the Representatives without any manner of co n
straint o r imposition and that in all elections the maj ority
"
of voices shall carry it
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
This charter along with the other laws passed by the first
assembly were finally approved by the proprietor in England
but their return was delayed and before they were sent the
death o f Charles the Second changed the whole situation
automatically changing New York from a proprietary to a
royal province Within a month o f the d uke s accession to
the throne as James the Second the laws passed by the New
York Assembly o r at least the charter above referred to
came before the Committee of Trade and Plantations for
examination A report was made o n it by a meeting at which
it issaid James presided in person The section provid ing
B o d h ad II 383 ; I bid not p 382 ; N Y Col Do cs III N ot p 355 ; N Y
Col L ws(1 664
I 111
of th s with th i bound a i sw giv n in anoth sction of th act
Th n m s
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
1'
r
e
.
a
.
1'
,
.
,
e
a
e
e e
e
.
.
.
.
.
,
e
,
.
.
.
.
e r
re
ere
e
er
e
e
.
NEW YO RK
1 02
“
That the Supreme Authority shall remain in the
Go v e rn o ur C o unce ll and the People mett in a Generall
”
Assembly
,
was obj ected to
on
the ground that
,
“
The words The People met in a General Assembly
are not used in any other Constitution in Ameri ca ; but only
2°
the words General Assembly
"
.
Several other sections were obj ected to also and as a
result o f the hearing the charter was not confirmed Two
days later James wrote Dongan21 call ing his attention to the
fact that the death o f Charles had ended the proprietorship
and asking him to tell the people that the n ew king had co m
.
:
m itted
“
Our said Privy Council the care o f Our said Province
with the consideration o f the several bill s and addresses lately
presented unto us from Our assembly there
They may
shortly expect such a gracious and suitable return by the
settlement o f fitting privileges and confirmation o f their
rights as shall bee found most expedient fo r our service and
"
the wel fare o f Our said Province
to
.
.
I n the meantime the assembly met in its second session in
October 1 684 Thirty one acts were passed and assented to
by the governor none of which affects this study Before the
time o f the third session in the fall o f 1 685 news of the king s
death reached the colony and the question was at once raised
whether the assembly was not d issolved in consequence
Upon the advice o f the council Dongan d issolved the as
22
s
e m bly and ordered the election of a new one
The assembly elected in response to this su mmons met in
November 1 685 Only six acts which received the governor s
approval were passed I n adj ourning the assembly set as the
date o f its second session September 25 1 686 b ut as events
were to prove the first session was the only session of a New
York assembly d uring the reign o f J ames the Second Asthe
time drew near for the second session of the second assembly
-
.
,
,
.
’
,
,
.
,
.
’
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
’0
2I
N Y Col Do cs II I
I II 360
Ibd
.
.
.
.
'
i
.
,
.
.
,
,
35 7
.
'1
Jou nal of th Le gi s
lativ Counc il I
r
e
e
,
.
X IV
.
N EW YORK
1 04
government could be maintained
New York moreover
formed the center and starting point of a great imperial i sti c
scheme o f colonial union and it was without power to res i st
For these reasons the permanent establishment o f re pre
s
e n ta tiv e institutions in that province was postponed unt i l i t
could be achieved by a government in England which favored
" 26
their maintenance in all the colonies
,
,
.
.
,
.
News of the landing of William of Orange in En gland
reached New York in February 1 689 Lieutenant Governor
Nicholson tried to keep it secret at the same time attempting
to get into touch with Governor Andros who was in M aine
But the news through other sources reached J acob Leisler
a well to do merchant of New York City
For personal
reasons Leisler was no t on good terms with several o f the
leading councilors yet the peace o f the colony does not seem
to have been disturbed until news reached New York of the
uprising in Boston and the later imprisonment o f Andros
This was the signal for L eisler and his followers to undertake
o
a similar movement in New York The details o f the s
called Leisler Rebellion do n o t concern this study bu t o n the
other hand the fundamental aim of the revolt does concern
it intimately Osgood says that the L eisler rebellion has its
place in a series of events— mainly protests— which began
with K ie ft sBoard o f Nineteen and which finally resulted in
the permanent grant of a legislature to New York in
Lieutenant Governor Nicholson left New York for Eng
land in J une 1689 and for nearly tw o years there was no
representative of the crown in the colony except the members
of the council whom Leisler refused to reco n gize After a
year of turmoil and because o f need of funds to carry o n the
I ndian war which had now reached an acute stage Leisler
called an assembly in April 1 690 The only act of importance
was one provid ing for the raising of revenue This assembly
met again in September There is no way of tell ing whether
the representatives composing this assembly were all residents
of the counties they represented
.
,
.
,
-
-
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
’
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
Os
goo d II 1 68
Fo a full s
tat m nt of
good I II Chap X V
s Os
.
,
1’
ee
r
.
e
,
,
.
e
.
t he
va iousel mentsent ing into
r
e
er
th e
Le i s
l R b lli on
er
e
e
,
1 05
NEW YORK
While New York was passing through this period of turmoil
a new governor had been appointed
but he d id not
rea ch the colony until 169 1 On M arch 1 9 of that year
Governor S lo ughter arrived and promptly published his com
28
mission Th is commission ordered the early calling of an
assembly Writs were issued for an assembly to meet April
ninth Under th is commission all laws passed by the assembly
were subj ect to a double veto o f the go vernor and of the
crown
I t should be remembered however that laws re
ce iv in g the governor s approval were considered in force in
the colony from the time of such approval until word came of
the crown s v eto The assembly met at the stated time a nd
on M ay 1 3th passed an act entitled :
An Act declaring what are the Rights and Priv iled ge s
of their M aj esties Subj ects inhabiting within their Province
" 29
of New York
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
’
'
,
.
,
“
.
This act closely followed the s
o called charter passed
by the assembly o f 1683 The opening paragraph thanked
the crown for
restoring to them the undoubted Ri ghts and Priv il
"
edges o f En glishmen
-
.
“
.
The act provided for a session of the assembly each
year ; that all freemen of any corporation and every freeholder
of the province should have a vote in the choice of re p re
en ta t iv e s The term freehold er was defi ned as meaning one
s
w ho should h ave
”
forty shillings per year in freehold
.
“
.
A further provision was that the assembly was
be
to
the
“
bers
sol e J ud ges of the Qual ifications of their own mem
"
.
30
B ut no residential requirement appears in the act
N Y Col Docs II I 6 24
Co lonial Lawsof N Y I 246
t h a pp o tion
s
e m bli es
Sin thi sisthe firs
t of th unb ok n lin of N w Y o k As
ment of p sntativesm ay be of inte s
t
City and County of N w Y o k
2
S ufl o l k C ounty
2
sCounty
Qu
.
.
.
.
.
.
'0
.
.
,
.
.
.
r
e
ce
re
.
re
re e
e
.
een
e
.
r
e
e
r
e
r
NEW YORK
1 06
Governor S lo ughte r was succeeded the next year by
Fletcher whose administration covered the years 1692 1 698
During this period there was a revol t in the minds of many
men over the penalty inflicted o n Leisler and M ilborne The
small property holders the propertyless and the rural people
came to s
ee in Leisler though n o w dead a champion of those
principles which were at stake in their contests with the
wealthy merchants o f New York and the great landholding
gentry As a resul t the elections o f the period covered by
Fletcher s and B ello m o n t sadministrations and extend ing
even into C o rn bury s(1 692
were bitterly contested
le rian sand the anti Le is
le ria n sor Jacobites
between the Le is
as their pol itical enemies called them Fletcher sided with the
aristocratic party and there is plenty o f proof that d uring his
administration the assembly was dominated and intimidated
31
and elections interfered with
Richard Earl o f B e llo m o n t had been appointed governor
in 1 695 but d id not arrive in the province until early in 1 698
He at once let it be known that he thought colonial aff airs
were in bad shape and that his opinion of his predecessors was
not a very good o n e
This o f cours
e gave hope to the
Le is
le ria n faction and wo n fo r B e llo m o n t the opposition of
the merchants and p ro p e rty ho ldin g class I t is interesting to
note the d i fferences in the charges against Fletcher and Bello
mont by their respective enemies The J acobite side of the
controversy is set forth in full in Accusations vs B ello m o n t
which can be found in New York Colonial Documents I V ;
620 623
The gist of the whole accusation seems to be the
following however :
-
.
,
.
-
,
,
,
,
.
’
’
’
-
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
-
.
,
That soon after his Lordship issued o ut w rittsfor ch using
a new Assembly and the Election was appointed to be upon
the same day in all places except the tw o mo st remote Counties
K ingsCounty
2
Ri chmon d County
2
W stch st County
2
Ul s
t County
2
City and County of Albany
2
Duk sCounty
2
s
el
s
wy k
Colony of R ns
1
L tt of P t D La N oy Jun 1 6 95 N Y Col Do cs I V 22 1 32 2 3 23
“
,
.
.
e
e
er
.
.
er
e
'
.
e
e
50 7
er
e er
aer
e
c
,
e,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
NEW YORK
108
pounds in free hold free from all I ncumbrances and
have possessed y e Same three months before y e test of y e sai d
w ritt and they which Shall be Chosen shall be Dwelling and
33
Resident w thin y e C itty sCountys and M annors
ff o rty
’
We shall find later that at their first opportunity the
J acobite faction repealed the above but it seems quite clear
that the reason o f their opposition had nothing primarily to
do with the question of a residential qualification e xcept as
that question was inextricably mixed with the o n e of a
residential qualification fo r electors The reasons why the
weal thy p ro p e rty ho ld in g class obj ected to the latter re
striction are quite evident in the light of the sentence quoted
above in their accusation aga inst L ord B e llo m o n t
The law of 1 699 evidently did n o t end all irregularities
connected with elections for in October 1 7 0 1 the assembly
passed an act the title of wh ich read
“
An Act for the more regular p re ce e din gsi n the Elections
o f Representatives fo r t he S e v e ra ll Ci ties and Counties within
” 3“
this Province
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
Th is law does not mention qualifications for representatives
but deals with denying the su ffrage to Catholics ; making
more explicit the definition of freehold ; and provid ing for
what might be called technical n o n residence voting inasmuch
as for seven years
-
,
“
the freeholders of D utchess County sh all and are
hereby I mpowered to give their votes for Representatives in
”
the Coun ty o f Ulster as if they actually l ived in said County
,
.
On M ay 1 1 702 this same assembly tw o days before its
d issolution passed another election law increasing the total
number of representatives ; increasing the representation of
some towns ; giving the right o f representation to several
new counties ; and providing for temporary no n residence
representation for certain specified places This portion of
the act reads :
N Y Col Laws I 405 I n t h Jou nal of th As
smbly th p o c d ingsf o m
Ap il 25 1699 to O c to b 29 1 700
m is
s
i ng sw d o not know th a gumentsa d van ce d
t thism as
u
f o an d agains
N Y Col LawsI 452
,
,
,
,
-
.
.
r
.
,
.
er
,
,
e
r
.
.
.
,
,
,
re .
,
e
.
,
.
a re
r
,
e
o
e
e
e
e
r
r
ee
r
NEW YORK
1 09
H
And be i t further enacted by the authority afore
said that the Town o f S chn ecta dy N is
t igio n ne and half M oon
and the Town o f Kinderhook and all that part o f the Colony
la e rw y ck shall and may Elect any Su fficient ffre e ho ld e r
of Re n s
35
f
of the City and County o Albany to represent either of the
said Towns if they so think fit any L aw usage o r Custom to
" 36
the Contrary hereof in any wa y e snotwi t hstanding
,
,
,
.
L ord B e llo m o n t d ied in M arch 1 7 01 and at the time o f his
death John N a n fa n the lieutenant governor w a sin B arbadoes
The anti Le is
le ria n sat once began their campaign and there
The
w a sgreat turmoil in the province from M arch to J une
le ria n however
assembly chosen was Le is
L ate in 1 701 news of Lord C o rn bury sappointment as
governor reached the province and caused great j o y to the
Jacobite faction Nicholas Bayard became especially violent
in seeking to upset the work o f B e llo m o n t and as a resul t was
condemned to death under an act which he had been i n
s
trum e n ta l in passing ten years before to exped ite L eisler s
conviction The sentence against Bayard was never carried
I n M ay Lord
o ut as he was allowed an appeal to England
Cornbury arrived and promptly al igned himsel f with the
aristocratic party
The assembly which was now elected
le ria n 37
under writs of the new governor was strongly anti Le is
On November 2 7 th it passed a law specifically repealing the
election law o f 1 699 This act also contained a provision
repealing all laws
“
made pronounced publ ished o r Promulgated
38
since the first day o f August
,
,
,
.
,
-
.
.
’
.
,
’
.
.
,
.
-
.
,
.
,
,
,
To fully and thoroughly complete the task o n e provision was :
And that the M emory of these pretended Act and Acts
o f General Assembly may be wholly Obliterated Deleted and
” 39
buried in perpetual Obl ivion
“
,
.
The Election Act of 1 699 was approved by the King Septem
all in Albany County
T h p la c sm ntion d w
N Y Col LawsI 479
sm b l y to co s
p ond with that of
T h c h ng in th p oliti cal c o mp lexion of an as
ff s
h
sof th l ction s Th s
aissg av d oubtsc on c ning th fai n s
the gov no
w e a g at p ow and th N w Y o k co ds ful l of ins
tan c sof s
h i ff sb eing cha g d
with corru p t p acti c sin c onn ction with l c ti ons
I bi d I 5 2 4
N Y Col Laws I 524
,
e
N
.
'7
,
,
a
e
r r
e
e
.
e
r
e
re
r
.
'9
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
e
a re
e e
e
e e e
r e
e
er
e
r
rre
e
e
r
.
e
er
re
ere
e
e
.
.
er
er
e
.
,
,
.
.
er
e
e ri
r e
NEW YORK
1 10
ber 5
but the one o f 1 702 was disallowed by Queen
Anne in J une
leaving the former one in force
As the question o f residence as a qual ification for re p re
s
e n ta t io n does not appear in any act o f the assembly again
until 1 769 let us see what was the practice o f the people in
this regard Prior to legislation o n the subj ect the only in
stance o f n o n residence representation d iscovered by a careful
checking o f the lists was in the very assembly which fi rst
passed a law touching the matter Abraham Go v e rn e ur a
son in law of L eisler and a resident o f New York City re p re
sented Orange and Kings counties in the assembly of 1 699
but appears as a representative fo r New York in the assemblies
o f 1 70 1 and
When the assembly of August 1 70 1 met the seats of two
members were challenged o n the ground o f n o n residence
under the law of 1 699 William N ico ll had been returned for
Su ffolk County but was d ismissed under the above act None
of the colonial records give us exact data as to Nicholl s
residence Everyth ing points to New York City however
Nevertheless he later represented Su ff olk County continuously
from 1 702 to
and if he were n o t a resident the fact that
his seat was n o t challenged after 1 70 1 can only be accounted
for by the fact that d uring that time his faction controlled
the assembly
The other member whose seat was challenged under the
act of 1 699 was Dirk Wessels who had been returned by City
and County o f Albany He w a sa merchant o f Albany b ut
lived part o f each year on his farm in Livingston M anor 44
He had la ready represented Albany continuously from 1 69 1
to
and was an alderman there in
He must have
had some doubt however whether he could qual ify under
the act of 1699 fo r during the investigation of his case the
following curious document was read into the record :
N Y Col Do cs V 2 5
N Y Col LawsI 52 3 T h Qu en took thisaction on th co mm nd ation of th
L dsof T ad
As
smb l y J u l I 9 3 1 39
As
sm bly Jou nal I 1 3 1 35 54
I bi d I 1 44 1 9 5 2 1 9 2 39 2 7 1
S chuyl II 33 1
N Y Col Do cs IV 7 2 7
,
.
,
,
.
-
,
.
-
-
,
,
,
,
-
.
.
’
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
H
or
r
‘1
4'
e
e
.
,
er ,
.
,
e
.
,
e
e re
e
e
.
rna
o
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
e
.
.
r
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
NEW YORK
1 12
The next instance we find of non residence representation
was in 1 722 when Adolphus Philipse a resident and merchant
o f New York City
was the representative for Westchester
H isseat was not
County where he had large holdings
challenged For several years following the above date he
49
represented his own city
On November 1 0 1 743 J ohn Yelverton o f Orange
County presented a petition 5 0 calling the attention o f the
assembly to the election law o f 1 699 The petition in part
follows :
-
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
“
That contrary to the I ntent and M eaning o f the aforesaid
Act Theodorus S n ed ike r Esq ; High Sheriff o f Orange
County hath lately re turned M r Gabriel L udlow as d uly
elected a Representative to serve in t he present General
Assembly fo r the said County o f Orange although the said
Gabriel L udlow then w a s and still is dwelling and resident
in the city o f New York and no t in the County o f Orange and
refused to return your Petitioner as d uly elected although he
well knew that your Petitioner
had the greatest
"
number o f votes o f any Persons within the s
ame County
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
Despite the above Ludlow was declared d uly elected a n d
was seated I mmediately thereafter Col onel Lewis M orris
who was later to figure in a similar case moved for leave to
bring in a bill regulating the election of representatives
Leave was granted but the final action o n i t shown by the
records was the postponement o f its consideration until the
51
next assembly
I t does not seem to have been presented at
that time so we do n o t know what M orris had in mind except
as it is revealed in a statement of his in connection with a
similar case two years later
I n 1 745 Edward Holland o f New York City petitioned the
assembly against the seating of Captain Arent Brand t from
Schenectady claiming the seat himsel f 52 The assembly
held long hearings on this petition
Counsel for B randt
argued that as Holland was not an i n ha bi tan t (note that he
N Y Col Do cs VI 56
I bi d
II 4 7
smb l y Jou nal II 3
As
I I 65
I bi d
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
4'
'0
.
.
e
.
.
r
,
.
,
.
,
.
H
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
NEW YORK
1 13
did not use the word res
id en t) of Schenectady he was not
qualified to represent it One member urged the postpone
ment o f any decision o n the question till the next session on
the ground that matters invol ved were of such moment that the
,
.
“
Consequences greatly endanger t he L iberties and
Properties o f o ur Constituents and even affect o ur very
53
Consti tut i on
,
,
Colonel Lewis M orris moved that the matter be placed in
the hands of j udges of the Supreme Court on the ground that
H
A mistaken Resol ution o f this House may e n
danger every Thing that is dear and valuable and even
shake the very Foundation o f that Right by which we sit
” 54
here
,
,
,
.
The M orris motion was d efeated and the assembly s decision
was that under the laws o f the colony Holland was not e n
titled to represent Schenectady The fact that M orris should
move that a decision be obtained from the highest provincial
court o n a given situation apparently plainly covered by
colonial s tatute shows clearly that a certain group o f men in
the province fel t that there was a d istinction between legal
and actual residence
The next election law and also the next contested election
which hinged on the question o f residence both come in the
year 1 769 ; but before we take them up let us look j ust for a
moment at some phases o f legislative development d uring the
first seventy years of the eighteenth century I t had been one
long period of contests between the assembly and the royal
governors While the assembly was often torn by factions yet
on matters of vital importance they would usually unite
against a governor The chief items of contention were of
course revenue bills which the assembly asserted time and
again should be granted annually instead o f for a long period
of time
’
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
As
sm bly Jou na l II
e
r
.
,
78
.
b d II
I i
.
,
.
79
.
NEW YORK
1 14
One of the chief complaints o f the assembly wa sthe fre
quent prorogations and d issolutions by the governor when he
had a refractory assembly and o n the other hand o f the length
of time he would keep an assembly which had proved pliable
and friendly in existence
Fo r example the assembly of
October 1 7 1 5 w a sdissolved August 10 1 726 having been in
existence eleven years The one of J uly 1 72 8 lasted nine
years being dissolved in 1 737
Attempts were made from time to time to remedy this
cond ition A Triennial Act was considered in 1 7 28 b ut as
the council opposed it it was dropped 55 A similar act was
passed in 1 737 which th is time received the approval o f the
council 56 but was adversely reported by the Board o f Trade
and vetoed by the Crown 5 7 I n connection with the latter
L ieutenant Governor Clarke wrote the Board o f Trade
stating that the chief argument fo r such a bill w a sthat the
province was shunned by immigrants in favor o f the corporate
colonies and proprietory provinces where the assembl ies were
frequently chosen 58 Finally in 1 743 a Septennial Act69
was passed which received royal approval and wh ich remained
in force well into the nineteenth century
The Election Act o f 1 7 69 evidently grew o ut of two co n
tested elections o i that year o r more probably o ut o f o n e in
Westchester where the election had been decided by non
resident electors
On April 1 2 1 7 69 John Thomas of
Westchester presented the following motion :
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
-
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
“
1
find by an act passed by the general assembly o f the
Colony o f N ew York the 8th o f M ay 1 699 it is among other
things enacted fo r regulating elections in t he colony that n o
n o n resident should have a right t o a seat in the House o f the
Assembly I find that M r Philip L ivingston is returned fo r
the manor o f L ivingston in the county o f Albany ; I move fo r
the aforesaid reasons his n o t being a resident according to
the Act o f the Assembly that he may be d ismissed from his
" 60
attendance o f this house
,
,
,
,
-
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
N Y Col Docs V 87 4
N Y Col Docs VI
" I bid VI 1 1 2 1 1 3
Coun ci l Jou nal I 70 5
" As
smbly Jou nal II 10 ; Counc il Jou nal 11 2026
As
24
sm bly Jou na l (1 766
.
.
‘0
0°
.
.
r
,
e
r
e
r
.
.
,
,
'7
.
.
.
.
.
r
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
-
.
.
1 36
.
NEW YORK
1 16
petitioners conclude that the construction put upon those
words by the Parl iament o f Great B ritain clearly shows that
the in tention o f the said act of parliament was n o t to excl ude
non resident members from their seats in parliament bu t to
exempt them from the burden o f serving fo r places where they
do n o t reside and to which the common law would compel
them were they n o t thus exempted and is evidently in favor
o f your petitioners being represen t ed by persons not actually
residing in the said manor w ho d o n o t excep t to the service
Secondly— Because except in three instances (excluding
at present the case o f the said manor) i t has been the invariable
usage o f the General Assemblies o f this Colony to admit
representatives to represent the several counties in this colony
who did n o t actually reside within the same o f which your
petitioners find upon the j ournals o f the house twenty o ne
examples ; and wi t h respect to the said th ree instances which
were the cases o f William Nicoll and Dirck Wessels in the
year 1 70 1 and o f Edward Holland in 1 745 ; your petitioners
doubt n o t they will appear from the said J ournals to have
originated from party spite expecially as in the year 1 743
M r Gabriel L udlow w a sad mitted by the then General
Assembly o n a controverted election a representative fo r
Orange Cou n ty though he then resided in the city o f New
York
Thirdly— because the said manor o f L ivingston in
particular except only in three instances has been constantly
represen ted in General Assembly fo r the course o f fifty three
years by persons n o t actually resid ing within the same
which your petitioners find to have been the case in eleven
di ff erent assemblies
Fourthly— Because the words in said act o f Assembly
pretended to require the actual residence o f the person
elected are the same with those respecting the residence o f
the electors ; and your petitioners d o n o t remember that it wa s
ever doubted that the elector if duly qualifie d with respect
to his freehold to vote fo r a Representative in General
Assembly was also qual ified to vote withou t actually residing
in the county in which his freehold l ies from wh ich they co n
ce iv e it evident that a freeholder may also be elected and is
duly qualified to serve notwithstand ing h is no t actually
residing ; and the same Philip Livingston being a freeholder
in the said manor your petitioners conceive his right to serve
as a representative fo r the same cannot be called in question
without at the same time impeaching the righ t o f every non
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
117
N EW YORK
id e n t
s
fre e ho ld e rt o
choose a representative fo r the county
in which he has a freehold
“
Fifthly— Because your petitioners are advised t hat in
construction o f law and by solemn adj udications in the
courts o f j ustice every person does reside in the county
manor o r borough in which he is a freeholder
Sixthly— Because the contrary construction would re
d uce great numbers o f the inhabitants o f th is colony to the
grievous and unconstitutional hardship o f being taxed fo r
estates which are n o t n o r can be represented and introd uce
the pernicious doctrine o f a virtual represen t ation invented
by the enemies o f America and manifestly tending to the sub
version o f that most invaluable privilege o f n o t being taxed
without o ur o w n consent
Seventhly— Because by the first section o f the above
mentioned act fo r regulating elections it is among other
t hings enacted
that the place where the freehold o f the
elector lies shall be set down by the clerks o f the poll and n o
notice is required to be taken o f the place o f his residence
whence your petitioners infer that the actual residence o f the
elector is no t by the said act intended as any part o f his
qualifications to choose and as by the first section o f said act
the words dwelli n g and res
i d en t are applied both to the electors
and elected and must as before observed be understood in the
same sense your petitioners think it plainly follows than at
actual residence cannot in the sense o f the act be a necessary
qualification fo r the elected n o r requisite to entitle him to a
seat in th is honorable house And this construction your
petitioners conceive farther corroborated by the oath pre
scribed by the same act which only respe cts t he elector s
freehold without taking any notice o f his residence And
L astly— Because the legislature have in the tenth
section o f the said act clearly distinguished between a legal
and actual residence by enacting that the freemen o f the
cities o f New York and Albany w ho have actually dwelt in
the said cities respectively three months before the tests o f
the writs of election shall have liberty to vote in their t e
s
p e ct iv e corporation
“
Fo r all which reasons your petitioners pray this honor
able house to rej ect the said motion as contrary to the true
sense and spirit o f the said act o f assembly the usage o f
Parliament and the general course o f proceedings in assembly
61
M anor of L ivingston April 1 8
re
t
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
,
“
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
'1
As
s
e m bly Jou nal
r
(1 7 66
,
59
.
N EW YORK
1 18
After the reading of th is petition the motion to d ismiss
Livingston was carried Those voting in the negative were
practically the same as the list given above Livingston was
62
a New York merchant
The session of April 1 769 to M ay 1 7 70 was marked by
another contest On the second day of the session a petition
e n te d askin g
from certain inhabitants o f Westchester was p e rs
for the seating of J ohn De L ancey in place of Lewis M orris
who was not a resident according to the petition A week
later when the matter was up again Representative De Witt
made this speech :
“
As it is essential to civil l iber ty that no tax be levied
that is n o t the free gift o f the people and the d istresses i nto
which these colonies have fo r several years past been pl unged
fl o w from the pernicious doctrine o f a virtual representation
and it is the indispensible d uty o f this house to discountenance
it to the utmost o f their power ; and since t he exclusion of a
member holding a freehold in the county o r place fo r which he
is returned from having a seat in this house o n account
o f his no n residence there may d raw into question the rights
o f electors to the choice o f representatives
i n places where
they do n o t reside and the taxation o f the estates o f such
persons will consequently strongly imply the approbation
o f this house; o f the odious and d angerous principle assumed
by the enemies of the colonies and the prosperity of the
” 63
whole empire
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
Counsel fo r M orris and De Lancey presented their argu
ments before t he house on April 1 5 The former contended
that the act of 1 699 did no t apply to Westchester bu t gave no
reasons in support o f h is argument I f it d id apply he con
tin ned M orris had a right to his seat ashe had
.
.
,
,
“
a considerable estate within the said borough
”
.
Final action came on April 20 when it was d ecided th at M orris
did not have such a residence in Westchester as q ualified h im
to represent it and his d ismissal was ordered 64 This decision
did not stop the proceeding however regard ing the con
tested election On April 26 it was announced to the House
S chuyl I 2 80
s
e m bly Jou nal (1 7 6 6
As
2 7 28
,
.
,
.
'3
er,
,
(1 7 6 6
,
,
0'
.
6 , 8 , 22 , 26 , 28 30 , 36
,
r
,
37 , 38 , 42
,
.
S 1 , 68
,
75 , 7 7
.
.
NEW YORK
1 20
Summons free from all incumbrances whatsoever situate and
being in the City County Town Borough o r M anor for wh i ch
” 58
he shall be so elected
,
,
,
,
,
.
The us
usual place of abode in the above
e o f the phrase
”
”
“
“
instead of the word resident or residing was d oubtless an
”
“
attempt to get around the double meaning o f resident
which wasthen common in Engl ish pol itical practice and
which could be b rought to the fore whenever a weal thy New
York o r Albany man wished to be elected from a county in
which he had an estate
This law rece iv e d the approval o f governor and council
When it came before the council it received only o ne d is
senting vote that of Will iam Smith J r His reasons were :
”
“
.
.
,
,
.
“
Because incapacitating n o n Residents from representing
their Electors is an al teration o f the Election Act o f 1 699
(the first section o f which is nearly similar to the Statute of
the 8t h o f H VI Cap 7 ) is repugnant to the constant usage
o f Parliament
and the general practice o f the Assembly for
near seventy years past abridges the Right o f Electors in all
the Counties and may be very prej ud icial t o the City a n d
County o f N ew York in particular where it is fo r many
reasons most probable the greater number o f n o n Resident
M embers would reside ; and is the more unreasonable with
respect to the City since this Capital sends only four o ut of
twenty seven M embers tho it bears o n e third part o f the
" 6"
Burden i n all Publick Levies
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
.
On May 26 1 769 Governor M oore wrote to the Earl of
Hillsborough regarding four bills out of the twenty passed at
the session o f 1 7 69 and to which he had given his assent
Referring to the election act he said :
,
,
.
“
’
Altho the title o f this Act sets forth that it was in
tended to explain and amend an Act passed so long ago as the
year 1 699 I bel ieve it will appear t o your Lo rd p and to every
unprej udiced person that the Law in q uestion d id not
require any real explanation o r that any doubts could p o s
ibly arise concerning the meaning o f it as it is expressly
s
declared therein that all persons chosen representatives in
the General Assembly as well as the Electors themselves
N Y Col L wsIV 109 5
Jou nal of th Le gis
lativ Coun cil 1 1 1 706
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
a
,
,
.
,
r
e
e
,
,
.
NEW YORK
121
shall be resident in the Cities Counties and M anors w here
such election is made The present L aw declares that the
Representatives must be Resident but that the Electors are
not obliged to be s
o
and gives an explanation o f the Act
repugnant both to Reason and J ustice as these persons
whose usual residence is in this Ci ty and are in general best
qualified for representatives in the House o f Assembly are
precl uded from being chosen in any County or Borough
”70
notwithstanding they may have a considerable Estate there
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
Despite the governor s opinion o f this measure he a p
proved it The balance of his letter is an explanation why he
d id so and gives us an insight into the influences which
actuated the royal governors in many of their contests with
the colonial legislatures The disapproval o f the election act
of 1 7 69 by the crown in J une 1 770 left the province under
the act o f 1 699
Only one more contest hinging on the q uestion of residence
occurred before the adoption of the first state constitution
I n 1 77 2 J ohn De Lancey was returned for Westchester and
his seat was challenged on the ground that he was a non
resident
While the question was up De L ancey himsel f
moved :
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
“
That before the house come to a determination o n this
matter that they resolve that n o person is capable o f being
elected a representative to serve fo r any city county town
borough o r manor in this o r any future general assembly
ide
unless he be an actual resident and shall continue to re s
in such place fo r which he shall be so elected and ba th re
sided at least six months before t he test o f writ and sum
” 7‘
mons
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
This motion was passed b ut there is no record of its ever being
sent to the council or the governor for approval The vote on
De Lancey s righ t to his seat was then taken and he was d is
missed asa no n resident This action is hard to understand
in the light of the M orris De Lancey controversy of j ust three
years previous in which M orris was dismissed from the
assembly for non residence and De Lancey was given his place
.
’
-
.
-
-
.
7°
N Y Col Do cs VII I
.
.
.
.
,
,
167
.
7'
As
sm bly Jou nal
e
r
(1 7 66
17
.
NEW YORK
1 22
De Lancey had received an English military ed ucation and
72
later fought with the English in the Revolutionary War
so it is possible that his dismissal grew really out of d isl ike for
his political convictions
This brings
us to the end o f the colonial period the point at
which o r before which o ur study o f each colony generally
ends for by that time most o f them had a definite and well
recognized residential qualification fo r representatives As
we have seen New York had a law o n that subj ect dating back
to 1 699 but we have also seen that the electors had put a
”
construction o n the word
residence wh ich practically
nullified the law
So we migh t say that when New York adopted its first
constitution it had no residential qualification for rep re
s
e n ta t iv e sas that qual ification was generally understood
I n order that o ur study may be complete we will examine
briefly the question of residence as related to representa tion
from the first constitution o f 1 77 7 until the rej ected one of
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
“
.
.
1 91 5
.
The Constitution o f 1 7 77 was hastily ad opted (M arch 12
April
I t was not voted on by the people I t is said
that the convention was dominated by the landowning and
conservative classes J oh n Jay was perhaps its ablest mem
ber An attempt w a smade to insert a residential q u a lifica
tion for representatives Draft A o f one section und er the
general heading (Assembly Districts ) read :
That all Elections fo r Representatives in general
Assembly be made in every district annually by ballot in
such mode as t he L egislature may prescribe That every
distri ct ch use o n e person to represent the County o ut o f the
Freeholders w ho shall actually and in fact reside w ith in such
" 7“
district
.
.
.
.
I t
.
.
No such provision was included in Draft B n o r in the final
draft This constitution made provision fo r a senate to take
the place of the legislative council An attempt w asmade to
limit the senators to residence in their d istricts
.
.
.
7'
7'
Sp oon H is
tory of W s
tch s
t County 266
Al exand I ; Chap I I
Lin coln I
Sho nn ard
-
er,
er,
e
.
.
e
er
,
.
7‘
,
.
505
.
NEW YO RK
1 24
privilege of non residence representation but because the
convention fel t that custom was strong enough to regulate
the matter
The constitution framed by the convention o f 1 86 7 was
not ratified by the people at the polls Al though it never
came into e ff ect it contained one section bearing on this
subj ect As finally submitted to the people Section I Article
I I I read :
The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and
assembly Any elector shall be eligible to the o ffice of senator
”
and member o f the assembly
-
.
.
,
.
,
“
.
.
Edwin A M erritt w ho proposed the last sentence of the
section gave as his reason that he wished to make clear that
any elector was eligible to be elected to the o ffices mentioned
in any part o f the state
The Constitutional Convention of 1 87 2 proposed several
amend ments to the existing constitution o f the state which
after being slightly al tered by the legislature were ratified in
November 18 74 One of the amend ments changed Article I I I
"
Section I which was the section o n L egislative Power
The convention considered the subj ect o f qualifications for
assemblymen and senators includ ing propositions that no
person should be eligible except an elector a male citizen
and a citizen o f the Uni ted States ; and that he should have
attained a certain age The question of a residential q ua lifica
tion was n o t considered None of the above proposals was
adopted and the article finally submitted to the voters con
ta in ed no qualifications whatsoever for either o ffice
The Constitutional Convention o f 1 894 d rafted the
constitution which is n ow i n force except asit has since been
amended Article 111 Section I I I o f this provides for sena
to ria l districts and Section V fo r assembly d istricts
Neither
article contains a requirement that a senator or assemblyman
shall live in his district
New York stand s practically alone among the states of the
Union in the lack of a residential qual ification for both
senators and representatives The status of the matter at
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
NEW YORK
1 25
present is exactly that found in an opinion of the attorney
general of the state growing o ut o f a contested election case
in 1 858
I n that year J ames Dolan contested the seat of John G
Seeley elected from the fourth Assembly District in New
York City o n the ground that Seeley was a n o n resident
While the committee was taking testimony o n the question
as to the fact of residence or non residence the assembly
asked Attorney General Lyman Tremain fo r an opinion o n
the subj ect o f residence a sa qualification fo r representatives
I n the meantime the committee had decided that Seeley was
a resident of his district as the term was used
.
.
,
-
,
.
-
,
-
.
in
all statutes upon the subj ect
” 77
Qual ifications o f voters
.i
elections
of
and
.
A minority report was brought in in the Seeley Dolan contest
which declared that three years prior to the election Seeley
had moved his family to Washington County and that their
permanent home had been there since The report continues :
N o w the structure o f o ur republican form of government
o r system depends
upon t he representations of
certain portions o f the State by persons identified with the
interests o f such portions ; and fo r this reason the C o n s
tit u
tion has apportioned the entire State into districts giving to
each its proper delegate in order that through such delegate
the local wants and rights o f the d istrict should be properly
represented in the State Legislature I f it had been of no
importance that each district should be thus separately and
peculiarly represented by its own local citizens then the
L egislature might as well be elected upon a State ticket and
the members taken indiscriminately from any and all sections
and a merchant doing business in New York may be chosen
to represent the farming interests o f Washington County or
” 73
the fishing interests o n o ur lake shores
-
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
Because of the decision o f the committee regarding Seeley s
residence the attorney general s opinion d id not affect the
decision o f the assembly on seating Seeley But since a swe
'
,
.
sm bly Do cu m nts1858 Vol IV N o 9 5 T s
As
ti m ony of witnes
to S l y s
s
ess
sm bly Do c u m nts1 858 Vol IV N o 1 0 1
iden c can b found in As
es
As
sm b l y Do cu ments1 858 Vol IV N o 97
77
r
e
e
e
,
e
e
.
.
e
,
.
.
e
.
.
,
e
.
.
.
,
.
a
.
,
.
.
ee e
'
N EW YORK
1 26
have al ready stated the present status of the question unde r
consideration is covered by th is opinion j ust as though it had
been del ivered this year we will close our study of New York
with it
“
A disqualification to hold any particular o ffice should be
expressed in explicit terms either in the constitution o r laws
o f the State
o r follow by necessary impl ication for what is
declared Whenever residence in the locality from which the
o fficer to be elected is chosen is essential it is usually de
cla re d to be a necessary qual ification in uneq uivocal language ;
th us we have a statute providing that n o person shall be
eligible to any town o ffice unless he shall be an elector o f the
town fo r which he shall be chosen This provision of course
renders it necessary that he should be a resident o f the town
at the time o f his election
I n cases of sheri ffs clerks o f counties district attorneys
j udges o f county courts recorders o f cities and other o fficers
particularly named in the statute they are req uired to reside
wi t hin the cities o r counties fo r which they shall be respectively
appointed o r elected
We have also a general statute declaring that n o person
shall be capable o f holding any civil o ffice in the State unless
at the t ime o f his election o r appointment he sh all have a t
ta in e d the age o f twenty o n e years and shall be a citizen of
this state
I t is further provided by general statu te t hat every
o ffice shall become vacant whenever the incumbent shall
cease to be an inhabitant o f the State
The Constitution provides fo r the apportionment o f the
members o f Assembly among the d i fferent counties
but seems to be entirely silent in reference to the qualifications
o f such members in regard to residence o r any other particular
N o r is there any sta t ute o f the State that I have been able to
discover providing
that the member o f Assembly
shall reside within the d istr i ct fo r which he shall be elected
(I n the next paragraph he refers to the fact without
mention o f name that M artin V an Bu ren a resident o f Albany
represented Orange County in the Constitutional Convention
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
-
,
.
“
,
.
“
.
,
.
,
,
of
“
The o ffice o f member o f Assembly is not a local o ffice
but o n the contrary the d uties o f the o ffice may be discharged
beyond the limits of the d istrict from which the member is
chosen
,
.
N EW YORK
1 28
manor county or borough This act remained the law of the
province to the end of the colonial period yet it was con
tin ua lly violated j ust as in England d uring the same period
no attention was being paid to the Act o f 8 Henry VI which
established a residential qualification for members of the
House of Commons
The petition of Livingston M anor
already referred to states that down to that date the j ournal
o f the assembly showed twenty o ne examples o f n o n residence
representatives Futhermore that their o w n manor except
fo r three instances had been represented fo r fifty three years
by a no n resident Yet we have found d uring the whole
eighteenth century only five cases o f members of the assembly
being challenged and unseated because of n o n residence
On the other hand w e had the example given above (Gabriel
Ludlow 1 743) o f the assembly seating a man who was a n o n
resident and whose seat was challenged by a resident
I t seems quite evident that every case o f d ismissal from
the assembly fo r non residence was purely partisan action
Whenever o n e faction wished to get rid of a particularly
obnoxious member o f the opposite faction they could always
invoke the law o f 1 699— given two things— firs
a clear
t
maj ority o f the assembly and second the intended victim
happening to be representing a community where he d id no t
reside For example of the five contested cases given two
of them were in 1 70 1 and tw o in 1 7 69 in both of which
assemblies partisan feeling ran high
I n the charter colonies we have found that the men
chosen as non resident representatives were often holding
other h igh colonial o ffice There was not nearly s
o much of
this in New York and the reason is of course that in the latter
province all such men were royal appointees There was a
law passed quite early denying the right of a seat in the
assembly to a provincial O fficeholder
I t w a s frequen tly
violated but almost never without protest 80
,
.
,
,
,
.
-
-
,
,
.
-
,
-
.
-
.
,
.
-
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
-
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
Colon l L wisMo iss
ought to ous
t P t D eL
sa ep esntativ
y
sh w sat th s
f om W s
tch s
t
am ti m a j u d g of th Su p m Court This t
s
te mp t w suns
u cc s
ful (N Y Col Do cs I I
But in 1 7 7 2 Robt R Livings
ton
eat
a judg of th Su p m Cou t w s efus
ed a s
sth e p sntativ of Livings
ton
Mano Thishappen d again in 1 774
'0
I n 1 7 50
e
r
er, a
e
r
.
e
e
e
a
e
e
e
rr
a
e
.
re
e
e
e er
.
.
r
e
,
a
e
.
r
.
,
e
a n ce
e
re
,
a
r
e
.
.
a
e r
re e
r
.
e
e
e
a
.
NEW YO RK
1 29
I n closing the study o f New York let us note that the
d ivision between New York City and the balance o f the state
in the assembly a d ivision which is more marked than in
any other state o f the union is n o t o f recent origin
Every definite example o f n o n resident representation
which we have been able to fi nd shows the n o n resident to
have been a New York City merchant I n practically every
vote in the assembly o n the question o f n o n resident voting
or no n resident representation we find the New York City
delegation voting solidly in favor o f each The attitude of
the prominent and politically powerful men of the city is
shown above (p 1 20) in the reasons given by Councilor Smith
for his opposition to the election act introduced by De Lancey
in 1 769 Evidently the city o r at least certain classes of the
city felt that a resident of the city chosen to represent some
outlying county or borough where he owned property could
n o t forget the interests o f the city where he actually resided
while representing the town county or manor where he
”
”
“
legally but n o t actually resided And furthermore that
every such representative made up fo r the d isproportionate
representation which the city had considering the amount
it paid in taxes
The situation a t present is as we have shown that New
York has no residential qualifications fo r its assemblymen o r
senators The custom that a man must actually l ive in the
d istrict he represents with the possible exception of the large
cities where the line be tween assembly d istricts does not stand
out with the prominence of a county boundary in all prob
ability controls the electors with all the force of law The
absence of a definite statute is a fine example o f the tenacity
with which a long establ ished pol itical tradition cl ings to and
molds our political expression and practice
,
,
.
-
-
.
-
-
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
“
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
9
N E
W JE R S E Y
pol itical history of New J ersey so far as this study is con
cerned d ivides itsel f into four d istinct parts
TH E
.
(1 ) The period o f union from the granting o f the deed
o f release by t he Duke o f York to Berkeley and Carteret in
1 664 to the division o f the province by the Quin tip a rtite Deed
i n 1 67 6
(2) The independent existence o f Eas t J ersey between
the above da t e and the incorporation o f N ew J ersey wi th t he
N ew York governmen t in 1 7 02
(3) The i n dependent existence o f West J ersey fo r the
same period
(4) The surrender o f the province i n 1 70 2 by the p ro
p rie to rso f bo t h East and West J ersey and the incl usion o f
the united province under the authority o f the royal governor
o f N ew York
!
,
.
.
.
.
A reading of the colonial records of this provin ce gives o ne
the impression that its pol itical li fe was marked by greater
turmoil than that o f perhaps any other colony or province
I f this be true it was undoubtedly d ue to three things
.
.
First the assumption o f governmental au thority by t he
original proprietors Berkeley and Carteret and by their
assigns
Secondly t he presence o f s
o many Quakers in the province
and among the l ater proprietors The e ffect o f this situation
is easily seen when o n e remembers that d uring a l arge portion
o f the colonial era matters o f defence s
o called occupied to a
l arge degree the attention o f colonial l egisl atures
Thirdly d uring the later provincial period the growing
con test between the proprietors and anti proprietors as the
latter continually increased in number
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
-
.
The whole character o f early New Jersey h istory is de
te rm in e d as Osgood points o ut by the fact that the co n
t in ued assumption and exercise o f pol itical authority by
Berkeley and Carteret practically gave them possession o f it
al though the right to exercise it was challenged from man y
quarters
,
,
,
.
1 30
NE
1 32
W J ERSEY
(1 ) Government o f the province t o be exercised by a
governor council and general assembly
(2) The general assembly to be composed o f governor
council and a representative body chosen as follows :
That the inhabitants being freemen — d o as soon as
this o ur commission shall arrive— make choice o f twelve
d eputies o r representatives from amongst themselves ; w ho
being chosen are to j oin with the said Governor and Council
fo r the making o f such laws ordinances and constitution as
shall be necessary fo r the present good and wel fare o f the said
Province
But as soon as parishes d ivisions tribes and other dis
t in ct io n sare made that then the inhabi tants o r freeholders
do
o f the several respec t ive parishes t ribes
annually meet o n the fi rst day o f J anuary and choose free
holders fo r each respective d ivision
to be the deputies
o r representatives o f the same which body o f representatives
or the maj or part o f them shall wi t h the Governor and Council
” 6
aforesaid be the General Assembly o f the Province
(3) Assembly empowered to appoin t times o f i ts meetings
and adj ournments
(4) Empowered to enac t all laws provid ed that they be
consonant to reason agreeable t o the laws and customs o f
England and n o t against the interests o f the proprietors
(5) Laws to remain in force o n e year while under con
sideration by the Proprietors
(6) Assembly given power o f t axation excep t over the lands
o f the Prop rietors before settling
.
,
,
“
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
“
The fi rst assembly held under the authority o f the Conces
”
sions o f 1 664 was in M ay 1 668 I t met at Elizabethtown :
the following towns sent representatives : Bergen Newark
Elizabethtown Wo o dbrd ge and the towns of the M on mouth
patent
Another session was held in November at which appeared
”
two representatives from
Delaware River in add ition to
those who were present at the M ay session The towns of
the M onmouth patent chose two representatives b ut in
structed them n o t to take the oath unless it contained a
reservation recognizing the validity of Nicol l s land grants 7
L ning nd S p i c 1 4 15
T h townsx p l ain d th a pp a an c of th i
p sntativ sat th fi s
ts
ion by
es
s
s
aying th m who p t nd d to p snt th m had no autho ity to d o s but had b n
c hosn by s
o m of thei f i n d s(M i ddl town Town Book)
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
“
.
’
.
0
7
ea r
e
e
e
e
er,
a
en
e
-
e
e
re e
r
r e
e
.
e r
re
e
re e
e
e r re
re e
e
e
r
.
e
r
o
ee
NEW J ERSEY
1 33
These representatives were not seated Only a few laws were
passed by th is assembly none o f which a ffects this study
Assemblies also met in 1 6 7 1 and 1 6 72 b ut we have no record
of their proceedings This brings usto the close of the first
peri o d of united government The d ivision into East and West
J ersey became operative immediately after the Engl ish re
occupation o f 1 674 although the o fficial separation by the
Quin tip a rtite Deed was n o t until two years later
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
E A ST J ER S E Y
When Phil ip Carteret returned from England in 1 6 74 as
governor of East Jersey his instructions 8 declared among
other things that the governor and council should have the
power of admitting freemen ; that to governor and council
belonged the power o f summoning and adj ourning the as
it
s
e m bly ; and that the general assembly should continue to s
as two houses 9 This was a great s t rengthening of executive
power Cond itions in the province n o w became more settled
d ue in part to a letter from Charles the Second command ing
all parties to yield obedience to the governor and in part to
an opinion from England signed by eight prominent lawyers
unfavorable to the Nicoll s p a ten tee sl o
From 1 6 74 to 1 680 Carteret was in a cons t ant struggle
with Andros who was seeking to asser t his authority over the
Jerseys The latter s
o far succeeded that at o ne time he had
Governor Carteret arrested and taken to N ew York as a
prisoner I n the fall o f 1 680 a release was issued to the pro
of both Jerseys This granted to them the free use o f
p rie to rs
all waters and all the
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
.
.
.
“
powers authorities j urisd ictions
” ‘1
and other matters and th i ngs whatsoever
,
,
governments
,
,
.
This lease like the ones which had gone before it was inval id
N J A c h I 16 7 1 7 3
sd to
I n a d o cu m nt d at d 1 672 sign d by Ca t t and B k l y an d whi ch p of s
d cl a th i t u int nt an d m aning in g anting th con c s
ions p ovision w sm ad
s
th
it sp a at ly f o m t h gov no an d c oun c il an d giving t h latt
t h as
sm bly to s
f
p ow of s
u mm oni ng an d ad jou ning So m inhabitantsco mplain d that thisd o cu m nt
alt d th con c s
ionsin i mp o tant p a ti cul a s I t d i d that v y thing L a ning and
s
S p i c 33 34
l bi d I 3 24 337
N J A ch 1 1 54
,
.
r
.
.
-
,
9
e
e
re
or
e
e r
“
.
e
r e
e
e
r
er
r
r
e
e r,
1°
e
e
e
er
”
e
e
r
r
r
.
r
.
,
,
.
U
.
,
,
.
e
e
er
.
e
er
e
e
.
e
a
r
,
.
.
,
.
r
e
r
e
r
er e e
r ere
e
e
e
ere
,
,
.
e
r
NEW J ERS EY
1 34
but it was re c o g nized by Andros and s
o for a time East J erse y
had peace with itsnearby neighbor o n the east
J ust at this time East Jersey wassold at auction by the
trustees of Sir George Carteret to William Penn and eleven
as
sociates The number of proprietors by later transfers
w a ssoon increased to twenty four
“
No province except East J ersey after the process of
settlement progressed so far w a ssubj ected in this sudden
” ‘2
fashion to such a change o f rulers
,
.
,
,
.
-
.
,
,
.
With the change o f ownership came a change in the theory of
provincial government i f not in ac tual practice The new
plans show plainly the id ea s of Penn and of h is Quaker as
sociates regardin g the right of the individ ual to a free partici
p a tio n in the government under which he lived
The Fundamental Constituti ons1 3 of 1 683 were never put
into e ff ect but it is worth while to note the provisions o f this
The provi nce was to be governed by a great council con
sisting of the twenty four proprietors and one hu ndred forty
four representatives elected by the f reemen of the province
The persons q ualified to be freemen that are capable
to choose and be chosen in the great Council shall be every
planter and inhabitant dwelling and residing within the
Province w ho hath acquired rights to and is i n possession of
fifty acres of ground and hath cultivated ten acres o f it ;
o r in boroughs who have a house and three acres ; o r have a
house an d land only hired if he can prove fifty pounds in
” 1“
stock o f his o w n
.
,
.
.
,
-
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
.
No serious attempt apparently was ever made to pu t this plan
in force I t may have been and probably was unwieldy
Besides the inhabitants had a system which was working and
under which each freeholder had a voice in the g overnment
During the period of independent existence there were nine
assemblies or at least nine sessions o f the assembly 1 5 The
acts of none o f these aff ect the subj ect of th is study until we
come to the session o f 1 698 I n that year a l aw was passed
entitled
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
I*
"
Os
goo d ,
L am ing
e
II
,
19 1
a nd
Sp i c
bd
I b
I i
“ I id
N
.
er,
1 54 . 1 55
.
.
.
.
,
1 55
.
93 1 37 ;
-
Mulfo d
r
,
1 6 2 2 56
-
.
NE
136
W J ERSEY
province ; in other words the province of East J ersey d uring
the latter part of its separate existence wa spractically inde
pendent in all but name The reason for the above statement
isthe fact a sexempl ified in later New J ersey h istory and in
New York that whenever the proprietary or royal govern
ment was strong and w asbeing ad ministered by alert and
capable men al l e fforts o n the part of the people to have
their representatives chosen from a limited area where their
chief interests lay always met with opposition
.
,
,
.
WE ST J ER S E Y
I n takin g up the study of this province we find in the
18
1
Concessions and Agreements o f 677 an elaborate plan of
government more democratic than that of the corporate
colonies o f New England Some students feel that this plan
rather than that set up in Pennsylvania reveals the political
ideas and ideals o f Fox Penn and other leading Friends The
full title o f this plan o f government was
.
,
.
,
“
The Concessions and Agreements of the Proprietors
Freeholders and I nhabitants o f the Province o f West New
”
J ersey in America
,
and it was signed by the proprietors and a large number of
freeholders and inhabitants o n M arch 3 1 6 77
Chapters
X X X I I to X L deal with the powers of the general assembly
The first chapter referred to reads in part : 1 9
,
.
.
o soon as d ivisions o r tribes
That s
o r other such l ike
d istinctions are made ; that then the inhabitants freeholders
and Proprietors resident upon the said Province
do
yearly and every year meet o n the first day o f October
and choose one Proprietor o r freeholder fo r each respective
propriety in the said Province (the said Province being to be
d ivided into o n e hundred proprieties ) to be deputies trustees
o r representatives fo r the benefit
service and behoof of the
people o f the said Province : which body o f Deputies trustees
o r representatives
consisting o f o n e hundred persons chose
as aforesaid shall be the general free and s
up re a m assembly
”
o f the said Province for the year ensuing and n o longer
N J A ch I 241 270
" I bi d
1 263
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
I'
.
.
.
,
r
,
.
.
,
.
-
.
NE
W J ERSEY
13 7
The assembly thus provided for w a sto be practically
absol ute I n addition it was n o t to be chosen
“
by the common and confused way o f cry s and
”
i
vo ces but by putting Balls into Balloting Boxes
.
'
,
.
I t should be noted that no particular power was reserved to
the proprietors except such as would come to them as in
habitants and freeholders within the province
As has been pointed out in connection with East Jersey
the years between the d ivision o f the province and 1 681 were
years o f contest with Andros w ho was seeking to exercise
authority and did to a limited extent in both Jerseys The
year 1 681 as already stated marks the date o f the withdrawal
of claims o n the part of the New York governor to interfere
in New J ersey a ffairs That year marks the first assembly in
West J ersey M ost o f its acts were in confirmation o f pro
visions o f the Concessions
One act provided that there
should be an annual assembly
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
“
chosen by the free people
of
the Province
” 20
.
I t also provided that the assembly was no t to be prorogued
without its consent and that the governor must confirm its
acts The next year the assembly announced that it was its
j udgment and that of those by whom they were chosen that the
.
“
most regular way
preserving liberty and property
of
by a lawful free assembly was
that each te n proprieties chuse their
” 21
where they are peopled
t iv e s
“
,
te n
”
representa
.
This is ambiguously worded and is open to two possible
interpretations I t was not an act but simply a suggestion it
seems to me to the people of each propriety to choose residents
when electing representatives M ul ford 22 (p 239) holds this
view and says the d iscussion which preceded it was over the
comparative advantages o f d irect and general elections
The Assembly of 1 683 provided fo r different dates o f
23
f
election in the d i ferent tenths
Such an arrangement as
A Civil and Politi cal H is
to y of N w J sy
L ning d S p i c 423
L a ning and S p i c 47 3
I bi d 443
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
’0
’1
an
ea r
er,
22
23
.
,
.
r
.
e
r
e r,
.
e
er e
.
NEW J ERSEY
1 38
th is was always for the convenience of the non resident voter
This same assembly provided that thereafter all civil o fli ce rs
of the province incl ud ing governor and councilors were to be
chosen by the assembly
I n 1 686 the assembly gave each proprietor one proxy in
the assembly provided the proxy resided on the proprietor s
land N 0 further act appears wh ich bears even ind irectly on
this study until in 1 694 when the basis of election was changed
from tenths to counties Representatives were apportioned
among the counties ; electors were to be freeholders within
their respective counties and the q ual ifications for re p re
s
e n ta tiv e s
were that they be
-
.
,
,
.
’
.
,
.
“
good and su fficient men
” 2“
.
A later enactment required that they also be freeholders and
25
provided for a different election day in each county
I n an
act of 1 699 the counties were mentioned by name with the
number of representatives to which each was entitled The
qual ifications o f electors wa s
.
.
“
all su fficient freeholders and no more
”
.
A law in 1 70 1 however went back to the former provision
found in the law o f 1 694 As the separate existence o f West
J ersey come to a cl ose the only reference we have found to a
residential qualification was in the suggestion mad e by the
assembly of 1 682 As in the case of East J ersey it is impossible
to tell whether non resident representation w a spracticed
We have the names of the members o f several assemblies but
not the names of the d ivisions from which they came Three
things make it probable that there w aslittle or no non resi
dence representation in West J ersey These th ree things are :
,
,
.
.
-
.
.
-
.
(1 ) The absence o f any l arge towns in the province
(2) The Quaker belief in each individ ual s right to a
share in the government
(3) The absence o f proprietary pressure exerted politically
i n order to safeguard proprietary authority
.
’
.
.
Mulf o d
r
,
269
.
L a ning and S p i ce
e
r
r,
533
.
1'
bd
I i
.
.
568
.
N EW
1 40
J ERSEY
the freeholders o f either division o r afterwards o f sitting in
General Assembly s w ho S hall n o t have o n e thousand acres of
land of an estate o f freehold in his own right within the
division fo r which he shall be chosen ; and that no freeholder
shall be capable o f voting in the election fo r such representa
tive w ho shall n o t have o n e hundred acres o f land o f an estate
o f freehold in his o w n right within the division fo r which he
shall s
o vote ; And that this number o f representatives shall
n o t be enlarged or d im is
he d o r the manner o f electing them
al tered otherwise than by an act o r acts o f the General
Assembly there and confirmed by the approbation o f us our
”
heirs and successors
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
I t is interesting to note that the plans fo r the assembly out
lined in the above follow in exact detail a plan proposed in the
Proprietor s M emorial o ffering to surrender the J erseys (1 701 )
with the single exception that they asked fo r an assembly of
thirty six ; sixteen from each d ivision of the province outside
the two principal towns 2 9
According to L ord C ro n bury sinstructions he could pro
rogue or dissolve the assembly He also had the power o f
30
veto which power the proprietors also reserved
There
was a property qualification fo r both electors and representa
t iv e sand the only additional q ualification fo r representative
was that his freehold must be in the district represented I n
practice this method was not at all satisfactory to the con
s
ta n tly increasing anti proprietary party or faction
Under
it the election in each division was held at only o n e place
a fact which d isfranchised many el igible freemen and enabled
a few men to choose the representatives fo r the d ivision
Fo r example in the December election o f 1 7 03 in East J ersey
the anti proprietary interests determined to carry the day
and so they appeared at the chosen place to the nu mber of
three h undred On the other side forty tw o q ual ified voters
most o f them from New York a nd Long I sland appeared
Despite the discrepancy in numbers the sheri ff Thomas
Gordon returned the representatives chosen by the forty
two 31 Also it was frequently charged and apparently with
Le a ning and S p i c 599 602
" I bi d
650 651
N J A ch II I 1 4—1 5
'
-
.
’
.
.
,
.
-
.
.
,
,
-
-
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
19
r
.
er,
,
,
.
-
.
u
.
.
r
.
,
,
.
NEW J ERSEY
14 1
truth that in West J ersey the Quakers continually dominated
the elections al though outnumbered in the province except in
B urlington County 32
Soon after his first visit to the province Cornbury placed
himsel f in opposition to the proprietary party The first
session o f the fi rst assembly under the new government met
in 1 703
This contained a proprietary maj ority 33 The
second session o f the same assembly met in September 1 7 04
This also had a bare maj ority fo r the proprietary party
despite the e fforts o f Cornbury and his friends Friction soon
developed between the governor and the members o f the
assembly over their d ilatoriness in provid ing fo r the defence of
the province s
o the governor d issolved it and issued writs fo r
a new one to meet in November
When the assembly met the governor refused the oath to
three members from West J ersey
This gave the anti
proprietary party a maj ority and thereby the power to pass
an election act which they hoped would gain perm anent
control of the assembly fo r their party This act abolished
the election o f ten men at large from o n e d ivision at o n e point
I nstead representatives were apportioned among the towns
and counties
Qual ifications fo r representatives were that
they must be inhabitants and freeholders of the division for
wh ich they were chosen and freeholders of the county whence
35
they were elected
Here was a d istinct step toward a more
democratic government ; yet a step made possible by the use
of means in themselves lo w and unworthy
The reaction o f the proprietary party to this law was true
Whenever any propertied interest in the colonies
to form
obj ected to the growth o r extension of the power o f the
provincial assembly the obj ection nearly always rested o n
English law and English practice as a precedent And s
o it
was in this case The West J ersey proprietors sent a memorial
to the Lords of Trade obj ecting to several o f C o rn bury sacts
among them his refusal of the oath to three representatives
t h ability of th Q uak s
F
p acti cal p ol iti c ianss N Y Col Do cs IV
as
1 1 48 1 1 7 1 ; V 3 4
Tanne 307
Mulfo d 29 1
LawsE n ct d in 1 704 (B ad fo d P ints
)
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
’
,
3'
or
e
,
,
'1
e
r,
er
r
,
ee
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
r
.
.
a
e
r
r
r
.
NE
1 42
W J ERSEY
and his approval o f the new election act After expressing
doubt whether the assembly had the authority to alter the
qualifications of electors and representatives they point out
that the qualifications accord ing to their former law were
.
,
a stand ing and unal terable part o f the co n s
tit u
tion o f England where t he elec tors o f knights of the counties
must have a fixed freehold ; and the elected are generally the
principal landed men o f t heir respective counties ; but the
alteration n o w made was intended to put the election o f
representatives into the meanest o f the people w ho being
impatient o f any superiors will never fail to choose such from
amongst themselves as may oppress us and destroy o ur
" 36
rights
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
I t looks very much as though the initiative in passing a new
election act was taken by the governor rather than by the
assembly
I n J une 1 704 Cornbury recommended to the
L ords o f Trade a change in the property qualifications for
electors and representatives o n the ground that some men
who had o n e thousand acres o f land were illiterate while
there were other very able men with equal weal th but having
none o f it or only part o f it in land He also pointed o ut that
when the elections were held in only o n e place in each division
o f the province it necessitated some men traveling tw o hun
d red miles to vote 37
I n February 1 705 Cornbury wrote to the L ords o f Trade
commenting o n the laws passed the previous year and urging
their approval The reasons he advanced fo r the approval of
the election act were the same as those stated i n h is letter of
J une 1 7 04 to the S ame body The act however w a sn o t
approved being in all probab ility to o democratic for the
queen s advisers 38 C o rn bury sreasons for approving the act
in question were weighty enough and they must have im
pressed the L ords o i Trade fo r in April 1 705 that body
recommended to the queen that additional instructions be
issued Cornbury dealing with the question o f the provincial
assembly 3 9
" I b id
S m ith H i s
to y of N w J sy 34 1
I II 6 8
N J A ch II I 54
I bi d
I II 96
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
,
,
’
.
,
,
.
N
r
,
'7
.
.
r
.
,
e
,
.
er e
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
'9
NEW J ERSEY
1 44
Section o n e defines the qualification o f an elector as
One H undred Acres o f Land in his o w n Right o r be worth
Fifty Pounds current M oney o f this Province i n Real and
”
Personal estate
“
.
,
.
I n order to be chosen a representative one must have
One Thousand Acres o f L and in his ow n Right o r be worth
Five Hund red Pounds current M oney
“
,
.
,
Sections tw o and three apportioned the representatives
among the cities three in nu mber and the nine counties into
which the province had been d ivided by this date Section
four in full reads :
And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid
That all o r every Person o r Persons elected and chosen
Representatives fo r the Counties aforesaid shall be Free
holders in that Division fo r which he o r they shall be chosen
to serve in General Assembly as aforesaid ; and that no Per
s
o n who is n o t a Freeholder shall be capable o f electing o r
” 42
n o r o f sitting in General Assembly
o r being elected
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
I t will be noted that the principal change made by this act
”
was the change o f the word sterling to the phrase current
”
money o f the province in stating the personal estate re
“
“
q uire me n t s
.
The act o f 1 709 never before operative fo r the simple
reason that it and all the other acts passed at the same session
d isappeared somewhere between the printer in New York
City and the New Jersey provincial o fficer whose d uty it
was to send the laws to England 43 Whether there w asany
connection between the disappearance of the above act and
the passage o f the o n e o n the same subj ect the following year
is not clear Something however led the assembly which met
I ngoldsby in November 1 709 to pass a l aw which laid d own a
strict residential requirement and one which was far reach
ing in its e ffect This assembly was anti proprietary which
partially or perhaps entirely accounts fo r the new law which
was passed in January 1 7 1 0
Actsof G n al As
sm bly of N ew J sy 1 702 1 7 7 6 6 7 (Allins
o )
N J A ch IV 45 Sus
p i cion p oint d t B as
t oyed th
sshaving delib at ly d s
a cts
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
-
.
,
,
,
H
e
.
.
r
er
.
.
e
,
.
.
er e
e
,
o
-
,
a
n
-
er
.
e
e
r
e
NE
W J ERSEY
1 45
From the preamble it isplain that the condition calling
forth th is law was one which we have n o t met in any other
o far in this study
colony s
That is the possibility o f a large
landholder al though a resident o f another state being elected
to the assembly The preamble states the problem so con
cis
ely we will quote :44
,
.
,
,
.
“
Whereas nothing can conduce more to the Honour
Safety and Advantage of this Province than the M embers
elected to serve in the General Assembly be perfectly a c
q ua in te d with the true State and Circumstances o f this
Province ; and many I nconveniences may arise by electing
Persons to serve in the said General Assembly w ho inhabit in
another Province al though they may have some I nterest or
Estate in this but their Concerns lying and being in Some o f
the neighboring Provinces where they with their Families
do inhabit they may thereby be swayed to have greater
Regard to the I nterest o f the Province in which they so
inhabit than fo r the Welfare and Prosperity o f this
“
Be it Enacted
That
n o Person shall be
capable o f being elec t ed a Representative to serve for any
City Town o r County in the General Assembly within this
Province w ho is n o t inhabiting and usually resident himsel f
and likewise with his Family (if any he hath ) the Day o f the
Date o f the Writ o f Summons and hath been s
o Three
M onths before in some City Town o r County o f that Division
”
in which he shall be elected
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
The next and last section retained the freehold qual ification
for representatives of the act o f 1 709
Robert Hunter was appointed governor late in 1 7 09 but
d id n o t arrive in the province until J une 1 7 1 0 When his
instructions were drawn the election act of January 1 7 10
had either not been received in England o r else it was ignored
”
“
The portion of the instructions
p robably the former
relating to the assembly was exactly the same as in Lovelace s
I n a letter which accompanied the instructions the L ords of
Trade said they had no obj ection to the act (the Cornbu ry
Act of 1 704) altering the constitution and regulating the
election of representatives except it d id not contain a definite
property qual ification I n this connection the governor was
Ac tsof Ge n al As
s
e m bly of N w J ers
ey 1 7 02 1 7 76 10 1 1
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
'
.
.
er
10
e
,
-
-
,
.
NE
1 46
W J ERS EY
given the authority to red uce the freeh old requirement if afte r
45
t
o
o
reaching the province he fel t it to be
high
H unter met his first assembly which was a proprietary o n e
in December 1 7 1 0 and succeeded in getting an act through
t he assembly which conformed more nearly to the royal in
than did those of 1 709 and 1 7 1 0 The council would
s
tructio n s
o the o n e of 1 7 1 0 remained
not agree to the new act however s
the law o f the province I n Hunter s letter to the Board o f
Trade telling o f his attempt and failure to get a new election
act we get some important information from the standpoint
of this study I t reads in part :46
.
,
,
,
,
:
.
,
,
'
.
,
.
s
e rta in in g the
The Act fo r regulating Elections and as
Qualifications o f the Representatives o f th is Province This
Act tho founded upon and conformable to an I nstruction o f
Her M aj esty fo r this Purpose w a sRej ected because re
p ugn a n t to an Act past in Coll I ngoldsby s time which
act as they themselves o w n e was made o n purpose to ex l cud e
Doctor J ohnston and Captain Farmer from being Elected ;
These Gentlemen at that time l iving by chance in the province
of New York t ho their Estates which a re very valuable lye
in the Jerseys and w ho have acted very zealously and
”
strenuously fo r her M aj esty s service
“
.
,
’
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
.
I t seems that when I ngoldsby sent the acts passed by the
assembly in 1 7 1 0 to England he d id not comment on them as
each royal governor was supposed to d o So the Lords o f
Trade asked Hunter s opinion o n them He rendered this in
the same communication referred to above I n regard to the
election act o f 1 7 10 he said :
.
’
.
.
This w a slevelled particularly against C a p ta in e ff a rm e r
and Doctor J ohnston men o f the best Estates and ability
in this Province and w ho have been very active and usefull
in Her M aj esty s A ffairs and may deprive us o f more such
and is contrary to that Constitution o f Assembly appointed
by Her M aj esty upon the surrender
confirmed by all her
subsequent I nstructions obliging the elected to an actual
residence whereas the I nstructions men tions no other quali
fica tio n but an Estate to a certaine val ue within the Divi
" 47
sion
“
,
’
,
,
,
.
N J A c h IV 2 II (N ot )
N Y Col Do cs V 20 1 ; N J A ch IV
.
.
r
.
.
.
.
,
e
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
r
.
,
55
.
N Y Col Do cs V
.
.
.
.
,
20 7
.
NEW J ERSEY
1 48
He wasa large land owner near Perth Ambo y and there
e v idence that he had l ived there prior to this date O n the
is
other hand we have Governor Hunter s statement that at the
time of the passage o f the n o n residence act h e wasl i v in g in
New York City He evidently moved back and forth between
the two provinces fo r he w a sM ayor of New York City in
removed from the Provincial Council in
1 7 1 5 b ut in 1 720 w a s
New York because for two years he had been a resident of
New Jersey 64
I n the study of New Jersey we find very little if any o p
enta
p o rtun ity for the development of non residence repres
tion before we find a law forbidd ing it This is accounted for
by the fact that the province contained no one city which by
its size and in fl uence dominated itspol itical life and by the
further fact that the unit of representation w asnot the county
or town but the d ivisions o f which there were onl y two
When the question o f n o n residence representation does come
up it presents a phase which is entirely new I t brings us
face to face with the fact that the great landowning interests
were no t stopped by state lines in their attempt to prote c t
their property through membership i n the assembl y of the
prov ince where their property lay And s
o we fi nd able and
in fl uential residents o f New York City seeking seats in the
New J ersey Assembly j ust a sthey were constantly represent
in g outlying New York Districts in the assembly of that s tate
All of which wasstrictly conformable to Engl ish political
practice of the time B ut New J ersey in thus parting from
Engl ish practice at this early date showed that th e in fl u en c e
of some political ideas sown by the Quaker proprietors years
before had borne fruit
N Y C ol Do cs V 46 7 649
.
’
-
.
,
,
.
-
.
,
.
-
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
'0
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
P E N N S Y LVA N I A
I N our st udy o f New Jersey we noted the tendency of Quaker
proprietors to let the inhabitants of their province have a
much more free rein in m a nagin g the ir a ff airs than did the
royal governors We also stated that this freedom resul ted
in a greater democracy in provincial a ffairs A study of Penn
sylvania ough t to S how whether such conclusions were
warranted ; for in this province a Quaker proprietor had full
and und ivided authority
Penn s authority and property rights in Pennsylvania and
the territory later known as Delaware rested upon four docu
ments
i
.
.
.
'
.
(1 ) Char ter from Charles the Second da ted M arch 4 1 68 1
conveyi ng Pennsylvania to Penn
(2) Deed o f release fo r province o f Pennsy lvania from the
Duke o f Yo rk d ated August 3 1 1 682 The general terms o f
t his were the same as the charter
Penn s purpose in getting
t his was t o preclude any possibility o f a la ter assertion o f the
d uke s right
(3) Grant of Duke o f York to Penn Augus t 24 1 682
conveying to him the town o f New Castle (Del aware ) and a
d istrict twelve miles around it
(4) Grant from the Duke o f York o f the same d ate as (3)
conveying to Penn a trac t o f land below New Castle w hich
‘
was later incl uded in the tw o lower counties o f Delaw are
,
,
.
.
,
,
'
.
'
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
During its provincial history Pennsylvania had what
might be called four constitutions They were :
.
(1 )
(2)
(3)
(4)
The Frame o f Government o f 1 682
The Frame o f Government o f 1683
M arkham s Frame o f Government o f
Charter o f Privileges— 1 70 1 2
.
.
’
1 696
.
The charter from the king to Will iam Penn gave him the
authority to call an assembly and to determine its
form and the
qualification of itsmembers I n short the proprietor was
.
I
i
,
Charte an d Laws466 46 7
All thes c an b found in Pa Col R cs V ol I an d II
r
,
e
e
-
.
.
.
e
149
.
,
.
.
PENNSYL VAN I A
1 50
given an absolutely free hand in decid ing the form of g overn
ment of hisprovince The portion of the charter in which we
are interested reads :
.
Know ye therefore that wee reposing s
p ecia ll trust and
confidence in t he fid e litie w is
d o m e j ustice and provident
circu m s
Do e grant
p e cco n of the said William Penn
free full and absol ute power
to him and his heirs
and to his and their deputies and Lieutenants
to
o rd a y n e
make Enact and under his and their Seales to
publish any L awes whatsoever
accord ing unto their
best discretions by and wi t h the advice assent and a p
p ro ba co n o f the freemen o f the said co un t rey o r the greater
parte o f them o r o f their Delegates o r Deputies whom for
the Enacting o f said L awes when and as often as need shall
require 3 Wee will that the said William Penn and his beires
S hall assemble in such sort and forme as to him and them
shall seem bes t 4
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
Acting under the authority conferred upon h im by the
charter Penn d rew up the first Frame that of 1 682 before he
left England I t provided for an elective council something
not found in any other province or colony That portion of
the Frame relating to the council reads :
,
,
.
,
.
“
That the freemen o f t he said province shall o n the
twentieth day o f the twel ft h month
meet and as
semble in some fi t place o f which timely notice shall be
before hand given
and then and there shall choose
o u t o f t hemselves seventy tw o persons o f most note fo r their
wisdom virtue and abil ity w ho shall meet o n the tenth day
o f the fi rst month next ensuing and always be called and act
” 5
as the Provincial Council o f the said province
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
.
I t was further provided that after the first year one third
o f the council should be elected annually and no council or
could serve two successive terms No other qualification or
restrictions regarding the election of council members was
mentioned
The provision regard ing the assembly was :
d ing c au sd by a p io d at thisp oint b aks
T h b ak in th
t he g a mm ati c a l
t u c tu of th p c d i ng an d f ll wmg snten c s T h vid nt thought isobtain d by
s
d i s ga d ing t h p i o d
Cha t
d Laws83
I bid 9 4
-
.
.
e
e
e rea
re
er
re
r
.
re
r
r
re
4
e
e
r er a n
re e
er
o
o
e
e
.
e e
e
.
,
.
. ,
.
e
PEN NSYLVAN I A
1 52
privilege existing in any colony or province I t is especially
noticeable that it took into consideration the inhabitant
already in the province before it came into the possession of
Penn and the bond servant who had completed histerm of
se rvice
Penn arrived at Newcastle on October 2 7 1682 and on the
”
“
next day took possession of the lower counties according to
the Duke s deed The next day he proceeded to the main
province Soon thereafter he d ivided it into th ree counties
B ucks Philadelphia and Chester At the same time the
Delaware territory was d ivided into the counties of New
castle Kent and Sussex 1 1
Sheri ffs and the other o fficial s necessary for cond ucting
county business were appointed and o n November 1 8th
writs were issued to the S heri ff s to summon the freeholders of
“
their respective counties o n the twentieth and to elect out
"
of themselves seven persons to serve as their representatives
in a general assembly to be held at Upland (Chester ) on
“
”
12
December fourth
The words out of themselves in the
writs calling this election clearly limited the freemen to the
choice o f residents of their respective counties
The assembly met on the appointed day On the sixth
the Act o f Union annexing the lower counties was passed and
also an act naturalizing the citizens of those counties On
the next day the proprietor placed before the assembly the
“
Frame of Government and the Written Laws or C o ns
tit u
” 13
tions
The latter consisted o f ninety laws proposed by
Penn sixty one o f which were later adopted and were known as
.
-
,
.
,
,
'
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
-
,
“
of
The Great
”
Pennsylvania
La w
or
Body
of
the Laws of the Province
.
The second one o f these prescribed qualifications
and for representatives
fo r
electors
.
“
And be it fully enacted
that all o fficers and per
sons commissionated and employed in the service of the
government in this Province and all M embers and Deputies
elected to serve in the Assembly thereof and all that have a
P ou d I 234
H a a d 603
Cha te and Laws4 7 7
,
,
II
r
,
,
.
I?
z r
.
.
1'
r
r
,
.
PENNSYL VAN I A
1 53
Righ t to elect such Deputies shall be such as profess and
declare they believe in Jesus Christ to be the son o f God the
Savior of the world and that are n o t Convicted o f ill fame
or unsober and dishonest Conversation and that are of
” 14
twenty o n e years o f age at least
,
,
,
,
,
.
The next assembly met in Philadelphia M arch 1 0 1 6 83
The form of writ use d in calling the election for this assembly
ha sbeen preserved :
“
.
,
,
I do hereby in the King s name empower and require
thee to summon all the freeholders in t his bail iwick to mee t
on the 20t h day of the next month at the falls upon Delaware
river ; and that they then and there elect and chuse out o f
themselves twelve persons o f most note fo r wisdom and
integrity to serve as their delegates in the provincial council
to be held at Philadelphia the l 0t h day o f the first month
next ; and that thou there declare to the said freeman that
they may all personally appear at an Assembly at the place
aforesaid accord ing to the contents o f my charter o f l iberties ;
of which thou art to make me a true and faithful return
William Penn
T o Richard Noble High Sheri ff o f
The County o f Bucks ; and the other five Sheri ffs likewise
” 15
for their several counties
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
By the terms of this writ the freemen of the counties were
again restricted in their choice to residents and the size o f the
assembly was increased to seventy two When the assembly
met however some of the members brought with them
petitions 1 6 from their constituents praying that the number
chosen might constitute both council and assemb ly three from
each county constituting the council and nine from each
county the assembly The proprietor agreed to this request
and the assembly later made the arrangement permanent by
an Act of Settlement 1 7
The debate attending the act mentioned above determined
the proprietor to bring in a new frame o f government The
ve ry next day at a general meeting of proprietor council and
-
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
N
1°
‘7
P oud I 235
Chart an d Laws 1 08
T h P tition f o m Ch s
t County can b foun d in H az a d 60 3
Chart
d Laws 1 2 5
er
e
e
er a n
r
e
.
1‘
.
,
er
.
e
r
,
.
,
r
,
.
PENNSYL VAN I A
1 54
assembly Penn put the question whether they desired the
old charter or a new one
,
.
“
They unanimously desired there migh t be a new one
” ‘8
.
After many conferences between the proprietor council and
assembly the new charter (Frame o f 1683) was read to a
j oint assembly with impressive ceremonies o n April 2 1 683
I t w asthen signed by Penn by each person present and was
19
d elivered to a committee o f the assembly
”
“
The new Frame o r constitution asw e have called it
made several changes in the political organization o f the
province The council was to consist o f eighteen members
three from each county ; the assembly o f thirty six six from
each county The council and the house together were to
constitute the general assembly The residential q ua lifica
tions for representatives was retained ; fo r the instrument
provided that the freemen of each county should yearly
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
-
,
.
.
“
Choose o ut o f themselves six persons o f note fo r virtue
W i sdom and ab i lit i es to serve i n As
s
e m bli e as the i r R e p re
,
,
s
e n ta t i v e s
” 20
.
From 1 692 to 1 695 Penn s authority as proprietor was in
abeyance and with it the constitution o f 1 683 Governor
Fletcher of New York was also appointed governor of
21
Pennsylvania
His commission
d ated October 21 1 692
authorized h im to appoint a council not to exceed twelve in
number The provisions o f h is commission regard ing the as
s
e m bly were those with which we are already familiar in the
other royal provinces I t authorized him to
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
H
summon and Call General Assembl ies o f the
I nhabitants being ffre e ho lde rs within o ur said Province
according to the usage o f o ur province o f N ew York ; And
that the persons thereupon d uly Elected by the maj or part
o f the freeholders o f the respective Counties and places and
sha l be called and held the Generall
s
o e returned
” 22
Assembly o f that o u r said province
,
,
,
,
.
Pa Col R cs I 63
" I bi d
I 72
" Chart e
d Laws 1 58
1'
.
.
.
,
.
r an
e
.
,
Pa Co l R cs I
" I bid
1 353
’1
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
e
.
.
,
.
352 35 7
-
.
PEN NSYLVAN I A
1 56
There was one inheritance from the Fletcher r é gi me
however which was a distinct forward step in the democratic
government of the province
Prior to 1 693 all legislation
originated in the council Under Fletcher with an appointive
council w asput into operation the plan in vogue in other
provinces Having once been given this privilege we will find
later the assembly would n o t give it up even after the former
constitution was again in force
Penn s authority in the provinc e was restored in 1 694 and
on August 20th William M arkham was appointed governor
H iscommission authorized him to cond uct the government
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
'
,
.
“
according
the laws and usages thereof
to
”
.
He interpreted this to mean the Frame of 1 683 and issued
writs for the election o f a council and assembly Almost im
mediately upon convening the assembly asserted its right to
initiate legislation The council finally agreed and so that
right of the assembly became a part of the law o f the province 26
M arkham had much trouble with the assembly over a
supply bill to aid New York s
He
o be arbitrarily dissolved it
now changed his mind about the meaning o f his commission
and adopted the order o f procedure o f Fletcher s ad ministra
tion He appointed a council consisting o f twelve members
and issued writs fo r an assembly to be composed as w a sthe
assembly which met under Fletcher namely twenty The
assembly immed iately upon convening issued a strong
remonstrance ;2 7 at what it declared to be the governor s
violation o f the constitution in his issuance o f the writs calling
the assembly into being 2 8 There thus began a contest be
tween governor and assembly which resul ted in M arkham
submitting some new proposals or as he called them
.
.
.
.
,
’
.
,
.
’
.
,
“
of
some heads
a frame
of
,
government
" 29
.
Within four days the assembly completed itsconsideration
“
and approval o f these and a few days later the M arkham s
Cha t and Laws56 1
P oud I 409
F
an exc ll nt s
tat m nt of Ma kha m sp os
ition s Pa Col Re cs 1 505
Pa Col R cs I 508
’
,
fl
2'
1'
r er
.
e
e
or
.
e
e
.
,
,
'7
.
,
e
.
r
’
r
,
ee
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
PENNSYLVAN I A
1 57
” 3°
Frame of Government
as it was later known became
the constitution o f the province "1
Under this both assembly and council had the power o f
initiating legislation The members o f these two bodies were
to be chosen annually The qualifications were s
et forth in
the following section which said that the council and as
s
e m bly should
,
.
.
.
,
(I
Consist o f tw o persons o ut o f each o f the Coun ties
o f this government to serve as the peoples Representatives in
Council and of four persons o u t o f each o f the said Counties
to serve as Representatives in Assembly
That no inhabitant o f t his Province or Terri
to ri tie sshall have right o f electing o r being elected as afore
said Unless they be free Denizens of this government and
are o f the age o f Twenty o n e years o r upwards and have
fifty acres of land ten acres whereof being seated and cleared
o r be otherwise worth fi fty pounds lawful money o f this
government Clear estate and have been resident within
th is government fo r the S pace o f tw o years next before such
” 32
election
,
,
.
,
,
.
The above quotation shows that this third constitution of
the province l ike itstwo predecessors contained a require
ment that the representatives of a county must be residents
”
“
of that county the words o ut of each of the said counties
being open to no other construction Then it went stil l further
and for the first time established a definite requirement as
regards the length of required residence in the province before
one w aseligible to the office of councilor or representative
Penn returned to the province December 3 1699 and the
question at once arose a sto what was the fundamental law o f
the province Some said M arkham s Frame others that the
proprietor s return brought the Frame of 1 683 into operation
again Penn s attitude was that the former had served while
he was absent but that i t could n o t bind him against h is own
act that isthe Frame of 1 683 The council proposed a co n
sideration of both Frames keeping what had proven good i n
Pa Col R cs I 48
Cha t an d Laws245 260 ; Pa Col R cs 50 9 ; As
sm bly Jou nal I 94 9 7
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
’
.
,
’
’
.
,
,
.
,
'0
'1
e
.
.
.
r er
l bs
d , 246 24 7
-
,
.
.
’
.
,
.
-
.
.
e
.
,
e
r
-
,
.
.
PEN NSYL VAN I A
1 58
each As a result o f the j oint action o f proprietor council
and assembly the Charter of Privileges o f 1 701 was agreed
upon The assembly s final action on this was o n October 23
and a few days later it was signed by the proprietor and thus
became the fundamental law o f the province or the fou rth
constitution 33 Throughout the eighteenth century until the
adoption o f the Constitution o f 1 777 this instrument was
recognized as the constitution o f the province 34
T he portion of the Charter of 1 7 01 bearing on this study
reads
Fo r the well governing o f this Province and Territories
there S hall be an Assembly yearly chosen by the Freemen
thereof to consist o f four Persons o u t o f each County o f
most Note fo r V irtue Wisdom and Abil ity
Which
Assembly
S hall have all other Powers and Privileges
according to the Rights o f t he Freeborn
o f an Assembly
Subj ects o f England and as is usual in any o f the King s
Plantations in America
“
And the Qualifications o f Electors and Elected and a ll
o t her M atters and Things rela t ing to Elections o f R e p re
s
e n ta t iv e s
to serve in Assemblies t ho n o t herein particularly
expressed shall be and remain as by a Law o f this Govern
ment made at Newcastle in the Year One Thousand Seven
Hundred intituled An Act to ascertain the Number o f
” 35
Members o f Assembly and to regulate the Elections
,
,
.
,
’
,
.
.
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
.
,
’
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
”
“
The words out of each county in the above rather than
”
“
from each county which w e have al ready seen was the form
used in New York S how that the residential qual ification for
representatives which had obtained in the province from the
very first was continued throughout its provincial h istory
The act passed in 1 700 to which reference is made in the
Charter o f 1 70 1 went a little more into detail regarding further
qualifications for electors and representatives The portion
of it bearing o n this subj ect reads :
That there shall be four persons elected yearly
in each respective county o f this province and territories to
As
sm bly Jou nal 1 6 1
uc h
s
as
on f s
Th
tat m nt isthat d u ing thisp io d th p ovi nc ial l aws
f s
p cificall y to i t f o m t i m to t i m e sthe cons
titution
As
sm bly Jou nal I Pa t I I 1 1
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
'2
r
e
e
re
.
.
or
a
e
e
r
er
_
re er
'5
e
r
a
e
r
e
,
,
r
,
.
.
e
r
PEN NSYL VAN I A
1 60
this which is not open to obj ection The following isthe most
satisfactory to the writer Penn was a democrat in every sense
This was inevitably s
station
o f the word
o when o n e of his
by birth became a Quaker through choice He was at the
same time a keen politician using that word in its best sense
Being thoroughly familiar with English law and English
practice regard ing representation he o r any other democrat
could n o t fail to s
contrary to
ee that the practice which w a s
law resul ted in representation in parli ament of property
rather than of people I n Penn s dealings in America both in
the Jerseys and in Pennsylvania there isabundant e v idence
that human rights took precedence in his mind over property
rights This w a strue even when it meant that he su ff ered
financially because of his attitude on that matter thus reach
ing a plane of practice which few people have reached even to
day
I n the light o f the above he evidently fel t in drawing up
his first Frame o f Government that the representatives of the
people should come from among those whom they represented
So a residential qualification was written into the first consti
t utio n o f the province and was kept there throughout its
provincial history partly perhaps through the in fl uence of the
Quaker element in Pennsylvania pol itics but also because of
the fact that it is very doubtful if the people of any province
once experiencing the privilege of this democratic innovation
would have given it up except under strong pressure from
some powerful governmental in fl uence
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
’
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
D E L A WA R E
THE
early legislative history o f Delaware was so intimately
connected with that of Pennsylvania that it is needless to
repeat any portion o f the previous chapter prior to the
Charter o f Privileges of 1 70 1 That instrument provided that
“
”
in ca se the representatives of the Province and Territories
decided wi thin three years n o t to meet together each might
have a separate assembly
That o f the L ower Counties1
w a sto consist of as many members from each county a sthe
2
people desired
I n inserting such a provision in the charter
Penn evidently foresaw trouble between the two sections of
the province and took this means of easing what would have
ituat io
been with him absent an almost intolerable s
h
I n fact the friction al most resulted in a breaking of rela
tions d uring the very assembly which adopted the Charter
The custom had been to hold some of the sessions o f the
assembly at Newcastle in the Lower Counties The session of
O ctober 1 700 had been held there For some reason when the
assembly met the following October in Philadelphia one of
the first items of business wasto confirm the laws passed at
Newcastle the previous year
Upon this being proposed the
representa tives o f the Lower Counties withdrew from the
assembly
They stated the reason for their withd rawal to be that if
all laws enacted at Newcastle had to be re enacted or con
firmed a t Philadelphia then the t wo parts of the province
were not equal asthe act o f union of 1 682 had declared them
Penn replied that their action in withd rawing grieved him
very much and that the confirmation of the laws previously
passed was simply a matter of form to prevent any question
concerning them arising d uring hisabsence 3 The seceding
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
-
,
.
.
Thisw sth t m g n ally usd to d es
ignat th t itory lat call d D lawa
I t wasals
os
o meti m sc ll d the T ito i s
As
ylv nia Pa t I I p III
sm bly Jou nal P nns
Thisss
ion w ashel d b fo th gula ti m to nabl P nn to s
ai l fo Engl and to
s
F o m h isadd s
sto t h as
sm b l y x pl aini ng thisi t s
d f n d h istitl to th p ovin c
clear that he h d ho p d to s
p n d the m ain d of h isd aysin th p ovmce
1
a
e
er
e
e
e
e
e
e
err
a
e
a
1‘
“
e
,
e
e e
e
e
a
r
er
re
e
r
e
,
.
e re
e
re
er
err
e
e
re
.
r
,
r
.
.
e
re
r
re
e
”
er
16 1
e
e
e
r
e
e
e
e
r
i
.
.
D ELAWARE
1 62
members stated that their protest was not against him
personally but that the un i on had been b urdensome from the
beginning The situation thus revealed led Penn as has
been said above to provide in the Charter of Privileges fo r
separation if it could not be avoided
One clause o f the Charter is supposed to have increased
the discontent of the Lower Counties
That was the o ne
granting the city o f Philadelphia two representatives Here
tofore the parts o f the province had been eq ual but in this t he
Lower Counties recognized the first step in the increase of the
power o f the province while theirs from their very geographical
location was bound to remain stationary
When the assembly of 1 702 met there were no representa
I n fact none had
tiv espresent from the Lower Counties
been chosen by the m o n the regular election day The as
s
e mbly adj ourned and word was sent to the Lower Counties
So an election was held there and
to send representatives
the representatives chosen came to Philadelphia in November
but refused to S it with the members from the province The
tw o groups finall y met together o n November seventeenth
On the nineteenth the Council sent a message to the assembly
asking three questions :
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
‘
.
.
.
.
(1 ) Are the representatives o f the province will ing to meet
with the representatives o f the territories to form an assembly ?
(2) Are the representatives o f t he territories willing to meet
with the repre s
en ta tives o f the province to form an assembly ?
(3) I f either refuse what methods do they propose for the
formation o f an assembly ? 4
“
”
The members from the province answered Yes to the
first question but with conditions The members from the
Lower Counties answered as follows :
,
.
“
The said members find ing that they are called here o n
a di fferent foot with those of the upper Counties cannot if
t here was n o other obstacle j oin with them in L egislation
But are cheerful and willing when warrantably convened to
proceed in Assembly to answer her maj esty s Commands
and such other matters o f importance as shall then be laid
Col R cs II 8 1
P
,
,
,
’
,
4
a
.
.
e
.
,
,
.
DELAWARE
164
The members appearing o n that date for the province were
those chosen the previous October for the re g ular fall assembly
No members appeared for Sussex County but the other two
“
”
counties o f the
territory were represented Upon assemblin g
the members from the province said they desired to address
“
”
the governor and council but not in the presence of others
s
o the representatives from the two lower counties withd rew
The address called attention to the fact that they had been
chosen under the proprietor s charter and therefore considered
“
” 9
themselves A House o f themselves
The next day all met
the governor and council together The governor addressed
them o n the advantages o f unity and concord and urged a
renewal of their j oint association despite the steps toward
separation already taken 1 0
After two days o f conference between the two groups of
representatives each presented a written address to the
11
governor and on the following day they appeared in j oint
session before the governor and council All the documents
relating to the matter at issue were read and each side stated
itscase
Briefly it was as follows :
.
,
,
,
.
’
.
.
.
.
Province :— That without viol ating their charter they
coul d n o t recede from the position taken neither lessen nor
reduce their number
Territories — That they would come into a j oint assembly
on the terms that each county in both sections should be
represented by four members a n d no more
.
.
At the conclusion both sides said
“
That as things no w stand it would be most suitable
for each to act d istinctly to which they requested the Gover
” ‘2
nor s Concurrence if he should think fitt
,
,
’
.
Seeing that his e fforts to reunite the two parts of the
province were useless the governor met the Pennsylvania
13
Assembly o n the seventeenth and recognized than a sproperly
constituted to cond uct provincial b usiness The Delaware
P
Col R cs I I 1 26
I bid
I I 1 30 1 3 1
I I 1 2 7 1 29
1 bi!
I bi d
II 1 32
H aft in f ing to th T ito i s Low Countiesth term D lawar
w ill be usd
,
.
'
l 0
N
a
e
.
.
t
“
,
ere
e
er
.
.
-
,
,
ll
.
n
.
re e rr
e
"
err
re
"
or
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
er
.
e
e
e
DELAWARE
1 65
representatives were still in Philadelphia and the governor
met them at the B ull s Head o n the morning of the eighteenth
He told them that he would adj ourn them to meet at New
castle if in the opinion of J udge M o n p e s
s
o n he could legally
o
do s
I f not he would issue writs for an early election
On April twentieth the matter was presented to the council
and J udge M o n p e s
s
o n gave his O pinion that writs for a new
election had better be issued Th is was done ordering the elec
tion of four representatives from each county to be elected
on M ay twelfth and to meet the governor at Newcastle o n the
twenty second At the same meeting the council decreed that
’
.
.
.
.
-
.
“
Ye Laws made and past by ye Province and annexed
Counties in conj unction were stil l as much in force upon their
separation both in Province and Territories Separately as
ever
,
,
,
7 ’
.
The records do not state why the first Delaware Assembly
d id not meet at the time set in the election writs namely
M ay 22 1 7 04 but Scharf states that the first assembly met in
November M ost of the members who had been elected for
the last j oint assembly with Pennsylvania men were returned
for this one Scharf also states that a law was passed co n firm
ing all previous existing laws and one giving each county six
15
members in the assembly
N 0 such law as the last o n e men
tio n ed appears in a compilation o f Delaware laws from 1 7 00
1 7 9 7 published at Newcastle in the latter year
Neither has
any trace been found o f it from any other source
The first election act passed in Delaware o f which we have
any record was in 1 7 34 This was entitled
An Act for regulating elections and ascertaining the
”
number o f the M embers o f Assembly
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
“
,
.
This law s
e t the number o f representatives at six from each
county but provided that this number could be increased by
the assembly at any time Annual elections of representatives
at the time and in the manner prescribed by the Charter of
Privileges were to be held Qual ifications fo r voting and hold
ing o ffice were stated in the following portion o f the act
Scha f I 1 29
Pa Col R cs II 1 38
.
.
.
1‘
.
.
e
.
1“
,
,
.
r
,
,
.
1 66
DELAWARE
Prov ided always That no inhabitants of this go vernment
shall have ri g ht of electing or being elected asaforesaid unless
he o r they be natural born subj ects o f Great B ritain or be
naturalized in England o r in this government o r in the
province o f Pennsylvania and unless such person or persons
be of the age o f twenty o n e years o r upwards and be free
holder o r freeholders in this government and have fifty acres
o f land o r more well settled and twelve acres thereof cleared
and improved o r be otherwise with Forty Pounds lawful
money of this government clear estate and have been resident
15
therein for the space o f two years before such election
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
As the above was the last legislative act by the Delaware
Assembly on the general question of electoral qualifications
prior to the ad e ption of its Revolutionary constitution this is
a good place to inquire whether non residence representation
waspermitted and practiced under the old constitution
What was the Delaware constitution prior to the adoption
of the one of 1 776 ? Evidently the Charter of Pri v ile ges
granted by Penn to the united province in 1 70 1 Proof of
this is seen in the fact that from the date o f separation (1 704)
until 1 776 Delaware recognized the authority of the prov incial
governor and council o f Pennsylvania Added proof isthat
the election a c t o f 1 7 34 brought the election practi c es of the
pro vince into harmony wi th the provisions of the Charter of
Privileges
The study o f Pennsylvania has shown that the charter
established a county residential qual ification for representa
tiv es While the act of 1 7 34 quoted above seems only to estab
lish a provincial residential q ualification the pro vi sions of the
charter would of course take precedence and govern the
practice 80 there is no doubt that in Delaware asin Penn
sylvania non residence representati on of the counti es i n the
assembl y was prohibited and not practiced d urin g the period
o f independent existence as it had been prohibited and not
practiced d urin g the period of union I n this c onnection it
ou ght to be said however that i n case o f doubt in the matter
there is no wa y of coming to an absol u
tely certain decision
-
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
-
.
,
,
.
1'
Lawsof D lawa
e
re
(1 7 7 6
I
,
1 48
.
16 8
DELAWARE
Delaware under her period of statehood was1 792
The
clause of this which states the qualifications for members of
the assembly reads :
.
“
No person shall be a Representative who shall no t have
attained the age o f twenty four years and have a freehold in
the county in which he shall be chosen and been a citizen and
inhabitant o f the state there years next preceding the first
meeting of the L egislature after his election and the last
year of that term an inhabitant of the county in which he
21
shall be chosen
-
,
,
,
.
So we find Delaware beginning her career as a state with a
definite residential qual ification for representatives written
into her constitution That this is simply the reflection of
her practice for over a h undred years there can be little doubt
Lawsof D lawa (1 700
I XXX II
.
.
e
re
,
.
M A RY LA N D
charter granting M aryland to Cecilius Calvert bore date
of J une 20 1 632 I t made Calvert the absol ute lord of his new
possession with a single exception and in that exception we
have the germ o f the legislative system o f the province The
part o f the charter bearing on this point read s :
TH E
,
.
.
“
We
do grant unto the said n o w baron
free full and absol ute power
to ordain make and
enact laws o f what kind soever
o f and with the
advice assent and approbation o f the free men o f the same
province or of the greater part o f them o r of their delegates
or deputies whom we will S hall be called together fo r the
framing o f laws when and as often as need shall require
1
and in the form which shall seem best to him o r t hem
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
While the above gave Lord Baltimore full authority over
the assembly of freemen he had no option regarding whether
or n o t he S hould have their cooperation in the government of
the province
Under the authority granted him he could
decide the form of the assembly ; the unit of representation ;
the number o f representatives ; length of session ; in fact every
phase of its organization and constitution was in h is hands to
decide as he wished ; but call such an assembly of freemen he
must accord ing to the wording of the charter I t has often
been pointed out that under a proprietor of di ff erent type the
government o f M aryland would have been very oppressive b ut
as it was after a few skirmishes with the proprietor in the early
years o f the province the people through their representatives
in the provincial assembly seem to have w o n a slarge a meas
ure o f self government as obtained in any colony o r province
Government in M aryland can be said to have begun
with the appointment of the governor and two
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
-
“
.
commissioners for the government
of
the province
”
.
These o ffi cials were appointed by the proprietor in England
Po tion of sction sv n of Chart e to Lo d Balti m o
foun d in K i lty s d ition of th Lawsof Ma yl and
1
e
r
’
e
e
e
r
r
e
r
1 69
.
re ,
Jun
e
20 , 1 6 32
.
Thiscan be
1 70
M ARYLAN D
before they sailed for M aryland with about three h und red
colonists in 1634
Evidently no time was lost in calling an assembly for we
know such a body met in 1635 but there is no record of its
proceedings The early carrying out o f the charter provision
leads naturally to a consideration o f Bal timore s pol icy on
the q uestion o f assemblies Putting it briefly it ca n be said
that th is policy was to call frequent assemblies but to control
their proceedings by retaining the right to initiate legislation
hi mself and also the right o f determining the number o f
members and how often they should meet AS we shall see
l ater from the first meeting of an assembly o f which we have
any record until the legislature had assumed its permanent
form these rights o f the proprietor were challenged and
grad ually taken from him o r yeilded by him whichever way
o n e looks at it
The unit of representation in the assembly was originally
the hundred 2 I n the earl y days of the province there were but
tw o counties St M arys incl ud ing all the western shore and
Kent includ ing Kent I sland and the eastern shore
New
counties and h und reds were created by act of the proprietor
or by that o f governor and council acting with his approval
As population increased the two original counties were in
e v ita bly s
ub d ivided into several counties as fast as con
I n 1 654 under the Puritan Com
d itio n sdemanded it
missioners the county was made the unit o f representation
in the assembly and this was retained after the restoration of
the proprietor s authority in 1 658
The earliest assembly o f which w e have a record is o n e
which met in January 1 638 I n call ing this both personal
writs and writs o f election were used The former is something
with which we have not met in any other colony o r province
By means of a personal writ the governor
o far in this study
s
could summon whomsoever he pleased to be a member of the
assembly W ithout the o ne summoned having to trust his
.
,
,
.
’
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
-
.
,
,
’
.
,
.
.
.
2
Archiv sCoun cil (1 636 —
A chiv sAs
sm bly (1 63 7 8
r
e
,
e
,
e
59 , 70 , 89 , 9 1
2 , 8 7 , cl
.
.
s
eq
.
1 72
M ARYLAN D
” 8
g [ene !rall Assemblies
The above acts were all rej ected by
the proprietor 9 probably because the passage o f them in
fringed o n hisright to originate legislation
The next assembly was held the following February that
is1 639
This was largely a representative body rather than
a primary o n e as the firs
t1 0 assembly had been The reason fo r
this was the form o f an election writ The one sent to the
freemen o f Ma tta p a nie n t hund red read :
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
C aeciliusLord Proprietary to o ur trusty Richard Garnett
Senior Richard Lus
the a d Anum E enum Henry B ishop J oseph
Ed io Lewis Freeman and any other the Freemen inhabiting
at M a tta p a nie n t Greeting whereas w e have appointed to hold
a General Assembly o f the Freemen of o ur Province at our Fort
of St M arys On the five and twentieth d ay o f this instant
month o f February these are therefore to will and require
“
.
that tomorrow o r that o n thursday next at the furthest
you and every o n e o f y o u
make such nomina
tion and Election of your Burgesses fo r that manor o r d ivision
at M at ta p a n ie n t fo r this next Assembly as y o u shall think fitt
” 11
hereof fail n o t at your Pe rill
you
.
AS has been said the assembly which met in response to
In
the above form o f writ was largely representative
divid ual writs were issued to only three men in addition to the
councilors This assembly passed an act entitled :
.
.
“
An Act fo r establishing the House of Assembly and the
Laws to be made therein
The several Persons elected
and returned (pursuant to the writs issued ) shall be called
B urgesses and supply the Place o f all the Freemen consenting
to such Election
And th at the Gentlemen summoned
by his L ordship s special W rit to each o f them directed the
said Burgesses and such other Freemen w ho have n o t con
sented to any o f the Elections as aforesaid as shall be at any
Time assembled o r any Twelve o r more o f them (whereof the
Lieut General and Secretary to be always T w o ) shall be called
12
f
the House o Assembly
,
.
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
.
L ater in the same session o n M arch 1 9
15
A c hiv sAs
sm bly (1 637 8
Bo m an I I 6 7
t isu sd to m an th fi s
t as
s
e m bly of
co d
Th wo d fi s
28
A chiv sAs
sm bly (1 637—8
Lawsof Ma yland (1 638 O
Bacon Ed ition Thisact adsa t ifl e difie
in th As
a m A chiv sAs
sm bly (163 7 8
smbly Jou nal but the meaning sth s
,
3
9
e
r
z
1°
11
e
II
e
8 2 83
-
.
“
r
r
.
”
e
e
e
r
e
.
r
e
-
.
,
,
e
r
e
.
r
re
r
.
.
.
re
.
i
e
e
.
r
e
.
e
r
-
rently
1 73
MARYLAN D
“
An Act ordaining certain L aws
”
th i s Province
fo r
the government o f
was passed I tem fourteen o f this reads :
“
The Lieut General and Secretary (or his Deputy ) and
Gentlemen summoned by special Writ and o n e o r two
B urgesses ou t o f every H undred (at the choice of the Freemen )
at any Time hereafter assembled shall be j udged a General
” 13
Assembly
.
.
,
,
.
To find that both the first and second assembl ies were so
eager to give definite form to their constitution is evidence
enough that the freemen of M aryland like those in all the
other colonies felt that their rights as Englishmen could only
be safeguarded by an independent legislative body of their o wn
choosing I f t his eagerness o n the part of the M aryland
provi ncials S hown by the laws passed in 1 638 and 1 639
surprises us ; we have a still greater surprise in store when we
consider two laws proposed at this session which did not pass
because of the governor s opposition One o f these an act
stating what persons should constitute the general assembly
seems clearly to have limited the privilege of voting to actual
residents within each hund red I t stated that the assembl y
should consist of all council members ; those summoned by
the governor s special writ ; the lord of each manor in the
province and freemen representing each hundred The latter
were to be chosen as follows :
the Sheri ff of the County shall within every hundred
summon all the Freemen I nhabiting within every hundred
to Assemble at a certain place and time to be by him
appointed and prefixed which freemen so Assembled (o r the
maj or part o f them ) shall Elect and chuse some o ne two or
more able and Su fficient men fo r the hund red (as the said
Freemen o r the maj or part o f them so assembled shall think
” 14
good ) to come to every such General Assembly
The other act was one providing for triennial assemblies 15
with the provision that the freemen assembled therein were
Lawsof Ma yl and (1 638 O
Bacon E d ition
74 7 5
Thiswoul d al s
o hav m ad th as
A chiv sAs
sm bly (163 7—8
p sntativ athe than a p i m a y l gis
lativ bod y
s
embly a
It s
hould b not d that thi sw s n y a p viousto th Pa l iam nta y T ienn ial
El ction Act Th Maryl an d As
sm b l y p as
sd anoth T i nnial A ct in 1 642 whi c h was
but
t
i
nna
l as
sm bli s
veto ed by th gov no (A chiv sAs
sm bly 1 63 7 8— 1 664
were finally obta ined in O ctob 1 654 (A chiv sAs
s
e m b l y 1 6 37—8— 1 664
,
,
,
.
.
,
’
.
,
,
.
’
.
,
.
,
1'
H
r
e
r
re
.
e
.
e
r
r
e
a
e
er
o
e
e
r
r
e
er.
.
e
e
r
e
r
e
er
r
.
e
,
r
e
r
r
r e
-
.
e
.
re
e
e
e
e
-
e r
re e
.
.
e
.
1‘
e
.
,
r e
e
.
e
1 74
MARYLAN D
d ic
to have the like Power Privilege Authority and Juris
tion in Causes and M atters arising in this Province as the
” ‘6
House o f Commons in England have had used or enj oyed
“
,
,
,
,
.
,
From 1 639 to 1650 the assembly fl uctuated between a
primary and a representative body while a few members
attended on personal writs
During this period it con
Delegates ; (2) Per
ta in e d four classes o f members : (1 )
This variation
s
o n a lly summoned ; (3) Freemen ; (4) Proxies
can be best shown perhaps by giving the word ing o f the
governor s election proclamations fo r the above mentioned
17
:
period
‘
.
.
'
’
-
‘
J anuary 1 642
J uly 1 642
August 1 642
December 1 642
M arch 1 643
November 1 644
December 1 647
,
’
.
,
‘
’
.
’
‘
,
,
‘
’
.
,
’
‘
.
’
‘
,
burgesses
B urgesses
freemen o r Deputies
freemen o r proxie s
freemen only
freemen proxies o r burgesses
freemen proxies o r burgesses
,
.
‘
’
18
,
,
The year 1 650 presents such a d istinct step in the develop
ment o f the legislature in M ary land that the assembly of that
year should be noted at length Governor Stone the first
Protestant governor o f the province issued an election p ro cla
mation in J anuary I t read in part :
'
.
,
,
.
“
Whereas the manner o f summoning Assemblies within
this province is wholly left to L [or!d Propr [ietor!s d iscretion
these are therefore in his L [ordshi !ps name and accord ing to
his d irection to will and re q uy re y o u without delay to give
Notice to all the ffree me n o f St M aries County that they are
er !sonally att St M aries the 2d day o f April ! next
to appear p [
o e as n o e o n e ffree m a n
o r ells by their proxies o r Delegates s
s
o e appearing have above 2 proxies besides his o w n e v o y ce
the freemen o f every
o r that forthwith after such notice
hundred within the said County make choyce o f B urgesses
within every such hundred in manner following V iz That
all the ffre e m e n o f St Clements hund red o r the maior part of
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
74 7 5
Arc hiv sAs
smbly (1 6 37 8
Du ing thisp io d Ma yl an d ca m n a having a wo m an in th as
sm bly I n
s
t t
f t h es
tat of th d c asd gov no Lionel
1 648 M sMa ga t B nt s d m
Calv t cl ai med th ight to c as
t two vot sin th as
sm bly (A c hiv sAs
smbly 1 6 37 8
1°
e
11
er
— 166 4
.
-
re
r
-
.
re
e
r
er
r
r
1'
e
,
a
a
i ni
,
Arc hivesAs
s
e m bly
,
ra o r o
e
e r
,
(1 63 7—8
w
e
r
e
e
e
e
e
e
.
e e
r
1 1 4 , 1 28 . 1 6 7 , 20 1 , 2 1 3
e
e
.
e
,
er
e
.
r,
-
,
1 76
M ARYLAN D
About the only q uestions the constitution of the Lower
House left unsettled at this date (1 650) were the number of
members to be chosen by or from each election unit and the
AS both matters
required qualifications fo r ones s
o chosen
were always mentioned in the election writs or election
proclamations we will quote from these in chronological
order until a definite and fully accepted policy was arrived at
I n February 1 66 1 a writ was issued to the S heri ff s of
each county requiring them to
.
,
.
,
,
cree te
cause to be elected such and soe many d is
men as you shall think fit to serve as B urgesses i n the sai d
” 22
Assembly
“
.
By this time there were six counties2 3 in M aryland and in
response to the above writ two St M arys and Calvert sent
four burgesses while the other counties sent two each The
next year the proclamation to the sheri ff s calling an assembly
contained these words :
,
,
.
,
,
.
att the d iscretion of the Fre e m e n o f your County
you cause o n e two three or foure d is
cree te B urgesses to be
24
elected to serve in the said Assembly
( I
.
The change in the wording in one particular of these two
documents issued in consecutive years summoning an as
s
e mbly is d ue to the fact that when the assembly of 1 66 1 met
the lower house promptly sent a grievance committee to
the governor a nd council asking for an interpretation o f th e
writ summon in g them Their obj ection was that it seemed to
leave the number of members to be chosen by ea ch county to
the discretion of the sheri ff o f the county The governor and
council repl ied that while the writ d id seem to be open to that
interpretation their though t wa sthat the sheri ff s power only
extended to preventing the election of anyone d isabled by law
“
while the de te rmin aco n o f the number and o f the the persons
”
to be Elected was left to the freemen 25
A chiv sAs
sm bly (1 637 8
39 5
St MarysCha l sCal v t Ann A und l K ent Balti m o e
A chivesAs
sm bly
42 5
I bi d (1 637 8
39 8
,
,
,
,
.
.
’
,
.
2'
r
e
.
-
.
r e
.
r
1'
e
,
,
er
e
.
e
r
e
.
-
.
,
.
,
,
r
.
1 77
M ARYLAN D
Between the years 1666 and 1670 the feeling between the
lower house o n the one hand and the governor and upper
house on the other became very bitter The governor wa s
especially displeased with the attitude o f the lower house in
1 669
S o when the election writs were issued in December
1 670 they d i ffered materially from what had been customary
A new qualification both for electors and burgesses was laid
down by the following words :
,
.
.
,
,
.
H
thereby giving notice to all freemen o f your said
County who are within the said County V isible seated Plan
t a tio n sof fi fty Acres o f L and at the least or V isible personal
Estates to the Val ue o f fifty Pounds Sterling at the least re
quiring them to appear
and to elect and choose four
26
f
several su fficient freemen o your said County
.
Then follows a statement of property qualifications similar
to that fo r the electors This was the first appearance of a
property qualification for electors and burgesses
The next law o n the subj ect o f representation came in the
year
This was a comprehensive act I t stated the
need of wholesome laws and that such laws could only be
e stablished by the
.
.
.
“
Consent of the freemen o f this Province by their
s
e v e ra ll delegates and representatives by them freely n o m
”
in a ted chosen and Elected
.
,
I t further stated that the political practices of the assembly
ou g ht to follow as nearly a spossible the proceedings of
Parliament I t provided representation for cities and coun
ties still unformed as soon as they should be created Ord in
ary keepers and sheri ffs were d isqualified from serving as
d elegates The form of writ to be sent to each sheri ff wa s
given in the law By it he was to call together at least four
commissioners o f the county and they with the clerk were to
make proclamation thereby
.
.
,
,
-
.
.
“
giv e in g notice
to all the freemen of your said County
who have within your said County a freehold of fi fty Acres
7 7 78
P o c d ingsof th Coun cil (1 66 7— 1687
A chivesAs
60 63
smbly (16 78
'9
r
31
r
12
e
ee
,
e
-
-
.
.
M ARYLAN D
1 78
Land o r a visible personal i Estate o f forty pounds starling
att least Requiring them to appear att the next County
Court
at which time
the said freemen
are hereby Authorized and Required to Elect and Chuse four
S ev e ra ll and Su fficient freemen of your County each o f them
o n a ll
ha v ein g a freehold o f fifty Acres o f land or a visible p e rs
” 28
estate of fifty pounds starl ing att least within your County
of
.
The governor seems to have taken no action in regard to
the law until 1 68 1 when he vetoed it 2 9 He gave as hisreason
that it was too great a b urden on each county to send four
delegates to the assembly
Evidently realizing that there
was a demand in the province for a more definite understand
ing on the question as to the constitution of the assembly he
issued a proclamation dated September 6 1 681 remind ing
all the freemen of M aryland that the charter to the pro
p rie to r empowered him to call assemblies in whatsoever for m
he wished I t continued that :
“
the forme o f Assembl ing the said ff ree m e n t heir
Delegates and D e p uty e shath hitherto been altogether un
certain from the very beginning o f the S e a te in g o f this Prov
” 30
ince
.
.
,
,
.
.
So
the s
e tte lin g therefore o f the m in de s
o f the
”
men and Establ ishing a ce rtainty fo r the future
“
ffo r
ffree
definite rules were laid down
The form of writ con
t a in e d in the proclamation does n o t d i ffer a word from that
contained in the law o f 1 67 8 except that only two deputie s
were to be chosen in each county
The assembly elected under this writ met in October 1682
On November S econd a lengthy add ress was sent to the
governor by the Lower House calling h is attention to the fact
that his wishes regarding the number of delegates had bee n
obeyed but that their constituents wished their former
privilege of send ing four delegates restored
They the n
presented a proposal which they hoped would
“A hi
sm bly (16 7 8
61 6 2
sAs
" A c hiv s Coun c il (1 6 7 1
37 8 3 7 9
15
I bi d (1 6 8 1— 1 685
.
.
,
.
a
rc
r
'0
.
ve
.
e
,
e
-
-
.
.
.
.
M ARYLAN D
1 80
The next year the Lower House passed another act re
”
“
garding Electing and Summoning B urgesses b ut we know
nothing o f its details as it was not accepted by the Upper
House 35 The latter body in turn prepared a bill which was
36
j ust as unacceptable to the L ower House
Here the dispute between the two houses seems to have
rested until 1692 when an election act w asfinally passed
As usual this act contained the form o f writ to be issued to
each sheri ff According to its terms the sheri ff o f each county
was required at specified times to give
notice to all the freemen o f your said County
who have within your said County a freehold o f fi fty Acres
o f L and o r a V isible Estate of forty pounds Sterling at the
e v e ra ll
least requiring them
to Elect and choose four s
and su fficient f reem en of y our Coun ty each o f them having a
freehold o f fi fty Acres o f Land o r o f V isible p e rs
o n a ll Estate
o f forty Pounds sterling at the least within your County
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
Later in the act the right o f St M arys to be represented by
Tw o
was confirmed Provision was also made
for new counties and new cities Upon the calling o f the first
assembly after the erection of any such county or city the
sheri ff of the county o r the mayor recorder of the city was
.
“
.
.
“
cause four freemen o f the said county and two
freemen of the said City and Borough qualified as in the said
39
Writ
to
,
to serve a sdelegates in the general assembly
The next election act was passed in
I t d i ffers in no
essential point from the one of 1 692 This act was repealed
by another one passed in December
This d i ff ered
little in essential d etails from the laws o f 1 698 to 1 704 I t
did provide however that election writs should be issued
forty days before the meeting of the assembly Also in re
ferring to the four freemen to be chosen th is ph rase occurs
A chiv sAs
sm bly (16 7 8
53 5
I bid (1 684
54 2
I bi d (1 6 78
58 1
I bi d (1 6 84
5 43
I bid (1 684
54 4
29 4 297
Du i ng thi sy a a R s
i d nti al Act fi cting p o vin c i l
f I bid (1 7 04
ls
w s
sd I t p ov i ded that no offic of t us
fi
i
p as
t p ofit s
houl d be o pen to anyon
o had not s
ided in th p o m th e y a s (A c hivesAs
s
e m b ly 1 700 —
1 70 4 429
!! )
" I bi d (1 707
352 353
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
r
'0
'9
°
o
Cia
e
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
re
.
.
r
e r
e
r v
-
.
.
r
e
.
3'
.
a
‘7
.
ce
.
re
e
r
r
.
e
or
r
.
e
a
e
a
r
r
e
.
,
.
.
MARYLAN D
“
t he parties
whether
181
so elected be present
or
absent
”
.
The next legislative act bearing on this subj ect was in 1 708
when Annapolis which had now become the capital o f the
province was granted representation We have al ready seen
“
that St M arys was granted the privilege o f sending Two
”
citizens to the assembly in 1692
The removal o f the
capital to Annapolis had evidently resulted in the decay o f
St M arys fo r its privilege of being represented was now with
drawn and the privilege of representation in the assembly w as
ex tended to Annapolis in the following words :
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
Then it was proposed whether I t ma y not be proper to
erect this Town and port o f Annapolis into a City with the
” 42
Privilege o f send ing tw o Citizens to the Gen “ Assembly
“
.
This was agreed
“
to ,
Annapolis being
the Seate
Government and a growing place
of
”
.
The last election act passed by the provincial assembly was
in 1 7 1 5 I n general form it was similar to its predecessors
but di ffered materially from them in containing the word
“
”
residents and using it in such a manner as to leave doubt
whether n o n residence representation was permitted As was
customary the act contained the form o f election writ to be
used The portion of the writ bearing o n this study reads :
.
-
.
.
thereby giving Notice to all the F re e m e n o f your
said County w ho have within the said County a Free hold o f
Fifty Acres o f L and o r w ho shall be Residents a n d have a
visible Estate o f Forty Pound s Sterling at the least thereby
requiring t hem
to elect and choose Four several and
su fficient Freemen o f your County each o f them having a
Freehold o f Fifty Acres o f Land o r who shall be a Resident
and have a visible Estate o f Forty Pounds Sterling at the
least within your County whether the Parties so elected be
43
present o r absent
f f
-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
The wording o f the above act as found in the Arch ives
(Assembly ) di ffers in an important particular in respect to
the subj ect of this study from the law asit appears in Bacon s
A chiv s Coun cil (1 698
249
sm bly
Lawsof Ma yl an d Bacon E d ition
Chap X I S e 1 1 1 ; A chivesAs
,
’
,
r
e
.
,
r
(1 7 1 5
2 70 2 7 4
-
,
.
.
.
c
.
r
.
e
MARYLAN D
1 82
Edition of the Laws of M aryland
reads in part :
.
I n the Archives the writ
“
Giving notice to all the freemen of your said County who
have within the said County a ff ree ho ld o f ffifty Acres of Land
who shall be residents o r have a V isible Estate o f forty pound s
” 44
Sterling at the L east
.
I f the latter wording is correct a residential q ualification for
delegates or rep resentatives is plainly established but if the
wording in Bacon is correct there isa possibility that non
residence representation was permitted
A rereading o f the Act of 1 7 1 5 aswell as o f those which
preceded it will show that whether non residence representa
tion was permitted under M aryland law d epend s entirely
upon the content and meaning of the word freemen Prior to
1 650 when the unit of representation w a sthe hundred there
is n o doubt that voting within each hundred was limited to
actual residents and that o n e chosen to represent them must
be a resident 45
Between 1 650 and 1 670 the wording o f the writs is such
that there is n o cl ue a sto the practice followed B ut with the
initiation of a property q ualification fo r su ffrage in 1 670
we at once meet the problem whether as in the case of most
of the other colonies and provinces the ownership of land in a
M aryland county made o n e a freeman o f that county Gamb
rall in his Early M aryland takes the position that in the early
“
”
days of the province the word freeman meant every man
not a servant o r slave Thus with manhood su ff rage the man
w ho was an indebted servant yesterday migh t be the legis
lator of to morrow 1 6 Bozman on the other hand assu mes
“
”
that the word freemen was synonymous with
B ut on this point we have a very defi nite answer in a
matter which arose in the assembly o f 1 642 The summons
calling that assembly was directed to all
,
.
-
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
‘
-
.
,
,
.
“
freemen inhabiting within the Province to be at the
said Assembly
either by themselves o r their Deputies
” 43
or Delegates
A c hiv sAs
s
e m bly (1 7 1 5
27 1
Not th ading of th El ction A ct of 1 639 and th El ction P o clam ation of 1 650
Bo m an II 47
G mb ll 84
Arc hiv sAs
sm bly (1 637 —8
167
.
‘1
r
e
e
a
.
,
e re
ra
,
e
.
‘7
z
e
e
,
.
.
'3
e
,
e
e
r
.
.
M ARYLAN D
1 84
Listing Salter a sa delegate for Prince George in
September 1 708 is a clerical error At this same session
M aj or James Smallwood w ho represented Charles County
”
continuously from 1 693 to 1 7 1 3 appears fo r Cecil County
The error regarding both Smallwood and Salter isclearly
shown by a report53 of the Committee of Elections which w a s
presented a few days after the O pening of the session
Some other instances where we find the same man appear
ing at di fferent times for d i ff erent counties can all be accounted
for by the division of the o ld counties to form new ones a
process which automatically changed the legal residence of
many people
The only form of non residence representation ever
practiced in M aryland was d uring the period in which free
men were allowed to choose proxies to represent them in the
assembly which at the time was a primary body Speaking
of the first assembly Steiner says
1 706
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
,
“
,
Proxies however paid n o regard to hund red lines ; but
” 54
man might hold proxies from all three h und reds
,
o ne
,
.
At the end o f the provincial period we find M aryland
writing her political practice regarding representation into
her first constitution that o f 1 7 7 6 :
,
“
That t he legislatu re consist of tw o distinct branches a
senate and a h ouse o f delegates which S hall be styled The
General Assembly o f M aryland
“
That the house o f delegates shall be chosen in the follow
ing manner : All free men above twenty one years o f age
having a freehold of fi fty acres o f land in the county in which
they o ff er to vote and resid ing therein and all free men
hav ing property in this state above the val ue o f thirty pounds
current money and having resided in the county in which they
o ff er to vote o n e whole year next preceding the election shall
have a right o f su ffrage in the election o f d elegates fo r such
” 55
county
,
,
,
.
-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
o qualified were
Electors s
l
sAs
s
e m bly
"Archive
" l bi d
.
.
(1 7 0 7
(1 7 0 7
2 08 209
-
Section II Cons
titution of
tion f s
enato s
.
or
r
.
el ect annually by viva voce vote
to
20 2
.
Steine 7 6
Se ction 1 4 als
o p ovid
“
.
1 776
.
r.
.
r
ed
a s
i dential
re
ca
q ual ifi
MARYLAN D
1 85
“
fourdelegates for their respective counties of the most wise
sensi ble and discreet o f the people residents in the county
where they are to be chosen o n e whole year next preceding the
electi on above twenty o n e years o f age and having in the
state real or personal property above the val ue o f fiv e hund red
”
pounds current money
,
,
,
-
,
,
.
Strange as it may seem the only instance in M aryland
history where ownership o f land carried with it the privilege
of voting was provided for in this constitution Referring to
Annapolis it declared
.
,
“
bu t the inhabitants o f the said city shall n o t be en
t i tled to vote for delegates fo r Anne —Arundel county unless
they have a freehold o f fifty acres of land in the county dis
” 56
tinct from the city
,
,
.
This of course was no violation of the county residential
clause in the same instrument
Why o ne rule should have been applied to Annapolis and a
d ifferent o n e to Bal timore is hard to understand Section S ix
of the constitution o f 1 77 6 specifically confined representation
o f that city to residents and further provided that they could
n o t vote in n o r represent the county
I n M aryland as in Pennsylvania where the people were
allowed to determine the qualifications o f their representa
t iv e swithout pressure from either proprietor or crown we
find that they did the logical and natural thing that is chose
men as their representatives whose ch ief interest through
residence lay within their election unit
S ction IV Cons
titution of 1 7 7 6 Ev n thi sfo m of non s
i d nc voting cam
to an d in 1 7 99
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
“
e
en
,
.
.
e
r
-
re
e
e
e
V I R G I N I A
approaches a study o f V irginia with an attitude in
s
tin ctiv ely di ff erent from that in the case o f any other colony
A certain d istinction characterizes the le g islative beginnings
”
“
of this colony
The first representative body in America
is a phrase which to all mind s calls up at once the House of
Burgesses of 1 6 1 9
I n no other colony is there found such a d iversity of forms
of representation as was the case in V irginia in the successive
1
periods o f its history
Chandler calls attention to th is
and part o f the list a she gives it follows :
ON E
.
.
.
.
(1 ) Representation by settlements or plantations with no
definite number o f representatives from each settlement
(2) Parish and county representation without a fixed
number o f delegates from either the parishes o r counties
(3) Representation by counties only two representatives
from each county neither more no r less whether the counties
were large o r small
(4) Representation to the College of William and M ary
in accordance with the English custom o f allow ing re p re
s
e n t a tio n to the universities
(5) Borough representation granted by the town charters
o r by an act of the general assembly
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
While representative government developed early in
V irginia there was no hint of it in any of the first th ree charters
The charter o f 1 606 did not grant powers o f government to the
London Company The settlement at J amestown was simply
a plantation owned by the company The colonists were
servants of the company 2 There was no private property
and little liberty The immediate source of authority in the
province was a council o f residents appointed by the Council
of V irginia in England which in turn w a sappointed by the
crown
The charter of 1609 made the London Company a j oint
stock company and gave it governmental powers I t brough t
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
1
Rp
e
sntation in V irginia
re e
,
5
3
.
Os
goo d I
,
1 86
,
34
.
V I RG I N I A
1 88
He sent out hissummons command in g the c ouncilors and tw o
burgesses 7 from each plantation to meet at J amestown on
J uly 30 1 61 9 (O
I n order to hav e a proper setting for
our study of V irginia a little space ought to be g iven to the
geographical units rep resente d in th is assembl y and the
details of the first sessions so far as we know them
The settlements by this time extended from the mouth o f
the James Ri ver to a little above what isnow Rich mond
The four main d i v isions o f the province were the C ity of
Henrico Charles City J ames City and the B orough o f
K icco w ta n These correspond approximately with the presen t
counties of Henrico Charles City James City and Wa rwick
with the add ition of a strip of territory opposite each one on
the right hand bank of the James
I n the first assembly the following u nits were represented :
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
1
.
2
.
City of Henrico
.
Charles City :
i
a
M
artin
s
B
randon
()
(b ) Bermuda H undred
Charles City
(c ) Smythe s H und red
(d ) Flo w e rd ie u H undred
(e ) Ward s Plantation
J ames City :
(a) J ames City
(b ) Argall s Gift
(c ) M artin s H und red
(d ) Law n e sPlantation
Borough o f K icco w ta n
’
,
,
,
’
,
,
’
.
3
.
,
'
,
’
,
’
,
4
.
.
I n all there were eleven units o r d i v isions of the colon y
represented when the roll of the first assembl y was called
The d ismiss
al of the two members noted above red uced this
T h e t m borough wa s
appl i d by th co mp any to v y d i vis
a hun
i on wh th
d d plantation o town and th t m B u g ss o igi nally to every vot within th m
ssat t he s
sm bly w c ll d Bu g s
Th
pres
ent tiv s
in as
tart not b c usthey w e
p sntativ sbut b caus th y w citi ns d vot sin th s bo ough s S on
how v th i d a of ep es
entation b ca m
attach d to the wo d and it continu ed f t r
t h bo oughsd is
a
pp
ea re d ; in fa c t d own to t h e Rev olution (J ou nal s
of
H
ou
th
s of
Bu g s
ss1 6 19— 1 658 9 XXVI I )
p sntativesf o m thisd ivis
ion w not allowed to be s
The
eat d
.
7
re
"
a
re e
e
e
r e
e
r
.
e re
re
"
er
e
e
er,
e
e
e
e
.
e
r
e
a
e
e
r e
e
”
r e
ere
r
r
e
“
er
ere
e
e
ze
e
r
e
an
e
er
e
er
“
e a
,
er
e e
r
re
re e
r
ere
o
a
e
e
.
.
er
"
.
.
e
.
-
,
e
r
r
.
er
e
.
e
VI RG I N I A
1 89
number to ten The a ssembly of 161 9 therefore consisted of
the governor council and twenty burgesses I t met in the
church the council a n d governor sitting in the choir and the
b urgesses i n the body of the church 9 The speaker J ohn
Pory was not a b urgess but a councilor He was a Cambridge
grad uate a n d had been a member of Parliament for six years 1 0
None o f the acts o f this first assembly bear o n this study
but it issignificant to note the e a rly a ssertion o f two privileges
or rights which every assembly seemed to feel were fund a
mental For example the session was scarcely begun when
the right to pass o n the qual ific a tions of members was as
se t ted and the two burgesses from M artin s Hund red were
d ismissed The other matter referred to concerned the dis
allowance o f acts passed by the assembly While it recognized
the right o f the company to disallow acts of the assembly it
requested that all acts passed might be considered in force
until notice o f their d isallowance reached the province
Then the assembly went one step further a nd a bold step it
w a sin requesting that it might have the reciprocal privilege
of d isallowing any acts of the company s court which it
deemed in a ppl icable under conditions in the province The
response of the company to the above requests will appear
later
The e a rl iest o fficial act establishing an assembly in
V irginia which has come down to us bears date of 1 62 1 On
J uly 24 of that year year an Ordinance and Constitution of the
Treasurer Council and Company in England for a Council
of State and General Assembly w asadopted by the company
The Council of State was to consist for the time being o f
the governor and hiscouncilors all o f which were named in
the i nstrument
“
The other council more generally to be ca lled by the
governor once yearly and no oftene r b ut fo r very extra
ordinary and important occasions shall consist fo r the present
of the said council o f state and of two burges
s
es
out of every
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
’
.
.
.
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
town , hund red ,
Th e
10
p a rti cula r p la n ta ti on
e mbly did no t beco me b i ca meral unt il a b o ut
s
s
a
B o wn
r
or o ther
,
317
.
1680
.
,
s
p ecti vely
to be re
VI RG I N I A
1 90
s
by the i n ha bi ta n ts
: which
council shall be called T he
General Assembly wherein (as al so in the said council o f
sta te ) all matters shall be decided determined and ordered
by the greater part o f the voices then present ; reserving to the
" ‘1
governor always a negative voice
cho en
,
,
.
This section also gave the assembly the power to enact such
”
laws as the publick we a l demanded and as seemed n e ce s
s a ry No law was to be in force until ratified by a general
quarter court of the company in England
A reciprocal
a rrangement was to become e fi
ect iv e regard ing q u a rter court
orders in the province
“
.
.
“
a f ter the government o f the said colony shall once
"
have b e e n we ll fra med and settled accordingly
.
,
On t he same day the Ordinance was passed Sir Francis
Wyatt s commission a sgovernor was issued I t contained a
12
a
summ ry of the Ordinance and w a sthe governor s authority
for putting the provisions of that instrument into operation
When the London compa ny lost its charter in 1624
V irgini a beca me perforce a royal province No provision was
made for an assembly but Wya tt who continued in o ffice
and his Council were willing to share their power with the
people Having no authority to summon an assembly he
summoned a representative body in 1 625 to which w a sapplied
the name convention A portion o f the writ summoning this
body reads :
’
.
’
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
“
Where as th e re are divers importa nt occasions wch hereby
conce rn e the ge nerall Estate of Ye Colony These are y t you
c a l e together all the fre men o f ye planta e u nd e r you Comand
And by t he maior p tie of y e voyt (voice ) to el e ct two of y e most
su fficient up p o n whose j udgements t he rest w ilbe Contented
to rely y e they Appere at J ames C y t tie o f the l oth of M aye
uin ge where w e hope the business will not detain
next en s
them above three or fower dyes 1 3
,
’
'
,
.
The convention d rew up a petition to the king and e n
trusted it to former Governor Ye a rdley who wa selected
provincial agent and instructed to proceed at once to England
I mmediately upon his arrival in October 1 625 Yeardley
H i g I 1 12
I bid I 1 13
J o u n l f th H usof B u ges
ss1 6 19 1 658—9 X X X
,
.
,
H
en n
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
1'
r
a
o
e
o
e
r
e
-
,
,
.
V I R G I NI A
1 92
This now brings us to the particular problem of V irginia s
rule and practice regard ing a residence qualification for b ur
gesses As we might expect we find th is bound up closel y wi t h
the question of qualification fo r electors and this in turn in
tima tely connected with the q uestion o f the owners h ip o f
property
For a complete statement of all t h e matters
mentioned above except residence the reader isreferred to
Chapters I I and I I I of M iller
M any laws appear among the statu tes of V irginia d uring
th e provincial period dealing with the general subj ect of
elections
N o better meth od of treatment suggests i tsel f
th an to take these u p chronologically
I t has al ready been pointed out that d uring the pro
p rieta ry period and also d uring the interval between that and
the establishment o f a royal government onl y residents were
chosen to represent each unit in the House of B urgesses or in
the provincial conventions
The first election act bearing o n th is subj ect passed
Th is
after V irginia became a royal province wasin
he rifiwas
provided that no s
’
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
'
.
,
,
to compel any m a n to go
”
l i ves to choose b urgesses
H
o ff
the plantation where he
.
s
This
id enti a l vo ti ng o n ly a nd re idential
plai nly p rovided f or res
voti ng a lway s
ca rri ed wi th i t res
iden tia l rep res
enta ti on
.
The nex t act bears date of
1 655
.
It
rea d in part :
That all persons who shall be el e cted to serve in As
s
e m bly shall be such and no other than such as are persons
of kno w n e integrity a n d of good conversation and of the age
of one and twenty years— That all house keepers wheth er
freeholders leaseholders or otherwise tenants shall only be
ca p e able to el ect B urgesses
Provid ed that this word h ouse
keepers repeated in this act extend no further than to one
" 22
person in a Ffamily
A portion o f the above act was repealed by t h e next as
s
embly in M arch 1656 and the right of su ff rage wa s
ex tended
to all freemen by the following provision :
“
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
fl
Hening
.
I
,
2 27
.
,
n
H e ni ng.
I
,
412
.
V I R G I NI A
1 93
“
Whereas we conceive it something hard and unagreeable to
reason that any person shall pay eq uall taxes and yet have
no votes in elections therefore it is enacted by the present
General Assembly tha t s
o e much o f the act f or cho o s
e in g
23
B urgesses be repealed as excluded freemen from votes
,
,
.
The only excl usion o f freemen from the privilege o f su ffrage
under a ct o f 1 655 had lain in the phrase o n e person in a
”
family
Th is whole matter w ascleared up however in a very
complete election act in 1 658 This was really a restatement
The only important change was
o f the acts of 1 656 and 1 6 57
“
”
that all reference to householders and others w asomitted
and th is clause substituted :
And all persons in ha bit ting in this co llo n ie that are freemen
24
to have their votes in the election o f B urgesse s
“
.
,
,
.
.
“
.
In
1 6 70
a freehold qual ification for voting first appears
in V irginia Prior to this date all freemen25 had exercised the
privilege of su ffrage There had o f course been no non
residence representation B ut by a freehold qualification for
voting there is recognized the right of property to be re p re
sented and this we have found always brings with i t non
residence voting and usually non residence representation
The reason for this change in su ffrage qualification is
evident when one remembers that the period from 1 660 to
1 6 7 5 w a so n e of reaction under Governor Berkeley
During
the protectorate V irginia had been practically a free de
B ut with the reinstatement of a royal governor in
m o cra cy
1 660 there began a grad ual infringement on the rights and
priv ileges formerly enj oyed by the people which finally
cul minated in Bacon s Rebellion The royal tone and English
influence in the act of 1 670 isvery noticeable
.
.
,
,
.
-
.
.
.
,
’
.
.
Whereas the us
ua ll way o f chus
e in g burgesses by the
votes o f a ll persons who ha v e in g served their ty m e are ffre m e n
of this country doe oftener m a ke tumul ts at the election to
the distu rbance of his maj esties peace then by their votes
Heni n g I 40 3
I bid I 4 75
man
ppe si th loni l l ws f Vi gin i Th t
t d fin i g t he t m f
N
yn n y m uswi th f ee man semsvident f om th op nin g s
s
e t nce of
t he t m w s
t he el e ti n ct f 16 70
“
,
,
o ac
c
I3
o
a
n
e
o
a
er
o
2‘
.
,
er
o
.
"
re e
“
r
"
ar
a
"
e
.
,
n
e
.
.
e co
a
r
a
e
o
e
r
a
.
n e
a
VI R G I N I A
1 94
provide for the conservation thereof by m a kein g choyce of
o e greate a trust
persons fitly qualified for the discharge of s
and whereas the lawes o f England grant a v o y ce in such
o n a ll
elections only to such as by their estates real o r p e rs
have interest enough to tye them to the endeavor o f the
publ ique good ; I t is here by enacted that none but firee
holders and housekeepers who a re answerable to the publ ique
for the levies shall herein a fter have a voice in the election o f
25
any burgesses in this country
,
,
’
,
.
The assembly which met under the influence of Bacon in
1 67 6 passed several measures all tending to relieve the d is
27
f
content o f the colonists One o these acts w asthe repeal of
the Election Act of 1 67 0 and the extension of the su ffrage
once again to all freemen Another act of this same year
which affects th is study Wa sone providing that the burgesses
for Jamestown should be chosen by the
“
housekeepers free holders and freemen as are at the
time of such election listed within the bounds aforesaid and
s
o e liable to pay levies there and by none other any cus
to m e
” 23
o r usage to the contrary notwithstanding
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
This plainly establ is h ed residence representation for James
town as o i course only those voting there would be eligible
for election
B ut V irginia s relief from what many considered an
unj ust curtailment of the privilege of su ffrage wa sshort l ived
With the reinstatement of Berkeley in 1 67 7 add itional
I nstructions were s e nt h im from England The part a ff ecting
this study read :
“
ha lbe noe more obliged to call an assembly once
Yo u s
every y ea re but only once in tw o y ea resun le s
s
e some emer
gent occasion shall make it necessary the j udging where of
Als
w ee le a ve to your d iscretion
o e whensoever the a s
s
e mbly is called ffo urtee ne d a yes shall be the time prefixed
for their sitting and noe longe r un le s
s
e you fi
n de goode cause
to continue it beyond that ty m e
Yo u shall take care th a t the members o f the assembly be
elected only by ffree ho lde rs a sb e ing more agreeabl e to the
conveniently
cus
to m e o f Engl a nd to which y o u are as nigh a s
” 29
elfe
y o u can to conforme y o urs
o
ni n g II 2 80
I bid I I 362
I I 3 56
I bi d
II 425
[bid
,
,
.
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
e
27
q
.
,
,
,
,
13
’9
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
VI RGI N I A
1 96
counties but merely as the resul t o f the formation of new
counties out of o ld ones For example William Leigh rep re
sented New Kent in the fi rst session o f 1 692 but Kings and
Queens in the second session o f that year and in
Lemuel M oses represented Lower Norfolk almost continuously
from 1 661 to 1690 but in 1 693 he appears asa burgess from
Norfolk County 35 William Robinson also represented Lower
Nor f olk from 1 684 to 1 686 but Norfolk in 169 1 Arth ur
Spicer represented Ra p p a ha n n o ck County from 1685 to 1688
but a ppears for Richmond in
Likewise William
Colston represented Ra p p a ha nno ck at one time and later
appears for Richmond
B ut to return to instances of non residence representation
St Leger Codd a resident of Northumberland County 37
represented his own county in 1 6 80
but was also chosen
a sthe representative
of
Lancaster County at the same
39
session
Accord ing to the Journal record he w asevidently
given hischoice as to which county he would represent 40
He chose to serve fo r his home county bu t in 1 684 he was again
elected to represent Lancaster County and d id so in the
assembly o f th a t year 41 Edward Hill a member of a prom
in e n t family of Charles City County 42 represented that
county f or several years previous to 1 6 79 b ut i n that year he
was a burgess from James City County 43 He later 1684
again represented his home county 44 The fourth and last
instance is that o f Thomas M atthew of Northu mberland
County who was a burgess for Stafford in the B acon As
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
s
e m bly
of
t
i gs nd Qu nsfi s
p es
io f 1 69 2
ent d i
s nd ss
s
N
f lk f m d in 1 69 1 f m Lo w N rf lk (H wesO utli ne f H is
to ry f V i gi ni a
39 2)
t d in 1 69 2 whe Ra p p h an n k w s x t i g ui s
Ri h mond C u t y
hed fo min g
Es
sx a d Ri h m nd (H o w s
B u So ci l L if f V irginia 63
J u n lsof th Hous f B u g s
s
es 1 659—
60
X
to ry of Virgi n i
B u I ns
ti t ut i nal H i s
11 421 422
J ourna l s f the H us
e of B u g s
ss(1 659—6 0
1 22
XI
I bid (1 659 6 0
t
36 42 ; B ruce I ns
C ol i al Vi gini R gi s
t itut i o na l H is
to ry 1 1 2 4
J u n ls f th H us f B u ges
s
es(1659 60
1 26
I bi d (1659 6 0
XI
B ruce I ns
ti tuti na l H is
to ry 1 1 42 1 ; Ho us
e Jo u n l (1 659 60
IX
K
n
or o
3‘
e
or
o
c
'3
3'
r
n
o
.
o
o
a
oc
,
a
o
r
n
e
.
.
a,
a
e
-
.
o
n o
r e
,
-
.
e
.
.
e
o
er,
,
e o
.
r
.
,
.
-
.
.
.
‘6
r e
o
r
r a
o
e
.
o
on
e co
n
e o
-
o
er
.
e
ce ,
n
,
.
‘2
e
e o
o
‘1
r
crea e
e
a
r a
‘0
re
ro
o
r ce ,
o
r
e
c
n
'7
ee
a
o
,
.
r a
-
.
r
.
V I R G I NI A
1 97
ix
From th is point to the constitution of 1 776 there are s
acts bearing on the general subj ect of elections An gla bo rate
act was passed in
This covered practically every phase
of the subj ect V oting was confined strictly to the freeholder
o f county or town
Nothing w assaid about the qualifications
for burgesses but the act itsel f contained the very form o f
return writ provided by the law o f 1 692
Of the many election acts pa ssed by the V irginia provincial
assembly the onl y one containing a plain statement regarding
a residential qualification w asin 1 705 This provided :
“
That the Freeholders o f every county that now is o r
here a f ter shall be in this dominion now have and h e reafter
shall have the privilege and liberty of electing and choosing
two o f the most fi t and able men o f such respectively to be
47
present and to act and vote in all General Assemblies
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
A later clause o f th e sam e act provided that
every freeholder a ctu a lly resident within the county
where the election is to be made
shal l a ppe a r a c
43
i
r
n
l
co d
g y and give his vote
H
,
,
,
.
The next law4 9 on this subj ect was in 1 736 and it is re
markable in one particular While provid ing fo r property
representa tion it limited this in a way that no other colony
d id The preamble stated that the act was called into being
by the fact that much fraud had been practiced by leases and
sales o f land upon feigned considerations
.
.
“
to
create and mul tiply votes
” 50
.
the freehold necessary to carry with it the privilege o f su ff rage
was definitely stated One must h a ve o ne hundred acres o f un
improved land o r twenty fiv e acres o f land with a house upon it
He must have had title to it fo r at least one year if it had been
51
purchased
Had it been inherited this provision was waived
B ut here is
the point of departure from similar laws in other col
o n ie s I f the one hund red acres lay in two di ff erent counties the
owner could vote onl y in the county containing the larger part
H ni g I I I 1 7 2 1 7 4
II I 236
I bid I II 2 38
I bid
Willi ms
bu g wasgiven rep snt t i n i 1 735 Voting wasconfi d t s
id nts
it i ns uld be chos
e n bu g s
ss H i g V 205
a nd o ly
H ni ng V 47 5 476
I n th m gi n of the s
ta tute it sys R s
id nce of one year requi ed
50
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
n
e
a
n
'0
H
c
e
re e
co
,
ar
‘7
.
r
ze
e
-
.
,
a
r e
-
.
o
e
n
,
,
,
ne
.
en n
.
.
.
,
,
.
o re
.
.
a
“
,
e
e
r
"
.
.
e
V I RGI N I A
198
While such a provision does not absol utely make im
possible non residence voting and non residence representa
I t is hardly probable
t ion yet the chance of either is negligible
that when a man had but one vote he would cast that in a
county where he did n o t l ive I t seems that one would only
do this when it chanced as would sometimes but seldom be
the case that he l ived nearer the county seat o f a county
where he owned property than he d id to the county seat of the
county in which he resided
The Election Act o f 1 7 62 would seem on the face of it to
give the voters of each county the privilege o f electing their
52
burgesses wherever they chose
B ut it contained the p ro
vision of the law o f 1 7 36 that the freeholder could vote in but
one county and it also contained the form of election return
adopted in 1 692 I n 1 7 69 a long act di ffering in no essential
detail from the above a ct w a spassed
Without a ch e cking o f the l ists of assembly members from
1692 to 1 77 6 the position has been t a ken that there was no
n o n resident representa tion during this period
The reason
for such is that such representa tion would have been plainly
illegal as ha sbeen shown
Yet in M iller s thoroughgoing
study of the legislature of V irginia this statement is found :
-
-
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
'
,
.
.
-
.
’
.
“
R e sid e nce in the county f rom which elected was
prob a bly n o t compulsory f or Pa trick Henry w a schos e n from
Louisa County in 1 7 65 though he was not then a resident o f
” 53
that county
,
,
.
54
W W Henry makes the same statement and says that a
forme r burgess from Louisa County stepped aside s
o that the
province might have the services of P atrick Henry who was a
resident of Hanover County The same author says later that
“
”
Patrick Henry moved to hisplace in Louisa County in
1 765 and remained there until 1 7 68
Will iam Wirt however
in hisl ife o f Patrick Henry which was written after con
s
ulta tio n with many men who kn ew hi m well says :
Th f
h ld sw e t h ve th p ivileg f l t in g tw o f th m s
bl nd
t
u h o un ty
f ee h ld sq u lifi d t v te in s
p tiv l y (Hen i n g V I I
iit
s
1 7n
5e
a3) b i g
s
p 51
P t i k H nry Life C s
ponden nd S p e hes6 1 70 1 23
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
53
r
e
e n
r
5'
ree
o
er
o
r
5‘
.
.
er
o
,
a
a rc
e
er
a
e
e
r
o
.
o
,
e o
c
o rre
“
e ec
c
re
ce a
o
ec
e c
e
o
a
e a
"
e
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
VI RG I N I A
200
in V irginia only when the forces of the royal government were
in the ascendency and those o f the assembly on the decline
Where V irginia di ff ers from other colonies isthat in them a
freehold qualification for su ff rage brough t with it non
residence voting and non residence representation So d id it
in V irginia but for a space of twenty two years only when the
assembly found a way evidently intentionally to restrict
voting to residents without at the same time running afoul
the royal requirement that su ffrage must be based on owner
ship
During the twenty —two years when non residence rep re
s
e n ta t io n was allowed we hav e found only four cases where
the right of choosing a non residen t w a sexercised by a
V irgini a county Curiously enough in two o f these cases it
was J ames City County within whose bounds the assembly
met that chose a n o n resident
The very fewness of the
cases o f non residence representation is added proof of the
fa ct mentioned in connection with other provinces that in
the absence o f continual pressure from crown o r proprietor
and where there was no city in the province o f su fficient size
a n d importance to dominate the l ife o f the province
the in
habitants followed the logical and n a tura l course o f action in
cho o s
m g their r epresentatives in the provincial legislature
.
-
.
-
,
,
,
.
-
-
.
,
-
.
-
,
,
.
N O R T H
C AR O LI N A
THE
settlements wh ich afterward became the nucleus a round
which a new government w a sformed south of V irginia were
an overflow from the southern counties o f that province
When they were later included in the territory granted to the
Earl of Clarendon and his associates the transfer of authority
over them was marked by even less governmental oversight
and direction than they had previously had I t is n o t too
much to say that the Albemarle settlements deve loped
throughout the proprietary period with practically no help
from the proprietors On the other hand they felt the re
pressive hand o f the proprietors j ust as l ittle The explana
tion of such a situation is th a t the Carol ina territory was
granted to a group o f proprietors instead o f to a single o n e
So it inevitably f ollowed that no uni f orm purpose and plan
could obtain in its development
Colonization began in earnest after Carolina had been
granted to the proprietors in 1 663 The charter of that year
conta ined the usua l grant of legislative pow e r to the pro
p rie to rs I n that portion o f the ch a rter directing that the
power of legislation should be shared with the freemen lies
the germ o f the North Carolina Assembly Legislation was to
be by the proprietors
with the advice assent and approbation o f the
freemen o f the said province or o f the greater part o f them
o r o f their deleg a tes o r d e puties
whom fo r enacting o f the
said laws when and as often as n e e d sh a ll require we will
that the sa id (here follow the names of all the propri e tors )
and their heirs shall from time to time assemble in such
” 1
manner and form as to th em shall seem best
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
l ‘
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
A later clause gave the proprietors or their magistrates alone
the right to make laws temporarily
,
“
because such assemblies of freeholders cannot be so
conven i ently called a sthere may be occas i on to requ i re the
” 2
same
I bid I 24
N C C ol R s I 2 3
,
.
1
.
.
ec
.
,
,
.
2
201
.
,
,
.
NORTH CAROL I NA
202
I n an attempt to attract settlers to the new province the
“
proprietors issued in 1 663 a Declarations and Proposals to
”
all that will Plant in Carolina
One of the promises contained
therein was that there would be an assembly composed of
.
“
Two
o ut o f
every tribe division
or
,
parish
” 3
.
Governor William Berkeley o f V irginia wasone o f the
“
proprietors
Being near the new province a commission
was issued him in 1 663 authori z ing him to commission a
governor fo r Albemarle River He could appoint two gov
ern o rsif he wished — o ne fo r the north side o f the river and
The governor and
o n e fo r the south along with six councilors
councilors so appointed were to have the power to make
necessary laws
by and with the a dvice and consent o f the freeholders
their de p uty e sor
o r freemen o r the M aj or p a rt o f them
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
“
,
d e liga te s
”
.
Berkeley appointed William Drummond governor I t should
be kept in mind th a t the only people in the province at this
time were those already on the ground when the charter of
1663 wa sissued
The Charter o f 1 665 di ffe red little from the o n e of 1663
Under its provisions the assembly in addition to governor
and council was to consist of the
freem e n o f the sa id province o r territory o r o f the
freemen o f the county b a rony o r colony fo r wh ich such
” 5
law o r constitution shall be made
.
.
.
“
,
,
,
,
.
The provision enabling the governor and council to legislate
for the time being wa sworded a sin the former charter with
“
”
“
” 6
the single change o f the word conveniently to suddenly
The liberal terms o f the Concessions and Agreements
issued the same year as the second charter have often been
commented upon By some they have been thought to re
fl ect the liberal political views o f the proprietors They seem
however to have been issued in response to the demands of
.
.
.
,
N
‘
.
C
I bi d
.
,
.
C ol
I
,
Re s I
c
.
48 50
-
.
,
,
45
.
°
°
.
I bid I
I
I bi d
.
.
.
,
,
,
1 05
1 06
.
.
,
NORTH CAROL I NA
204
and showed a d istinct reaction against the l iberal spirit which
”
“
had characterized the Concessions
I n fact the avowed
purpose was to make the government of the province
,
.
“
most agreeable to the M onarchy
we may avoid e recting a numerous democracy
" 12
and that
.
The law making body w a sto be called Parliament and it
was to be compose d of four groups sitting together b ut voting
by groups A maj ority vote in any one group wa ssu fficient
to defeat a measure These groups were :
(a ) Proprietor s Deputies
(b ) Landgra ve s
(c ) C a ciques
(d ) Representatives
-
.
.
’
,
,
,
.
The qualifications for electors and for representatives
a ppear in the following :
“
There sh a ll be a Pa rli a ment consisting o f the Proprietors
o r their deputies t he L a ndgraves and C a ciques a n d o n e free
holder o ut o f every precinct to be chosen by the fre e holders
o f t he said precinct respectively
They shall sit all toge ther
in o n e room and have every me m b e r o n e vote
N o man sh a ll be chosen a m e mb e r o f Parliament w ho
has less th a n five hund red a cre s o f freehold within the pre
cinct fo r which he is chose n n o r shall any have a vote in
cho o s
e in g the said m e mb e r that hath less than fi f ty acres o f
fre e hold within the said pre cinct
A new Parliament shall be assembled the first M onday
” 13
o f the month o f November every second ye a r
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
“
,
,
,
.
“
.
,
A copy o f the Fundamental Constitutions was sent to
“
”
Governor Peter Carteret o f Albemarle and his Council in
1 670 together with I nstructions 14 The latter states that the
proprietors reali ze the impossibility of putting the model
”
government into e ff ect at once s
o for the present the governor
was to
,
.
“
,
,
H
I ssue o ut w rittsto the Fower Precin tso f the
County o f Albem a rle requiring e a ch o f them to elect five
freeholders to be their representatives to whom the five
N C C l R s I 1 88
I bi d I 1 8 1 1 83
I bi d 1 1 99
H
1'
o
.
.
.
,
,
ec
.
.
,
.
1‘
.
.
,
-
.
NO RTH CAROL I NA
205
persons chosen by us being added and w ho fo r the present
" 15
represent the Nobility are to be your Assembly
.
The assembly which met as a result o f th is order was not
the first o n e fo r this territory however N o t much is known
of the ones which had preceded it but it is quite certain that
there were sessions in 1 665 1 667 and
After 1 67 0 the
sessions were quite regular This date does mark however
the first definite authority for the choice o f any particular
number of representatives by each election unit
Prior to 1 69 1 the Albemarle settlements had had a separate
executive from those settlements which had been made n e ar
Cape Fear and farther south
But in this year the p ro
decided to unite the whole colony under one executive
p rie to rs
and o n e assembly
The instructions to Go v e rn o re Phil ip
Ludwel l are given in the chapter on South Carolina They
conta in a plan fo r the assembly in which Albe rm a rle County
w a sto have five representatives while the same number was
given to each o f the three counties which lay in the territory
that later became South Carolina
The proprietors must
h ave had some doubt regarding the feasibility of this plan fo r
o n the same date Private I nstructions were issued to Ludwell
regarding the constitution of the assembly in case he found it
“
I mpractic a ble f or to h a ve the I nh a bitants o f Albe rma rle
17
County to send Delegates to the General Assembly
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
”
“
The governor must have found it impracticable for no
attempt seems to have been made to interfere with the
Albemarle Assembly
From this d a te however to 1 7 1 2
there was o ne executive The actual working o ut of this plan
resulted in the northern part o f the colony having as a n
executive a deputy governor appointed by the governor at
Charleston When no deputy governor was appointed as at
times was the case executive power was exercised by the
president o f the council Attention has often been called to
this period of neglect o n the part of the proprietors but this
neglect had without doubt its compensating features Thrust
N C C l Recs I 1 8 1
Os
good II 235 ; N C C ol R s I 1 83 1 87
N C C ol R e s
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
1°
o
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
ec
.
,
,
-
.
'7
.
.
.
c
.
,
N O RT H
206
CARO L I N A
t h us practicall y upon itsown resourcesthe a ssembly becam e
accustomed to assuming certain responsibil ities whic h it
would not later surrender
I t was d uring th is period that th e first ex tension o f settle
ment as reflected in the membership of the assem bly o c
curred At a Palatine s Court held by Gove rnor Arc h dale
in December 1 696 the county o f Bat h w a screated and wa s
granted the privilege of sending two burges
ses to t h e as
sembl y
which was to meet the following month
I n 1 7 1 2 Edward Hyde w a scommissioned b y the pro
as governor o f North Carolina This date therefore
p rieto rs
marks the complete separation o f the two parts of the prov
ince 1 8 Neither Governor Hyde s commission nor that of his
successor two years later contained anything regarding
assemblies which means without doubt that the assembl y
continued to be elected on the s am e basis ash ad obtained
since 1 6 70
Three years after the separation from South Carolina t h e
assembly passed a comprehensive election law wh ich is often
referred to in the records o f the time as the B iennial Act
The reason for itsenactment wa sthat
,
.
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
.
.
of
guard
frequent sitting o f Assemblies
” 19
their peoples Priv iled ge s
isa
principal safe
.
The f reemen of the eight precincts mentioned by name
of Albemarl e County20 were to choose each two years
,
,
“
five Freeholders
of every precinct
o ut
P rovision was made that
” 21
.
the
new precincts should have the
privilege o f sending two representatives each
Qual ifications fo r voting were : twenty one years of age ;
one full ye ar residence in the province and to have paid one
year s levy N o sta tement appears as to the amount o f free
hold required to m a ke a freeman eligible for election asa
N C C l Recs 1 7 3 1 7 7 5 779 84 1
I I 2 13
Th t m Alb em l C u t y up t t hi sd ate wasp
l n y nam ;
ti all y t h
n t her w
d st was
s
yn ym usWith N th C oli a T h p in ts
w
l ly o unti s
O f th e ight p mctsm nti d in this t sv n of them pp ascount i sn a p esnt
day m p f N th C ar li n
N C C l Recs I I 2 1 4
.
-
’
.
1'
.
9°
i
e
,
e
,
.
,
o
o
.
.
a
,
n
o
ac
.
,
o
ra c
or
.
.
.
,
on e
e
o
-
,
on
i
or
o
.
.
ar e
rec
a
'I
.
er
or
o
o
.
ar
e
e
n
l
.
.
e
a
rec
ea r
c
c
.
e co o
e re re a
e
o
e
c
e
r
e
.
N O RTH CARO LI N A
208
s
a y that t h e y contained no
material al teration
“
”28
from those
issued his predecessor Without having that document to
examine we know that if the subj ect of su ffrage qualification
was mentioned a freehold requirement was insisted upon
During the first year of Johnston s ad ministration an act
setting the quali fication of electors and representatives was
29
passed and received the governor s approval
N o details
about it appear in th e records neither isthe law given in any
of the editions of colonial laws Th is makes it seem probable
that it was disallowed by the king
This leaves us face to fa ce with the puzzl ing question a s
wh a t rule governed elections and designated th e number to
be chosen from each county between the repeal of the law of
1 7 1 5 and the enactment of the one of 1 743
The election act 30 of the l a tter year begins
.
.
’
’
.
.
.
,
,
.
“
Whereas there is no
la w
now i n force
This act covered the whole question of elections All elections
were to be by ballot V oting w a sconfined to freeholders who
were compe lled to take an oath they had owned fi fty acres of
land for at least t h ree months in the county i n which th ey
appeared to vote and that they had been inhabi tants of the
province six months To be chosen a member of the assembly
one must be twenty one yea rs of age ; an inhabitant of the
province one year ; and most possess a freehold
.
.
.
-
“
in the county where he shall be elected or chosen
”
of at least o ne h undred acres of land
So far as we have any record the above act w h ile changing
th e whole basis of su ffrage in the province did not arouse
serious opposition The colonists probably bowed before th e
constant and irresistible royal pressure which d emanded a
property qualifica tion for suffrage B ut an election act of
three years later raised a storm which was not quieted for
years
Go vernor J o h nston summoned the asse mbly to meet that
.
.
.
.
n
N C C ol Recs I II
I bid IV 9 7 108
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
49 7
.
'0
Lawsof N C (Swann sEd ition)
'
.
.
,
1 7 7 1 80
-
.
NORTH CAROL I NA
209
year 1 746 at Wilmington This was not the usual place of
meeting and the northern counties those of the o ld Albemarle
settlements refused to send representatives because o f the
d istance As a result there was not a legal quorum but that
d id not deter the governor n o r those members which d id
appe a r At the time the act w a spassed there were only four
teen members present31 although more appeared later The
preamble32 of the act stated that the northern counties were
accustomed to sending five persons to represent them while
the southern and western counties which were more nume r
”
“
ous and contrib uted more to the General Tax o f the prov
ince only sent two each To remedy this situation the re p re
The e ffect of this
s
en ta t io n o f all counties was limited to two
i n the northern counties can be imagined
Petitions and
depositions” galore were sent to England in protest From
one o f the former we have a parti a l answer to the query
raised above rega rd ing the representatives from each county
when there was no law governing the subj e ct I t is said that
the counties o f the Albemarle territory had each elected
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
“
fiv e burge sse s without intermission continued so
ever since the Establishment o f this Government not only
und e r the late Lords Proprietors but also under your M aj esty s
34
Governors until Nov
’
.
The act of 1 746 wa srepealed by the crown in 1 754 b ut
d uring those years the northeastern counties were n o t re p re
sented in the lower house o f the assembly as they would not
fi
’5
elect fewer than five re p res
e n ta tiv e s
Between 1 754 and
1 7 75 the former unequal representation was continued
By 1 760 the election act o f 1 743 which governed elections
after the repeal of the election act o f 1 746 had become in
operative but how o r why are questions the records do not
answer With no law on the subj ect Governor Dobbs was
at a loss where to turn for authority regarding elections
He made the very unusual decision for a royal governor
N C C l R s IV 1 1 59
N C C l Laws(Sw m) 223 224
N C C l Re s IV 1 1 69 1 1 7 9 ; Fo the gove no sp oint of view s I bid I V
1 1 6 3 1 1 66
“ I bi d
“ Ra p e
IV 1 1 58
91
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
'I
N
-
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
ec
c
.
.
,
,
,
,
'1
.
-
.
o
.
r
r
.
.
r,
ar
.
'
r
.
n
I4
o
.
-
,
ee
.
.
,
NORTH CAROL I NA
21 0
that the charters granted the proprietors were in force in the
absence of law on the subj ect
His point of view is shown by his answers to a set o f
resolutions passed by the lower house of the assembly which
he sent to the Board o f Trade :
.
“
Resol ution Th a t the d iversity o f t he Forms in
w rits o f election issu e d t o di ffe rent Counties some o f which
d ire ct the Freeholders and others the I nhabitants in General
to choos e by which l a st form s e rva nts and even Convicts
m a y elect
Answer : I n a nswe r to thl sI must observe that upon the
r e peal o f these and severa l oth e r L a ws which depend e d upon
the m I w a sa t a gre a t loss ho w to issue the writs a sthe Law
fo r Fr e e hold e rs t o e lect w a sthen r e p e a led and therefore I
thought mysel f obliged to f ollow the fi rst a n d s e cond Ch a rters
o f t he Colony which pow e r w a s
lo ge d in the Freemen o f the
Colony o r th e ir d e lega tes and as I d id no t a dve rt to t he dis
tinction made betwe en Fre e m en a n d I nhabitants a smy in
tention w a sthat a ll fre e inh a bitants should be Electors until
36
a prop e r la w should a ga in fix it t o Freeholders
1 4th
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
.
This situ a tion was rem e di e d by the El e ction Act o f 1 7 60
the last o n e during t he provinci a l period 37 The election
m a chin e ry provided fo r by this act di ffe re d from th a t o f 1 743
but the qualification fo r voters a n d fo r representatives were
exa ctly t he s a m e as in the l a tter Th is a ct a lso provided f or
n o n residence voting in towns in a manner d i ff er e nt from
a nything noted s
o far in this study
B y the l a st section o f the
act B runswick was gra nte d repre senta tion T o be a re p re
s
e n ta tiv e f rom there o n e must have own e d fo r th r e e months
at l e ast
,
.
.
-
.
.
,
,
U
B rick Ston e o r f ra med H o use in the said town
o f the D i m e n s
mn so f Twenty Feet by Sixteen with o n e o r
33
more B rick o r Stone Chimney o r C him n ie s
a
,
,
,
,
.
Every tenant o f such a house fo r three months prior to e lec
tion could vote I n c a s e such a hous e w a sunoccupied the
owner o f the house could vote in the town election
.
.
3°
N
"I
.
C
bi d
.
.
R s VI
vi sEdi ti )
C ol
(D a
.
ec
.
,
on
,
30 3
,
2 50
.
.
37
N
.
C
.
C ol
.
L ws(D visE d i ti
a
a
on
)
,
24 7 2 50
-
.
NORTH CAROL I NA
21 2
Richard Caswell was o n e o f the most prominent and most
active public men d uring the fifteen years prior to the R ev o lu
tion He was also the first governor of North Carol ina d uring
its existence as an independent commonweal th He w asa
resident45 of Dobbs County in the western part of the state
and represented hiscounty practically continuously from 1 760
to the Revolution B ut in October 1 769 he represented the
town o f New B e rne where the assembly met that year and
in December of the following year he w a sthe representative
46
of Bath
John D unn an o fficial of Rowan County represented
Anson County in 1 762 Later he served for Sal isbury the
principal town of Rowan County 47
William Hooper a resident of New Hanover 48 re p re
sented the town of Campbelton (n ow Fa yetteville ) in January
1 7 73 and his own county in December of the same year 49
I n 1 7 73 M emucan Hunt appears a srepresentative for both
B ute and Granville Counties 50 These were adj oining counties
on the northern border of the state There is no record in t h e
House Journal that Hunt had to decide asto which county
he would represent although in t wo similar cases which will
be noted later that was demanded of representatives whic h
appeared for two counties
William Maccay s(M ackay) period of service a sa rep re
s
e n ta t iv e for the county of T y rre l extended from 1 746 to
November
The only break d uring this period was in
April 1 7 62 when he represented Pe rq uima n sCounty 62
Thomas M acknight o f Currituck County represented
that county from 1 762 to 1 7 75 B ut in 1 7 73 he wasalso
chosen as a representative of Pasquotank County He wa s
asked to make his choice as to which county he wished to
represent and asmight be expected he chose the one in which
63
he resided
N c C l Recs VIII p I V
w dden 1 1 9 7 203
“ 11n
“ N
d
V III 105 303
c C l R e s 1x 443 7 34
" 1 1n
“ I bi d
d
v 320 32 3 ; v 1 80 1 ; VIII 10 7
I X 7 33 7 34
I bid I V 8 1 5 856 ; v 232 52 1 39 3 ; v 1 390 6 6 2 39 3
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
u
.
.
o
n
a
u
.
ma
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
v1
.
800
a
.
.
,
,
c-
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
I X . 452 . 635 636
-
.
.
,
,
o
.
c
.
”
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
NO RTH CAROL I NA
21 3
A case similar to the above had occurred in 1 746 I n that
year Samuel Swann o n e of the most prominent men o f the
province was elected representative by the county o f Onslow
54
a
where he lived and also by New H nover County
After
being elected speaker he was asked for which county he would
serve and he replied Onslow ; whereupon the clerk was in
structed to issue writs for a new election in New Hanover
Ed mund Smithwick (Southwick ) o f T y rre l County is
another example o f a representa tive o f experience bein g
chosen by a county in wh ich he did n o t r e side H e was a
representative o f his county55 in nearly every assembly from
1 744 to 1 7 7 1 but in 1 7 66 he represented Northampto n
County 56
An exactly similar instance to the above is that of Edward
Vail who represented the county o f Chowan continuousl y
from 1 7 54 to 1 769 e xcept in November 1 7 66 when he served
57
as o n e o f the representatives fo r Onslow County
N o n residence representation in North Carolina has some
aspects strikingly similar to New England
M en d o n o t
seem to have been chosen a srepresentatives simply because
they were large landowners in the czo un ty electing them
When a county did go outside its bounds fo r a representative
a prominent man and o n e o f legislative experience w as
chosen I n fact there must have been some pride as in N ew
England in being represented by a well known publ ic man
Otherwise it is hard to account fo r Chowan County choosin g
J ohn Ash as o n e o f its representatives in 1 7 59 when the
assembly met within its borders o r New Berne s choice o f a
n o n resident (Caswell ) a sits single representative in 1 7 69
or Bath s choice of Caswell the following year as its re p re
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
-
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
-
.
,
,
,
’
,
-
,
’
s
e n ta t ive
.
Election o f n o n residents also seems to have been as a
result of merit rather than as a resul t of campaigning Thi s
fact isshown by the three double elections given above A
cand idate would probably not o ffer himsel f in more than o ne
-
.
.
'4
u
N C C O! R s IV 8 1 5
I bid IV V I V I I V II I
.
.
.
ec
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
9°
.
57
I bi d VII
I bid VII
.
,
,
342
.
.
,
,
34 3
.
NO RTH CAROL I NA
2 14
county knowing th a t he would be allowed to serve for b u t
There is a possibil ity of course that this might be
o ne
done if t he cand idate f el t he faced possible defeat in h is home
county but there is reason to bel ieve that the three cases
given r e present the sponta neous choice by two counties o f
t he same cap a bl e and e xp e rienced public o fficial
I n North C a rolin a the adoption o f its first constitution
b rought only a qual ified residential qual ification fo r re p re
s
en ta t iv e s Each county was to have two representatives and
their qualifications were stated in S e ction Six
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
“
That each M e m ber o f the House o f Commons sh a ll have
usu a lly re sid e d in the County in which he is chosen fo r o n e
ye a r immedi a tely preceding his Election and fo r six M onths
sh a ll h a ve posse sse d a nd continu e to posse ss in the county
which he represents n o t less than o n e hund red a cre s o f Land
”
in Fee o r fo r the Te rm o f his o w n Li f e
,
,
,
,
,
.
This constitution retained a slight fre e hold qu a l ification
for voting fo r sen a tors I n order to vote fo r representa tives
the qualifications were : 2 1 ye ars o f a ge ; o n e year resident in
”
any county ; a n d to have paid Public Taxes
One meeting
these requirements could vote in t he county where he resided
N o n r e sid e nt voting w a snot entir e ly a bolished however
fo r S e ction Nine specifica lly provided that e very person
paying public taxe s in any town entitled to repre s e ntation
could vote in that town
H o w the sta tement o f r e sidenti a l qu a l ification a ffected the
pra ctic e o f non residence representation in North C a rolina
is beyond the province o f this study wh ich is supposed to
extend only over t he provincial period The next co n s
titu
tion of the state th a t o f 1 868 brought North C a rolina into
harmony with most of her sister state s in re quiring a re p re
s
e n ta tiv e to be a r e sident of the county from wh ich he was
chosen 58
t i tut i
t i
d m g th
ThisC s
qu lifi ti nsf s t sh w v t h t
th
t i t f m whi h h is h sn
l td s
h ll usu lly h v s
id d i th d is
y
T h w d i g f t hi s q u i m t w s t h n g d
i mm di t ly p d i g his l ti
t C
t i t ut i
t h t f 1 87 5
in t h l s
s
.
'
“
.
.
-
,
,
.
-
,
.
,
,
.
‘5
“
e o n e e ec e
e
e
o n re a ne
on
a e
a
rece
on
a
a
n
on ,
a
e ec
a
o
on
a
e re
on
o
n
e
"
e
.
.
er
a
e
or
ca
r c
n
o
o
e n a or
or
ro
re
c
e
re
en
,
c
a
o
o e
no
e
e r.
a
o ne
e ar
c
a
e
SOUTH CAROL I NA
216
laying plans for a settlement at Port Royal I t w a sin th is
connection that Shaftsbury had Locke prepare a form of
government for the whole province but with the new settle
ment especially in mind
The preparation of such an in
strument shows that the proprietors l ike those of P enn
sylvania and the Jerseys though t they could anticipate the
course o f natural political development and could mould the
3
political f orms and practic e s o f the colony in advance
This
attempt o n the pa rt of the proprietors was doomed to failure
but they did n o t desist for m a ny years At every attempt to
put any o f the provisions o f the Fundamental Constitutions
into e ffect the colonists fell b a ck upon that provision of the
charter o f 1 663 which promised that legislation w a sto be by
the proprietors
H
with the advice a sse nt a nd approbation o f the
” 4
f re emen o f the said province
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
Sir John Ye a m a ns altho ugh l iving in B arbadoes w a sstill
nominally the governor o f Carolina So when the settlers
constituting the new attempt at colonization left England
in J uly 1 669 he was sent a governor s commission in blank
with authority to insert the name o f o n e who he thought
would satisfactorily administer the a ff airs o f the province
Yeamans named William Sayle The commission then read
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
.
.
To o ur trusty and We lbe lo v e d Will Sayle , Esq Gover
n o r o f all th a t Territory o r p a rte o f o u r Province o f Carolina
5
th a t lyes to y e Southwa rd Westward o f Cape Carteret
“
.
.
.
Accompanying this commission were instructions wh ich took
cognizance o f the fact th a t the Fundamental Constitutions
could n o t be put into operation immediately So for the time
being Sayle w a sinstructed :
.
summon y e free ho uld ersof y e C o llo ny
require
y o u in o ur n a mes to elect tw e nty persons wch together wt h
6
o ur Deputys fo r y e present are to be y r Parliament
“
to
,
.
Sayle d id not carry out the above instructions fo r the reason
that the population of the province was
a she later stated
Os
go d II 2 1 1
N C C l Re s I 2 3
Sh fts
bury P p s C ll H is
t S
of S C
V 1 17
I bid V 1 20
,
,
'
o
‘
.
a
a
0
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
er :
o
.
.
oc
.
o
.
.
.
c
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
21 7
SOUTH CAROL I NA
“
Pa rlie m e n t
nott heere su fficient to elect a
”
.
’
Dissatisfaction with the governor s failure to act resulted in
election writs being issued by two individuals who had no
authority to d o s
The parliament which was elected at this
o
election w a the first o n e in South Carolin a I t met in J uly
1 67 0
Since the election was not legally called the governor
d id not recognize it This body is often referred to as M r
” 7
Owens Parliament
The first legal Pa rli a ment met in
August 1 67 1 after the arrival of Governor Joseph West
I n 1 682 instructions were received from the proprietors
ordering the creation of three counties : Berkeley consisting
o f the territory around Charleston ; Craven in the northern
part o f the province ; and Colleton in the southern part
Prior to this all elections had been held in Charleston but
n o w Berkeley and Colleton each were to elect ten deputies
and elections in the latter county were to be held at London
T o make it impossible f or one to vote in both
(Wilton )
counties elections were to be held in each on the same da y
This order aroused a storm o f protest especially in Berkeley
County and the governor disregarded it and held the next
election as usual
Attention ha sbeen called in the chapter o n North C a rolina
to the fact that the appointment of Philip Ludwell as governor
in 1 69 1 marked an attempt on the part o f the proprietors to
unite both parts of the province under o n e executive and one
assembly H isinstructions after reciting that the patent from
the crown gave the proprietors the right to legislate with the
approbation and consent o f the freemen instructed him when
ever he thought there was need o f l a ws
s
.
,
.
.
“
.
.
’
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
H
I ss ue writs to t he Sh e ri ff s o f the respective
C o un ty esto choose twenty Delegates fo r the freemen of
Carolina viz five fo r Albem a rle County fiv e f or Colleton
County and fiv e f or Berkeley County a n d five fo r Craven
County to meet and in such pl a ce and in such time as you
8
shall think fit
to
.
,
.
Sections Twenty one and Twenty two s
e t the bounds of the
counties mentioned above while Sections Twenty four and
N C C ol R s I 37 7
f S C V 1 76
Sh fts
b u y Pap sC oll H is
t So
-
-
-
,
a
r
er :
.
.
c o
.
.
.
,
,
.
0
.
.
.
ec
.
,
,
.
SOUTH CAROL I N A
21 8
Twenty fiv e provided representation for new counties as fast
as they were formed
-
.
“
And as other Countys come to be planted and make i t
appe a r there is forty free holders in the County y o u a re to
issue Writs in such Countys fo r the choice o f four D e legates
also to re present them in the generall Assembly o f t he f reemen
o f the Province and before any County have forty free holders
so a sto have Writs di re cted to it for the choice o f R e p re
s
e n t a tiv e s
i de in they are to give the i r
fo r the county th e y res
votes fo r the choice o f delegates in the county next to them
" 9
th a t is qu a lified to choose D e l e ga tes
.
As soon a ssome new county availed itsel f o f this privil e ge of
repre se ntation the representa tion of the four counties specified
by nam e was to be reduc e d to four each
Additional instructions issued the same day to Ludwell
ordered that if it proved to be impracticable fo r Albe marle
County to send delegates to the assembly Berkel ey and
Colleton should choose se ven each and Craven six for the
genera l a ssembly
.
,
“
of
of
that part of
o ur
province that lyes south
and
west
Cape
This arrangement was to continue until new counties were
formed a nd the instructions could be put into e ffe ct 1 0 The
iss
uance o f such instructions practically amounted to an
ab a ndon m ent of the e ffort to put the Fund amenta l Con
s
titutio n sinto e ffect
A contest s
oon developed between the
governor a n d the assembly and the latter d rew up a set of
grievances Number six o f thes e w as
:
.
.
.
“
Th a t the Representative s or delegates o f the People are
to o fe w in the Assembly and th a t the P eople d o e not appoint
the number of their delega tes accord ing to the King s most
" ‘1
gracious Charter
’
.
Some time in 1 692 whether before or after the adoption of
e t of grievances we do not know an act was passed re
the s
garding elections 12 As we do not have a copy of this its
N C C l Re s I 3 7 8
Riv s434
l bi d I 380 381
St tut sat La ge (C oo pe
I I 73
,
,
.
'
.
: o
.
.
.
o
.
c
.
-
.
,
.
.
.
1‘
H
er
a
,
e
.
r
r
,
.
SOUTH CAROL I NA
220
with us about making such laws a sshall be n ecessary fo r the
15
safety and defence o f this Province
.
I t should be noted that this summoned all the freemen to
the election o f 1 695 The assembly which was chosen at that
16
election passed an election act
The Qual ifications for
electors were : twenty o n e years o f a ge ; ownersh ip o f fifty
acres of land o r personal property to the value o f £ 1 0 ; th ree
months residence in district where vote was o ffered
No
alien born o ut o f allegiance to the queen was eligible to a seat
in the house Evidently other qual ifications of members were
the same a sfo r electors
The next election a ct w a sin 1 704 The qu a lific a tions for
electors were the same as in the act o f 1 696 Th is act like its
predecessors did n o t prescribe the voting d istricts n o r state
17
the number o f representative s allotted t o each county
By the act o f 1 7 16 the parish wa smade the election unit
18
o f South Carolina
M cC rady s a ys this a ct
'
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
“
stablished the pecul i a r p a rish syst e m
Ca rol ina which w a st o l a st fo r a century a n d a h a l f
e
of
South
Elections were to be held in each parish by the church wardens
The numb e r o f members o f the Commons House o f Assembly 1 9
w a splaced at thirty a n d a pportioned among the parishes
The qualifications prescribed by the act o f 1 7 04 were modified
An elector must be a white m a n twenty o n e years of age
professing the Christian religion and must have resided in the
province six months The f re e hold qualification was removed
but the money qual ification raised to £ 30 I n order to b e
qualified to sit a sa m e mber o f the house o n e must be possessed
o f £ 500 current money in goods o r chattels o r owner o f 500
acres o f land The voter could only vote fo r members from
the parish wherein he actu a lly resided a n d the o ne elected
must have the required financial holdings o r freehold in the
parish choosing him
Riv s439
S t tut s t L g
Ed it i o n) I I 1 30 ; M c d y S ut h C aro li n und e
(C p
t h P p i t y G v n m n t 42 4
St tut s t L g I I 249
I bi d II 563
t p i ds L w
Thisb dy h d d iff t m s t d iff
H us
e
nd C o mmo ns
th
sm s
t
mm ly usd
H us f As
s
embly w
.
.
.
-
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
'5
1°
e
ro
17
er
a
e
e o
a
a
e
ar e
o
r e ar
o
o
.
,
er
a
ar e ,
oo
e
ere
,
c
,
ra
o
,
a
.
,
19
.
,
ere n
a
er
na
e one
.
e
o
a
co
ere n
on
er o
e
.
,
.
,
.
o
er
o
a
r
SOUTH CAROL I NA
22 1
Under date of J uly 1 7 1 8 the proprietors ordered the
governor among other things to
,
,
“
Annul also the two f ollowing acts : t he o n e entitled an
act to keep invi olate a n d preserve the fre edom of e lections
and appoint w ho shall be deeme d a n d adj udged c a pable o f
choosing and being chosen members o f the Commons House
2°
of Assembly ;
,
,
M cC rady is the authority fo r the statement that this meant
going b a ck to the o ld system of hol ding all elections at Charles
21
to n
The dissatisfaction aroused over the veto o f the e lection
law and some others led directly to the loss o f the colony by
the proprietors
I n the meantime the last assembly to meet under the
proprietary government passed another election law 22 The
change in qualifications fo r both electors a n d representatives
was sligh t An elector must be possessed o f a freehold o f
fifty acres o r must be paying tax on £ 50 o f personal property
One s
o qualified could vote for representatives for the parish
where he actually resided
The property qualification for
representatives was also slightly raised to five hund red acres
ix slaves23 or houses buildings town lots o r other
of land and s
lands in any part o f the province to the value of
This
ix
act also increased the membership of the house to thirty s
and reapportioned this number a mong the pa rishes
The first royal governor of South Carolina wa sFrancis
Nicholson
He wa scommissioned in September
but did not arrive in the province until M ay 1 7 2 1
His
instructions25 were elaborate comprising ninety six sections
and were the basis of the instructions to succeeding governors
These d id not alter the election laws o f the province the only
reference to the assembly being
o f Assembly to be elected by freeholders
on 1y 26 M embers
C ll H i s
Thisef d ly t the Act f 1 7 1 6 whi h
t S
f S C 1 1 66
bo e thisd ubl title
p 632
" St t utes t La g
I II 50—55
(C o p e
s
a y to
nly
ol
y i whi h thisfo m of p op ty was umerat d sn es
Th
q ualify f publ i fli e
t So c of S C
C oll H is
II 1 50
" I bid
M l bi d
I I 1 45 1 48
I I 145
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
-
.
.
,
.
,
-
,
.
,
“
H
.
3°
o
.
r
o
'I
.
.
e
.
,
r
.
,
on
erre
o
o
c
.
a
e o
on
,
-
c
.
,
r
(
r
e
en
er
.
.
.
.
,
c
r
o
n
c o
.
.
r e
c
or
1‘
.
.
a
3'
oc o
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
a
ec
r
SOUTH CAROL I NA
2 22
The first assembly to meet Nicholson passed an electio n
act
There were two ch a nges in qual ifications for
electors The requirement that o n e must be paying tax o n
£ 50 o f personal property w a schanged to
.
“
shillings
hath b e e n taxed in the precedent year twenty
"
is liable to such a tax the present year
or
or
.
One s
o qualified could vot e
parish
fo r
representatives in the
,
er
where he is a ctu a lly a re sident o r in a n y oth
” 28
precinct wh e re in he h a th the like qual i ficat i ons
“
,
pa rish
or
.
The necessa ry qualifications in order to be elected to th e
Commons House o f Assembly were :
th a t every person w ho shall be elect e d a n d
re turned
to serve as a m e mber o f the Commons
House o f Asse m bly sh a ll be qualified as followeth v iz :
H e shall be a f r e e born subj ect o f the Kingdom o f Great
B rit a in o r o f the dominions th e re unto b e longing o r a for e ign
p e rson n a tural i zed by act o f p a rli a ment in Gre a t B rita in o r
I re l a nd that h a th a ttained the a ge o f 2 1 ye a rs and hath
been resident in this Province fo r 1 2 months
and
having in this Provinc e a s e ttl e d plan t ation o r f re e hold in
his o w n right o f a t l e a st 500 a cres o f land and 1 0 slave s o r
ha sin his o w n prop e r p e rson and in h is o w n right t o the
va lu e o f £ 1000 in houses b uild ings town lots o r other land s
” 29
in any pa rt o f this province
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
.
The next law o n t he subj e ct was passed in
The
pre a mble warns o f the danger o f pl a cing the privilege o f voting
a n d o f being el e cte d to t he Commons Hous e o f Assembly in
”
the h a nds o f those n o t amply qualified
The property
qu a lification o f electors was placed at th ree h und red a cres
“
.
“
which he p a ys t a xe s o r hath a freehold in hous e s
lands o r town lots o r parts there o f o f the value o f sixty
pounds procl a ma tion m oney in Ch a rleston o r any other
town in this p v in ce fo r which he paid tax the pres e nt
r
p
ye a r
St tut s t L g (C p
I II 1 35 1 40
Th
s
t bli s
hm t f y l g v m t w st husm k d by th i n iti t i f
i d n v t i ng
s
I I I 1 37
St tut s t L g (C p
II I 6 56 658
I bi d
on
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
“
a
N
re
e
2°
e e
ce
a
a
e
en
a
o
ar e
o
oo
er
ro
a
oo
er
,
o
ern
en
-
.
a
ar e
e
a
on o
.
e
a
ar e
,
.
ao
.
,
,
-
.
non
SOUTH CAROL I NA
224
St Ph ilip s P arish in 1 731 and
I n 1 739 he wa selected
to represent St Thomas and St Denis but refused to q ual ify
84
From 1 745 to 1 747 he again represented St P hil ip and in
1 751 h e waselected by Prince William s P arish but refused
to qual ify 35
Edmund Bellinger of Charleston represented St And rew s
P arish from 1 731 to
I n 1 748 he w a selected to rep re
sent P rince William but refused to qual ify I n 1 749 50 h e
waschosen to represent St B a rtholomew and in 1 762 wa s
”
again elected to represent Prince William but in bot h cases
he declined to serve
Daniel Blake a prominent planter o f th e province lived
38
at Newington and in Charleston
Within a space of eigh t
years he represented four di fferent parishes : St Stephan
1 754 55 ; P rince William 1 7 55 56 ; St Bartholomew 1 757
58 ; St George Dorchester 1 7 60
M iles B rewton a Charleston merchant and later active in
40
Revolutionary matters
was fi rst elected a representative
by St Andrew in 1 763 64 but refused to serve I n 1 765 he
represented St P hilip s Charleston ; in 1 7 7 1 St J o h n
Colleton ; and in 1 7 7 2 a n d 1 773 St Micha el u
Robert B rewton was a Charleston resident and wasat one
time Powder Receiver o f the province 42 He began his
l egislative experience a s a representa tive o f S t P hilip s
C h arleston in 1 733
From 1 740 to 1 742 he represented
Christ Church and in 1 745 and 1 746 St Thomas and S t
Denis “3
Thomas B roughton was a Ch a rleston resident but h e h ad
an esta te which was probably in St J ohn s P aris h B erkeley
As
S e pt
60 9 ; (1 7 33
s
e mbly J ourn l (1 7 28—
6
" I bid XII 1 35 ; XXI 1 ; XX II 6
I bid XXV I I 23
I bid (1 7 28 Sept
609 ; (1 7 33
6
" I bid
XXI II 1 20 ; XX V 44 ; XX X V 6
S C Mag 1 160
emb ly J o urn l
As
s
X XX 60 ; XXX I 3 ; XX XI I 1 ; XXX I V 1
S C Mag I 1 43
emb ly J o urna l XX XVI 4 1 ; XXX VI I
s
As
P t 2 1 ; XXXV III 460 : XXX I X
I ndex
S C Mag 1 1 130 13 1
6 ; X 11 1 235 ; XI V 4 ; X V II Pref ace ; XX I 1 233
s
emb ly J ourna l (17 33
As
’
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
’
.
'
.
,
,
-
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
-
-
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
-
.
.
,
’
,
.
,
,
.
‘
.
,
.
.
’
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
’
.
’0
a
.
3'
,
,
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.,
,
.
.
,
a
N
,
.
"
.
.
.
,
-
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
u
,
,
,
ar
,
,
.
.
0
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
SOUTH CAROL I NA
In
225
1 7 25
he was elected representative by St John and St
Thomas and St Denis but he chose to represent St John
He l ater represented the same parish in 1 742 1 743 and
William Bull was one of the most prominent men of the
province d uring the first hal f of the eighteenth century He
was a grad uate o f Leyden in med icine The family esta te was
Ashley Hall o n the Ashley River in St And rew s Pa rish He
was a member o f the Commons House o f Assembly con
t in uo us
ly from 1 739 to 1 7 50
During that time he was
chosen speaker severa l times
He represented his home
parish from 1 7 39 to J anu a ry 1 742 and again in 1 746
The other parishes he was elected to re present at d i ff erent
times were :
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
’
.
.
.
.
,
,
St J oh n Berke ley
1 742 to 1 743
Prince William
1 745
Prince Will iam
1 748
1 748 a n d 1 749
St B a rtholomew
(Chose to represent the l a tter in
Princ e William
1 749
46
(This ye a r he chose to repre s e nt Prince William )
Sir John Colleton whose plantation was Fair Lawn in
St J ohn s Parish Berkeley 47 represented that pa rish from
1 7 62 to 1 7 64 but in 1 7 65 represented St Helena 48
Daniel Crawford of Charleston was chosen a sre p re
s
en ta t iv e by several of the outlying parishes before he ever
represented a parish o f his o w n city St Philip s in 1 757 to
1 7 59
Prior to those dates he had been elected by Prince
Frederick in 1 742 1 748 1 749 and 1 749 50 (refused to qualify
for the last tw o sessions ) and by St James Santee in 1 746
Thomas D rayton o n e o f the most prominent men in early
50
South Carolina h istory l ived most of the time on his planta
tion on the Ashley River in St Andrew s Parish He re p re
“ As
smbly J u n l VII 83 ; X VIII 3 ; X I X 1 ; XX II I 1
X II 9 5 ; X I I I 245 ; X IV 4 ; XVII P f ; XX II 3
I bid
I bi d X V II I 3 ; X I X 1 ; XX I 1 3 7 ; XX III 22 2 5 32 ; XX IV 32 36 48
S C M g I 337
As
l XXX V 1 ; XXX VI 1 7 ; XXX VII Pa t 2 1
s
embly J u
I bid XVIII 3 ; XX II 3 ; XX III 1 ; X X IV 1 1 8 ; X XV 2 7 ; XXX II 1 ; XXX II
P t2 0
h uld b bo n in mi nd th t m s
t of th weal thy p l ante s f S ut h C a olina
It s
Charles
id n in add it ion t t h i p l n t t i n es
iden o s
id n s
t n
s
ha d
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
’
,
.
,
.
-
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
.
e
4'
‘7
.
,
.
,
.
.
r a
o
,
,
,
,
a
.
,
ar
,
'0
3
15
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
rna
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
r
,
,
,
,
0
.
.
.
,
o
,
re
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
e
o
o
re
r e
e
ce
a
o
e r
r
e
o
a
a
o
r
ce
o
r re
o
e
r
ce
.
SOUTH C AROLI N A
226
sented his paris h continu o usly from 1 739 to 1 745 I n 1 746
(M arc h ) he was c h osen by both St J a m es and St P aul He
c h ose to represent St James From 1 746 to 1 748 he re p re
sented hishome parish but in 1 749 he w aselected representa
tive by both it an d P ri nce William but he c h ose to serve for
For the session o f 1 749 50 h e w asagain
hishome parish
elected by these two pari s
hes but he again chose to repre sent
the paris h where he resided 51
Christopher Gadsen merchant and planter and o n e of the
best educated me n in the province l a ter promine n t in the
Revolution 52 represented St Philip s Charleston probably
his home parish in seven assemblies between 1 757 and
but in 1 7 62 and again in 1 7 65 he represented St Paul s
Parish 54
David Graeme o f Charleston 55 represented Christ Church
Parish continuously b e tween 1 754 a n d 1 7 6 1 At the election
for the assembly o f 1 7 60 6 1 however he was also elected by
Prince Willi a m but chose to represent Christ Church 56
James Graeme wa sa prominent roya l o fficial having been a
member o f the council a n d chief j ustice of the province I n
(Septe mber ) 1 742 a n d again in 1 743 he represented St
Philip Charleston From 1 749 to 1 75 1 he represented St
George Dorchester "7
T he place o f residence o f Edwa rd Harleston can not be
positively stated but it was probabl y in the parish of St
Thom as and St D e nis
He represented that parish from
1 745 to 1 74 7
I n the election for the assembly o f 1 746 47 he
was a lso elected by St John Berkeley bu t he chose to rep re
sent S t Thom a s and St Denis The next year
how
ever he did represent S t John 58
smbly J u l X II 9S ; X I II 245 ; X IV 4 ; X VII P f XX I 1 348 36 7 45 1
As
XX II 3 ; XX IV 26 4 18 ; X X V i 1 47
f S C
IV
C ll H isS
smbly J u l XXX II 1 ; XXX II P t 2 1 ; XXX II I Pa t 2 3 X Xx V I I
As
P t 3 P f ; XXX VIII 8 ; XXX I X 1 ; XXX I X p t 2 P f
1 bid XXX V P t 2 I ; XXX VI I P t 2 l
S C M g I II 62
As
embly J u
l XXX 263 ; X XX I 3 ; XXX I I 2 7 ; XXX II P t 2 0 ; XX XII I
P t Z ;
" I bid
XVIII 3 ; X I X 1 ; XX I V 89 ; XX V 1 ; XXVI 5
I bid XX I 1 2 26 ; XX I I 3 1 0 9 5 ; XX II I 1
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
-
.
,
.
,
,
’
,
.
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
.
-
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
u
e
.
o
in
ar
rna
o
.
‘1
u
,
io
o
.
a
.
,
,
o
rna
,
H
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
ar
,
,
,
ar
'
,
,
.
.
,
.
re
,
‘
I
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
ar
,
'
.
re
,
.
,
,
ar
,
,
.
,
,
,
1
.
,
.
.
.
.
rn a
o
re
,
,
oc
.
.
.
,
,
e
,
ar
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
ar
,
,
SOUTH CAROL I NA
228
the assembly of 1 746 47 he d id serve for St George Dor
chester and was again elected by that parish in 1 748 bu t
refused to serve
From 1 756 to 1 76 1 he represented St
George Dorchester continuously “
Another member of the I zard family who had a long
record as a representative was Wal ter I z ard
He lived at
Cedar Grove in St George Parish
H is name sometimes
appears in the records of the time as Wal ter I zard Jr or
Colonel Walter I z ard H is legislative experience began by
his representing his parish in 1 746 I n 1 749—50 he represented
Prince William a nd in 1 754 55 and aga in in 1 7 55 56 St
James Goose Creek
I n the election fo r the assembly o f
1 7 57 58 he was e l e cted both by his own parish a n d by St
James Goose Creek He chose to serve for his own parish 65
Captain John Lloyd w ho lived in Amel ia Townsh ip66
now Calhoun County a n d who took a n active part in the
military affa irs o f the province represented St Helena from
F o r the session o f 1 754 1 7 55 he was chosen by
1 748 to 1 751
both St Andrew s Parish and St J ohn Colleton He took
hisseat as a representative of the l a tter and continued to
serve for it until 1 7 57 when he decl ined to serve after being
elected for th a t session 67 I n 1 7 68 and again in 1 769 he re p re
sented St M ichael s Parish
Gabriel M anigault a Charleston merchant and a member
of one o f the best known families o f the province fi rst served
in the assembly fo r St Philip s parish in 1 7 33 and again in
1 745
I n 1 748 a n d from 1 75 1 to 1 7 53 he represented St
Thomas and St Denis For the session o f 1 75 1 52 he had also
been elected by St Philip s but had chosen to serve for St
Thomas and St Denis 6 8
Peter M anigault also a Charleston resid ent began his
legislative experience by serving for hishome parish St
-
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
-
-
.
,
.
,
-
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
-
.
’
.
.
.
,
.
’
.
.
,
,
,
’
.
.
.
.
-
.
’
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
As
smbly J u l XX I 1 35 53 7 9 ; XX I I 3 ; XX I II 1 6 48 ; XXX I 5 X XX II
i ; X XX II P t 2 o; x x x m P t 2 3
I bid
XX I 7 9 ; XX V 543 ; XXX 2 ; XXX I 2 ; XXX I I 1 5
t i ca l
nd Ge ne l gi al M g
S C H is
in III 98
" As
smbly Jou n l XX IV 34 ; XX V 1 ; XX VI 5 ; XXX 1 7 20 3 1 XXX I 3
XX X I I 1
" ma x x x 1 ; x x m
1 ; XX VI I 5 s33 ; XX V II I s
u
e
o
,
u
06
.
,
.
.
ar
.
,
ar
.
,
or
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
a o
c
.
,
a
,
,
,
az
,
,
e,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
"
.
.
,
a
r a
e
.
rn a
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
SOUTH CAROL I NA
229
’
Philip s in 1 755 56 but from that date until 1 7 7 2 he rep re
sented St Thomas and St Denis almost constantly During
seven years o f this time he was the speaker o f the house 69
I saac M a zyck o f Charleston had o n e o f the longe st
legislative records o f a n y m a n in the province a n d certainly
the most varied re cord as a n o n resident repre sentative
From 1 740 to 1 742 he represented his home pa rish St Phil ip s
I n Septe mber 1 742 howe ver he was elected by three pa rishes
St Philip s Prince George Winya w and St J ohn Berkeley
He chose to serve fo r Prince Ge orge I n 1 745 he represented
Prince Frederick I n the session o f 1 746—1 747 he w a selected
by St J ohn Berkeley 7 0 While serving fo r the latter he was
elected in January 1 747 as t he representative o f St Jam e s
Goose Creek He chose however to continue to serve fo r
St John I n 1 748 he w a sagain elected by three parishes
Princ e Fre derick St James S a ntee and St J ohn Berkeley
He chose to serve fo r t he first o n e mentioned Prince Frederick
elected him again in 1 749 but he re f used to quali f y He did
represent that parish the following session but refused to
qualify fo r the session o f 1 750—5 1 I n the se ssion o f 1 7 52 53
he represented St J ames Goose Creek and in that o f 1 7 56 5 7
St Thomas a nd St Denis From 1 7 58 to 1 77 1 he repre sented
St John Berkeley almost continuously 7 1
The election o f J a mes M ichie as a member o f the Commons
House of Assembly could scarcely h a ve been possible in a n y
other colony M ichie was a royal o fficial an appointee o f the
crown yet he r e presented St Philip s in six a ssemblies tw o
M oreove r fo r two o f these a s
o f wh ich he w a sspe a ker
St Helena in
s
e m blie she was chosen by outlying parishes
but in each case he chose
1 7 5 1 and Prince William in
to serve fo r St Philip s
73
Henry M iddletown who l ived a t M iddletown Place
“ As
smbly J u n l XXX I 3 ; XXX II XXX I X
I bi d X III 2 45 ; X IV 4 ; X VII P f
; X VIII 3 1 5 1 7 2 5 40 ; XX 1 ; XX II
3 2 70 283
I bi d XX II 3 2 70 283 ; XX III 1 9 1 1 1 3 32 ; XX IV 1 8 ; XX V 1 ; XX VI 5 ;
XX VIII 5 ; XXX I 25 ; XXX II 1 ; XXX III P t 2 3 ; XXX V 1 ; XXX VII P t
2 1 ; XXX VIII 29 4 7 0
" I bid
XVI II 3 ; X I X 1 ; XX VI I 5 9 1 ; XX VIII 1 ; XXX 2 2 4
S C M g i I 239
-
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
-
.
’
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
-
.
-
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
’
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
’
.
.
,
,
e
o
r a
7°
.
,
,
,
,
.
re a ce
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
7‘
.
,
,
,
.
a
az n e ,
,
,
,
,
ar
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
7'
-
,
,
,
.
ar
SOUTH CARO LI NA
230
the largest landholder in South Carolina I t is
said he had fifty thousand acres d istributed among tw enty
plantations and manned by eight h undred slaves He never
represented any parish but St George Dorch ester for which
he served in six sessions of the assembly between 1 742 and
but in 1 749 and again in 1 749 50 he w a selected to
represent St James Goose Creek but each time he refused to
qualify 7 5
Another prominent member of the M iddletown family was
Thomas M iddletown
H e was a merchant banker and
76
planter and made his home a t Charl e ston and Beaufort
early years in the assembly were a sa representative from
H is
St James Goose Creek He represented this parish from
From 1 7 5 1 to 1 753 and again in 1 755 he re p re
1 742 to 1 748
sented St B a rtholomew I n 1 7 57 a n d 1 758 he w a selected
for Prince William and for the session o f 1 760—61 he was chosen
by both Prince William and St Hel e n a He chose to re p re
sent the former I n 1 7 62 he was elected by both St Ph il ip
and St M ichael but chose to serve for the latter 7 7
William M oultrie represented St J ohn Berkeley con
ly from 1 75 1 to
I n 1 7 6 1 and again in 1 7 62 he
tin uo us
represented Prince Frederick and in 1 7 63 St Hel e na
In
1 7 65 he w a sa ga in chos e n to represent Prince Frederick b ut
d id not take his seat as he removed f rom the province to be
come Chie f J ustice o f Ea st Florida 7 9
Charl e s Pinckney a Charleston lawy er represented
Christ Church Parish f rom 1 753 to 1 759 I n 1 7 60 he re p re
sented St Philip s ; from 1 7 6 1 to 1 7 65 he was o n e of the
representatives o f St M ichael s while f rom 1 7 68 to 1 7 73 he
represented St Phil ip s again 80
As
smbly J u n l X VIII —XXX I
" I bid
XX IV 24 ; XX V 1 94 2 1 3
S C M g i n I 26 1
" As
smbly J u n l X VIII 3 ; X I X 1 ; XX I 1 ; XX II 3 ; XX I II 1 ; X XV I I 5 ;
XXV III 5 ; XXX I 3 ; XXX II 1 ; XXX IV 1 3 ; X X X V 1 5
" I bid
XXVII —XXX II
I bid XXX I V 236 ; XXX V 1 ; XXXV I 256 ; XXXVII 8
x x x 4 ; XXX I 3 ; XXX II 1 ; XXX II —P t 2 o; X X XII I P ar t 2 3 ;
X XXIV 1 ; XXXV 1 ; XXXVII P t 2 1 ; XXXV II Part 3 Prefa ; XXXIX 1 ;
XXX I X P t 2 P f
wa sperhaps
.
.
,
,
.
-
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
’
.
’
.
,
’
.
7‘
e
r a
o
.
,
.
,
,
e
o
,
r a
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
a az
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
e.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
ar
7°
.
.
.9
,
,
,
,
,
7'
.
re ace
ar
.
,
.
,
ar
,
,
.
,
,
,
ce
.
,
SOUTH CAROL I N A
232
eleven provided for a biennial assembly which wasto consist
of the same number o f m e mbers as the congress whic h framed
the instrument This number was apportioned among t h e
parishes The methods o f e lection and the qualifi ca tions for
electors and representatives were those o f the law of 1 759
The above constitution like most of the Revol utionar y
ones was hastily drawn and was not submitted to t h e peopl e
titu
for ratification So two years later 1 778 anoth er co ns
tion wasadopted which was unique from th e stand point of
this study in that it definitely provided for n o n residence
representation After naming the pa rishes of the sta te and
enumerating th e number o f re pre se ntatives to which each was
entitled the qual ifica tions of electors and representatives were
sta ted in the following l a ngu a ge :
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
-
.
“
The qual ification o f electors shall be that every free
white man and n o other p e rson w ho acknowledges t h e being
of a God and believes in a f uture sta te o f rewards and punish
ments and w ho ha sa tt a in e d to the age o f o n e and twenty
years and hath be e n re sident a n d a n inhabitant in this state
fo r the space of o ne whole y e a r
and bat h a freehold
at least o f fifty a cres o f l a nd o r a town lo t and hath been
legally seized and posse sse d o f the s a m e at least six months
o r w a staxable t he present year
in a sum
equal to the tax o n fifty acres o f land
shall be deemed
a person qualified to vot e fo r
a representative or
representatives to s e rve a sa memb e r o r members in the
senate and house of repre senta tive s for the parish or d istrict
where he actually is a resident or in any other parish or
district in this state where he h a th the like freehold
No person shall be el igible to sit in the house of representa
tiv es
unless he be of the P rotesta nt religion and hath been a
resident in th is state fo r three ye a rs previous to h is election
The qualification of the el e cted if residents in the parish or
d istrict for which they shall be returned shall be the same as
mentioned in the election act and construed to mean clear
of debt B ut no n o n —resid e nt sh all be eligible to a seat in the
house o f representatives unless he is the owner o f a settled
estate and freehold in his o w n right o f the value of t h ree
thousand and five h undre d pounds curre ncy at least clear of
” 3“
debt in the parish o r district fo r which he is elected
Statutesat La ge I 1 40 141
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
r
.
,
-
.
SOUTH CAROL I NA
233
I n the above it isinteresting to note the very heavy
property qualification demanded o f o n e who wished to stand
for election a sa non resident in comparison to the property
qual ification o f a resident ca ndidate While the actu a l work
ing out of this new law regarding representa tion is beyond the
province of this study it is quite evident that under it the va st
maj ority of representatives chose n by the parishes would be
residents B ut it is j ust a sevident also that the big plantation
owners who owned land in severa l parishes a nd who l ive d most
of the year in Charleston would continue to be chosen at
times as the representatives o f parishes where their hold ings
lay
Such was the law in South Carolina regarding the
residence of representatives until Article 1 Section 1 3 of the
Constitution o f 1 865 establ ished a residence q ualifica tio n 87
id n v ti n g h d b n b lis
h d by l w in 1 833 (St tutest L g I
N
es
-
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
'7
on r
-
e
ce
o
a
ee
a
o
e
a
a
a
ar e ,
,
GE O R G I A
The legislative history of Georgia di ffers from that of any
other province The ch a rter to Oglethorpe and his associates
constituting them
.
The Trustees
”
America
“
in
of
establishing the colony
fo r
Georgia
,
ga ve the company the express right to make laws for the
province An a ssembly o f the freemen or freeholders of the
province was not mentioned
Under this instrument the
people had no voice in m a king the laws u nder which they
were governed
I n fa ct there were practically no laws
Each em e rgency in the provi nce was met by specific directions
from England I n twenty years only th ree laws were passed
by the company ; o n e relating to I ndian trade o n e to sale and
importation o f rum a n d o n e to slaves 1
As is well known the charter o f 1 732 limited the authority
2
After that period al l
o f the Trustees to twenty o n e years
the powers and privileges o f the company in the province
were to pass to the king Aswe shall s
e e l a ter the trustees
even before this period had el a psed were more than will ing to
be f ree from the burdens wh ich the province b rough t them
Reference to an assembly in the ch a rter of 1 732 was probably
purposely omitted in the hope o f avoiding the contests over
provincial m a tters which such a body always caused
Ex
p e rie nce o f a few y e ars however caused some members of the
company to see the other side of the question that is the
advantages of an assembly
The matter is first m e ntioned in 1 750 in a report to the
Common Council of the company by a Committee o f Cor
respondence which had been appointed to make a complete
study o f conditions in the province and to report with s
ug
gestions as to methods of improvement The report in b rief
wa sthat in View of the scattered settlements in Georgia and
M c in 1 76
in G
D ig s
h St tut sin f
gi (Schl y Ed iti n) 429 446
t of E n gli s
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
-
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
1
2
c
a
e
,
.
a
e
o rce
eo r
234
a
e
o
,
-
.
GEO RG I A
236
which was the governor or in hisabsence the president of th e
council
This proposal after being approved by the Common Cou n
cil w a sadopted by the Trustees on J une 26
Word was
a t once sent to the province and a n assembly met o n J anuary
I t wa scomposed o f sixteen deputies representin g
1 5 1 75 1
eleven villages o r districts
The growing demand in the
province fo r a voice in their o w n a ffairs is shown by the
”
“
by l a ws to
a ssembly s request o f the privilege o f making
be in force in the province until disapproved by the Trustees
The requ est w a sn o t gran ted Th is account of the fi rst a s
been given n o t because it is i ntegrally
s
e m bly o f Georgia ha s
re lated to the assemblies which later met under roya l a uthority
but because it furnished s e veral important p recedents which
were evidently taken into con sideration when King George
decided t o grant the province an assembly
According to the terms of their charter the authority o f the
Trustees d id not expire until J une 9 1 7 53 bu t by J une 1 752
they had determined to su rrender the charter I n the interim
while a form o f government w a sbeing determined upon
authority in the province was exercised by the presid ent and
assistants I n M arch 1 7 54 the Lords Committee o f Trad e
6
a nd Plantations submitted a plan of governm e nt to the king
wh ich w a sa pproved in August C a pta in J ohn Reynold s was
appointed governor and the government w astransferred to
him by the president and a ssistants on October 30 1 754
I n suggesting a plan the Lords Committee ga ve its opinion
that o f the d ifferent constitutions in America that form o f
government in those colonies more immediately subj ect to
“
”
h
the crown was t e most proper form o f government fo r
Georgia A council o f twelve similar in power and co n
s
titu tio n to that of the other provinces w a s
suggested and a
governor
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
’
-
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
“
,
with powers and d irections to call an assembly
p a ss laws
.
‘
M cC ain
J
o ne
sI
,
19 1
,
.
460 46 1
-
,
.
to
237
GEORG I A
Ashas been said above th e suggested plan was adopted
.
Legislative authority was divided into three parts : 7
(1 ) Ki ng s Governor
(2) King s Council
(3) Commons House o f Assembly
’
,
’
,
.
The formation o f election districts as well as the l e ngth of
time each member should serve were evidently left to the
governor a n inheritance from the assembly o f 1 75 1 All
secondary sources definitely state o r impl y that Governor
Reynolds I nstructions contained the qualifications f or electors
and fo r members o f the Commons House o f Assembly 8
Shortly after arriving in the province Governor Reynolds
issued writs to twelve communities o r villages fo r the election
of eigh teen representatives The writs contained the q ua lifica
tions for both electors and representative s To vote o n e had
to be twenty o n e years of a ge a n d be in possession of fifty
acres of land in the parish o r district where he off ered to vote
To be eligible fo r election a srepresentative o ne had to ow n
five hundred a cres in any part of the province 9 The above
are the familiar royal requireme nts f or su ff ra ge ; permitting
both n o n resident voting a n d non resident representation
The assembly which met in response to the a bove call
convened at Savannah J a nuary 7 1 7 55
Al though the
people of Georgia had had no legislative experienc e the first
assembly took a position al most from its opening day which
brought it into line with the other provincial assembl ies and
also brought it into conflict with the governor This w asthe
assertion of its right to pass o n the qualifications o f its mem
bers Governor Reynold s s a id of them :
,
.
’
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
-
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
H
they expect to have the same privileges
” 10
House of Commons in Gre a t B ritain
a
sthe
.
On January 29 a Remonstrance and Add ress to the king was
drawn up asking for the privilege of determining t he su ff rage
C l R s X III 3
G
t ppe
i th G
I h v fail d to find th I ns
gi C l onial
t u t i ns T he y d
s A d ws sb i g th P ubl i
t d by P f s
m us i p t lis
is
s
u h
Re
ds i t h
t i
s i t i n 19 1 3 32 1
Reco d Ofi
l As
(Ann u l Re p o t A m i n H i s
D yl I 40 5
G
C ol Re s X III 3
,
7
3
o
.
a
cor
ce
a
.
.
,
,
r c
e
e
c
er
an
a
o
o no
.
ro e
e
cr
or
ar
a
n
re
e
n
e n
a
.
r
'
e
ne
,
ec
.
.
a
.
.
c
r
er ca
l0
.
,
,
.
oc a
or ca
o
e,
,
o
.
,
.
eo r
in
a
o
e
c
GEORG I A
238
qualifications o i the province 11 Later a memorial wa s
adopted complaining of the q ualification sunder which t h e
members of the first assembly were elected The burden o f
this complaint was that it both d isfranchised and mad e in
capable o f being elected represen tative those whose property
happened to be located in a town Stevens says this w a s
remedied but nothing a ppears in the record s regarding it 1 2
I n fact the first and only la w on the subj ect of su ff rage re
t a in e d the original requirements
The law re fe rre d to was passed in 1 7 6 1
I ts titl e w a s
:
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
'
.
“
An Act to ascertain the m a nner and ffo rm o f electing
M embers to represent the I nhabitants of th is Province in
” 13
the Commons House o f Assembly
.
The preamble stated the manner of electing and the q ua lifica
tions o f electors and members had never been determined by
law The qualifications for voting were : tw enty one years of
age ; six month s residence in the province ; legal possession
"
f
f
o
fifty acres o l a nd in the Parish District or V illage
where o n e off ered hisvote
I n addition the elector w a s
compelled to ma ke oath th a t h is freehold had not been made
over to him o n purpose to qualify him for voting
The qualifica tions fo r a representa tive were :
-
.
’
“
,
,
.
.
“
Th a t he sh a ll be a fre e born subj ect o f Great B ritain o r
o f the dominion thereunto belonging o r a ffo re ign person
Natura lize d professing the Christi a n R e ligion and no other
and th a t hath arrived a t the Age o f Twenty On e Years and
hath b e e n a Resid e nt in this Province fo r twelve M onths
before the date o f the said Writ and being legally possessed
in his o w n Righ t in this Province o f a Tract o f Land co n
” 14
taining a t le a st ffiv e H undred Acres
-
.
I t will be noted th a t this law d id not change su ffrage
requirements from those l a id down in the writs issued by
Governor Reynolds As this was the only election act passed
by the Georgia legislature prior to the Revol ution non
residence representation was le ga l in the province from th e
5
C 0 1 R e s X III 42
G
C l R s X VII I 464 4 7 2
St v s I 4 1 2
I bid X VI II 467
.
:1
‘1
3
.
e
c
.
en
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
1’
a
.
o
.
ec
1‘
.
.
,
,
-
.
GEORG I A
240
A nd rew
St
.
1
’
.
Sapelo I sland
Darien
.
I ncluded
.
.
.
S t J a mesP aris
h
’
St Simon s I sland
’
.
.
.
1
h County
Now McI n to s
sP a ris
h
Frederica
.
S t Da vid
’
.
.
.
sP a ri s
h Northern Part Glynn County
.
.
S t P a tri ck sP ari s
h
Southern Part Glynn County
S t Thoma sP ari s
h
Northern Part Camden County
’
.
.
’
.
.
.
.
Southern part Camden County with
h
Ma ry sP a ris
isl a nds adj oining
’
St
.
.
.
The instances o f n o n residence representation which
follow h a ve been grouped into two classes :
-
(a ) Those showi ng r e presenta tion o f di ff erent settlements
within t he same pa rish
(b ) Those showing r e pr e senta tion o f d i ffe rent par i shes or
o f settlements within di ff erent parishes
,
.
.
Philip B o x whose place of residence isuncertain rep re
sented Ve rnonburg in 1 768 and Acton in 1 7 69 and 1 7 7 1
16
These were neighboring settlements on the Vernon River
J on a th a n B ryan a prominent resident of Savannah 1 6
and later active in Revolutionary ma tters represented Little
Ogeechee in 1 7 70 and Sava nn a h in 1 77 1 and
Lewis Johnson whose place o f residence cannot be d efin
ite ly determined is a n e xample o f both kinds o f non residence
representation I n 1 755 and 1 7 56 he represented Abercorn
and Goshen respective ly 1 8 These places were both in St
Matthew s Parish but in 1 7 6 1 J ohnson represented Savannah
which was in Christ Church Parish 1 9
Noble W J ones colonel of the provincial militia and a
prominent resident o f Savannah 2 0 also furnishes an example of
both kinds of non residence representa tion He represented
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
-
,
.
,
.
.
’
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
-
.
u
10
1’
Re s X I V 59 0 ; x v 6
Steve s II 104 ; K n ight I 33 1
G
C ol Recs X V 2 28 304 3 20
Ga
.
C ol
n
a
.
c
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
303
.
"
1°
.
,
.
.
3°
I bid X II I
X I II
I bid
St vens II
e
7
81
.
,
,
.
,
,
47 2
,
1 04 ; K n
,
.
.
.
ight II
,
,
228
.
GEO RG I A
24 1
Acton in 1 755 56 ; Ebenezer in St M atthew s Parish in 1 760 ;
and Savannah from 1 76 1 to
Henry Young represented the I slands in 1 755 56 ; Vernon
burg in 1 763 ; and the I slands again in
George Baillie (Bailly) who lived either in Savannah or
23
near there seems to have been in demand a sa representative
by distant parishes I n 1 7 64 he was elected by St Paul s but
declined I n 1 7 7 2 he w aselected by both Vernonburg and
St Thomas Parish He chose to serve for the latter He
w as
reelected by St Thomas the following year but declined
to serve 24
26
Edward Barnard of Augusta started hislegislative ex
After
p e rien ce by serving in the first assembly from Halifax
1 7 60 he continuously represented either Augusta o r the parish
of St Paul 2 6
Elisha Butler of Savannah “ wa sone of the largest land
holders o f the province He represented Ogeechee in 1 755
and 1 757 ; St Philip s Parish in 1 761 and was elected from
Ebenezer in 1 764 but declined to serve 2 8
Within four years Samuel Farley whose place of residence
isnot certain represented settlements in three d i ff erent
parishes : Ebenezer in 1 7 69 ; Great Ogeechee in 1 7 7 1 ; and
The I slands in
Sir Patrick Houston wasRegistrar of Grants and Receiver
of Quit Claims Asthe only titled man in the province it is
not strange that he w a selected to the assembly He lived
most of the time in Savannah but had a country seat nine
miles south 30 He was first elected by Vernonburg in 1 764
I n 1 769 he was chosen by St And rew s P arish ; in 1 77 1 by
both the parish and Darien but he declined The next year
the same places reelected him and he served 34
Ga C ol Re s X III 7 81 433 47 2 ; X IV 13 7 589 ; X V 303 320 3 26
I bid X II I 7 8 1 ; X IV 1 8 ; X V 336
Ga C l R s X IV 8 7 ; X V 32 7 364
K igh t I I 2 65
K night I 88 2
G
C l R e s X II I 7 433 540 ; X IV 1 5 8 ; X V 303 320 5 15
W ilsn 43
Ga C l R cs X I II 68 81 4 7 4 ; X IV 1 68
" l bid
X V 6 303 320
G
C ol R cs X I V 1 3 7 ; X V 2 1 308 336
K n ight I 388
’
-
.
-
,
,
’
.
.
.
’
.
.
.
’
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
’
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
’
.
.
.
’1
.
1'
.
n
'7
1'
o
o
.
3‘
c
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
o
ec
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
e
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
'1
16
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
o
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
a
c
.
.
a.
.
e
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
GEORG I A
242
William J ones whose place of residence cannot be d efi
represented St John s in 1 765 ; St J ohn s and
n ite ly fixed
M idway in 1 768 a n d St George s in
John M ulry n e of Savannah ” wa san a rd ent royalist
He served in the assembly for the I slands in 1 7 65 1 768 and
1 7 69
I n 1 761 however he served for St J ohn s Parish and
in 1 7 63 was elected for the vill ages o f Abercorn and Goshen
but declined to s e rve 34
Peter S alle rsserved for th ree di ff erent parishes within a
space of five years St J oh n s in 1 7 68 ; St Patrick s in 1 7 7 2 ;
and St Thoma s in
John Simpson a resident o f S a vannah 36 served for either
Frederica o r Frederica and St James Parish combined from
1 7 65 to 1 7 69
I n 1 772 however he represented St George s 3 7
Alexander Wy lly w a sa prominent man o f the province
and was speaker o f the a ssembly at o n e time H is place of
residence cannot be definitely loca ted but everyth ing points
to Sava nnah I n 1 7 6 1 he represented St George s Parish and
in 1 7 64 a n d a ga in in 1 7 68 Savann a h 38
Will i a m Young o f Sava nnah 39 began his career as a
legislator by representing an out lying district Ebene z er in
1 7 68
I n Octob e r 1 7 69 he served for his home town b ut the
next month he a ppears as a representa tive fo r St And rew s
Parish
Later in 1 7 7 1 a n d 1 7 72 he again served fo r S a
vannah 40
The large number o f instances o f non residence re p re
s
e n ta t io n in Georgia
within a sp a ce o f tw enty years from
the first legislature to the point where the records are not
co mplete and reli a ble isstriki ng And yet it isnot surprising
when o ne ke e ps in mind two o r three things
First the theory of su ff rage and represen tation in the prov
C l R s X IV 2 33 6 1 6 ; X V 336
G
S t v ns 1 1 1 06
"G
C l R s X II I 5 6 1 ; X IV 7 4 2 59 589 ; X V 7
I bid X IV 59 0 ; X V 320 40 4
1 06
St
ns II
"G
C l R s X IV 22 7 494 ; X V 1 8 336
" I bi d
X III 546 ; X IV 1 3 7 6 1 3
" St v
s II 1 07
G
C l Re s X IV 589 ; X V 6 2 1 303 320
,
’
’
.
.
,
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
.
’
’
.
.
.
’
.
,
,
’
.
’
.
,
.
,
.
.
’
.
.
,
.
,
,
-
,
.
,
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
.
-
,
,
,
.
.
,
'1
e
a
e
.
e
a
.
.
,
ec
.
,
.
,
o
en
ec
.
,
o
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
‘0
,
ev e
a
ec
.
o
.
3°
u
o
a.
c
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
C O N C LUSI O N
S I N C E a summary of the practice of each sta te regard ing non
residence representation ha sbeen given at the close of each
chapter no t much remains to be said Perhaps it will be well
to outline briefly what w a sthe practice of each state
.
.
New Hampshire : N o n residence representation w a sp rac
tic e d only when the towns o f the province were r e presented
in the M a ssachusetts Genera l Court A residential req uire
ment w asincluded in the Constitution of 1 783
M assachus e tts : Pra ctice d extensively from the beginning
of the colony until forbidd e n by law o f 1 693
New Plymouth : N o non re sidence repre sentation
Rhode I sland :
Practiced extensively th ro ughout its
coloni a l period A residential req uirement was incl uded in
the Constitution o f 1 783
New Have n : N o n o n residence representation
Conn e cticu t :
Practiced extensively throughout the
whole colonial period N o t forbidd e n until the Constitu tion
o f 1818
New York : Practiced throughout its whole provincial
period despite the law o f 1 699 forbidding it N o residential
requirem e nt for re presentatives to d a y
New J e rsey : Not practiced prior to 1 702 Between 1 702
and 1 7 1 0 severa l citizens of N ew York w ho owned l arge
tracts of land in New Jersey s
a t in its assembly
A residential
qu a lification established in 1 7 10
Pennsylvania : N o non residence representation
Delaware : No non residence representa tion
M aryland : N o n o n residence representation
Virginia : No non residence representation except d uring
the period of reaction 1 676 1 692
-
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
,
.
-
.
.
.
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
-
,
.
North Carolina : No non residence representation d u ri ng
the proprietary period and fo r several years thereafter After
1 743 it was practiced until the Constitution o f 1 7 77 virtu
ally ended it Absolutely prohibited by Constitution of 1 868
-
.
.
.
244
CONCLUS I ON
245
South Carolina : Pra ctic e d e xte nsively throughout colonial
p e riod and into period of statehood
Forbidden by C o n
s
t i tu t io n o f 1 865
.
.
Georgia : Practiced from
by Constitution o f 1 7 77
t he
a
ssembly
1 7 55
until f orbidden
.
A careful reading o f the list j ust given will show three con
t iguo u s
provinces in which there Wa snever any non re sidence
representation the proprietory provinces o f Pennsylvania
Delaware and M aryland I n all the other colonies (excepting
New Plymouth and New Haven ) non residence representa tion
w a spracticed at some time in its history
The above fact suggests that there may have been a
d i fference in the origin and constitution of the legisl a tures of
the d i fferent kind of colonie
That was the case
I t is doubtful i f very m a ny of those interested in planti ng
colonies in America in the seventeenth century ever fore saw the
development of the legislature a sa n integral and necessary
part of the colonial political machinery While they ha d the
example of Parli a ment before them it is hardly probable that
this suggested to them representative assemblies
La ter it
is true however that legislatures fighting fo r their rights and
privileges often called a ttention to the privileges o f Pa rlia
ment So it is within the realm o f prob a bility at least to
say that the colonial legislatures developed as a resul t of social
and political conditions in the colonies As cond itions and
o
no
circumstances d i ffered from colony to colony s
two
legisla tures assumed the s a me form and pol itical practice
d ifferéd materially from colony to colony
I n the corporate colonies the legislature wa ss imply an en
largement and development o f the stockholders meeting of
the corporation
I n the proprietary colonies it was an instrument used by
the proprietors to make more easy their task both of getting
colonists and o f keeping them contented after they had them
I n the royal provinces it was a piece o f administrative
machinery grud gingly granted by the crown for the reason
-
,
,
,
.
-
.
s
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
CO N CLUS I ON
246
that administration o f government would have been practically
impossible without it
The variations in political practice from colony to colony
resulted in some surprising similarities between col onies of
opposite type and vice versa For example in the two extra
royal colonies of New York and South Carolina we have found
the custom o f using non —resident representatives in imitation
of the practice o f the mother country w ascommon and long
continued But why should that practice have been followed
j ust as e xtensively by the corporate colonies M assachusetts
Rhode I sland and Connecticut ? and why should V irginia
which is usually pointed o ut as a n ide a l example of royal
administration have consistently opposed the practice ?
These are questions which only a study o f the whole social
background o f colonial life can answer
One fact however stands out very clearly in connection
with the subj ect o f representation in the colonial legislatures
That is that in the beginning except in three colonies it was
property n o t people which was represented I n the provinces
settled by Penn and Calvert a new idea crept into the meaning
”
of the word representa tion but the older idea asserted itsel f
as soon as the influence o f the origin a l proprietors weakened
The proof o f the above is the steady and insistent pressure
which was brought to bear by r o yal authority fo r the estab
hmen t of a property qualification fo r electors
lis
Royal in
s
tructio n s and commissions iterated a n d reiterated that
“
”
election must be by freeholders
I t was in the distinctly royal colonies that th is idea of
representation found its greatest expression in practice I n
New York and South Carolina the assembl ies were d ominated
by wealthy men living in the capital city someti mes mer
chants and lawyers but alwa ys great land holders I n the
latter this condition seems to have been accepted as a matter
of course but in the former where the practice was con
tin ually being challenged we find the arguments by wh ich it
“
was j ustified
Could not one vote wherever he owned
”
“
property ?
I f no t was that not taxation without rep re
.
-
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
“
.
.
.
.
,
,
-
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
B I B LI O GR A PH Y
e sN e w Yo rk
M idd l eto w n U pper H o us
ADAMS C C
A DAMS NATHAN I EL
AL E X A N D ER D S
.
,
,
.
1 908
,
.
A T WA TER ED WARD E
mo ut h E x ete 1825
A nna l so f Po rts
A P o l i t i c l H is
t o y f t he St at o f N w Yo rk
3 o l N w Yo k 1 906
H is
t y o f t he C l ny o f N e w H a v n N e w
AR N O L D S
H a ve n
H is
t o ry
v
.
e
,
G
1 859
BARBER J OHN WARN ER
,
.
1 88 1
,
v ol
.
Yo rk
N ew
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
B I SHO P C T
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
J OHN L EE D S
,
2
,
,
,
AN
e
,
,
Bo
.
,
Rh o d e I s
l an d
of
,
H is
to ri ca l C o ll ect i o n so f t he St a te o f N e w
Yo rk N ew Yo rk 1851
A uto bio gra p h y 2 v o l N ew Yo rk 1 864
H is
h i re 2 v ol P h i l a
t o ry o f N e w H a m p s
d el p h ia 1 784
in the A m erica n Co l o n i es
H is
to ry O f E l ect i o ns
N ew Y o rk 1893
s
Re p o rt o f t he Reco rd C o mm i s
io n ers o f
t o n R eco rd s
B os
fro m 1 660
to n co n t a i n i n g B o s
Bos
1 70 1
t o n 1881
H is
t o ry o f M a ry l a n d B a l t i mo re 183 7
A C o ll ect i o n o f C o l o n i a l L a w sn o t fo un d in
o t h e r e di t i o n s C a n be fo un d in t he C h a rl e
m a g ne To w er Co ll e ct i o n o f C o l o n i a l La w in
t h e L ib ra ry o f t he P e n n s
y l va n ia H is
t o rica l
S o ci e t y
H is
to ry o f P l y mo ut h P l a n t a t i o n
E dit e d b y
C h a rl esD e a ne B o s
t o n 1856
T he co m pa ct w i t h t he C h a rte r a n d L a w s
o f t he
Co l o ny o f N e w P l y mo ut h B o s
t o n 1 836
H is
t o ry o f t he S t a t e o f N e w Y o rk 2 v o l
N e w Y o rk 1 853 a n d 1 87 1
H is
to ry o f Wa t e rb ury Wa t e rb ury 1 858
T he F i rs
t R e p ub l i c in A m e ri ca C a m b rid g e
.
B EEC H ER L Y MAN
B E L K N A P J ERE MY
B OS TON
e
e
o
.
,
,
.
o o
,
.
r
or
,
,
r
a
.
,
r,
,
,
.
,
B RADF ORD PR I N TS
.
,
,
.
.
B RAD F ORD WI LL I AM
.
,
B RI GHAM W I LL I AM
,
.
,
,
B RODHEAD J
,
.
R
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
B RO N S O N HE N RY
B RO WN AL EX AN DER
,
,
,
.
,
,
1898
,
,
.
t it ut io n a l H is
B RUC E PH IL I P ALE XAN DE R (a ) I ns
to ry O f V i rg i n ia in t he
Se ve nt ee nt h C e n t ury 2 v o l N ew Y o rk a n d
Lo n d o n 1 9 10
(b ) So cia l L i fe o f V irg i n i a in the Se ven tee nt h
C e nt ury R ich mo n d 1907
B R Y C E J A ME S C
A merican Co mmo n w ea l t h 2 v o l Seco n d
Edit io n N ew Yo rk 19 1 2
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
248
,
.
.
,
B I B L I OGRAPHY
249
t C e nt ury o f t he H i s
F irs
t o ry o f S p ri n g
fie l d 2 v o l S pri ng fie l d 1899
CAL E N DAR OF STA T E PAPE RS C o lo n ia l 1 6 7 7 1680 E dite d b y N W Se i ns
b ury a nd J W Fo rte s
cue Lo n d o n 1896
C AL E N DAR OF STA TE PAPE RS C Olo n la l 1693 1696 E dit ed b y J W Fo rtes
cue Lo n d o n 1 903
CHA N DL ER J A C
e n tat io n in V i rg i n i a
Re pre s
J o hn H o p kins
U n ivers
ity Studie s B a l t imo re 1 896
CO N N E C T IC U T
(a ) Re co rd so f C o l o n y o f C o nn ect icut E dite d
b y J H a m mo n d Trum b ull a nd C J H o a d l e y
1 5 v o l H a rt fo rd 1850 1 890
(b ) P ub l ic Reco rd s o f t he Sta te o f C o n
nect icut
Octo b er 1 7 76 to Fe b rua ry 1 778
E dit ed b y C J H o a d l ey 2 v o l H a rt fo rd
B URT H M
,
The
.
,
.
,
,
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
-
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
-
.
,
,
.
.
.
1 892
.
.
,
a
er
an
er
a
o
a
a
r
ar
.
c
e
e
.
,
ene
r
r
e
or
r
D E WE S
SI R
,
ec
r
.
S I M ON D S
r
r
a
L a w so f
t he
1 7 97
v ol
Sta t e
of
.
,
e
er
.
De l a w a re
.
,
fro m
1 700 t o
Ne w cas
t l e 1 79 7
e of Co m
J o urna l o f H o us
e o f L o rd s
a n d H o us
mo n sd uri n g re i g n o f E l i za bet h L o n d o n 1 69 3
A Summa ry H is
t o ri ca l a n d Po l i t ica l o f t he
B rit is
h Sett l e me n t s in N o rt h Ameri ca
2 v o l B os
t o n 1 7 55
H is
to ry O f H a m pto n 2 v o l Sa l e m 1 895
h in Ame ri ca 2 v o l L o n d o n 1887
The E n g l i s
H is
to ry o f t he N ew N et h e rl a n d sPro v i nce o f
N ew Yo rk a n d Sta te o f N ew Yo rk t o the
t it ut io n 2 v o l
a d o p t io n o f t he F e d era l C o ns
N e w Y o rk 1839
T he R i s
e a n d G ro w t h o f A me ri ca n Po l it i cs
N ew Yo rk 1 9 1 1
2
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
D O U GL A S W ILL I AM
a e
e
r
r
.
,
,
r
er
o
.
r ce e
o
,
a
e
ar
r
v
o
ra
o
o
.
,
r
.
,
o
e
r
.
r
r
.
a
’
,
Actsa n d L w so f t he State o f C o n
n ect i ut in A m
ica H a t fo d 1 786
(d ) Act s d L w s f t he St te f C n n ect i cut
in A m ic
H t fo d 1 796
(e ) T he P ub l ic St t ut L a w s f t h St te o f
Co n n ct i ut H a t fo d 1808
— w ee k l y— H
t ford
n
f
T
h
C
u
t
()
di ngso f t he C o n
(g ) J o u n a l o f t he P o
t 26
d at H a t f d Aug us
e n t i n co n v
t itu
1 8 1 8 fo t h p u p o s
e o f fo mi n g a C o n s
th
St t o f
t io n o f C i v i l Go v n m e n t fo
C n n t icut H a t fo d 1 873
M id n 1 870
H is
t o y o f W ll i n g fo d
c
,
,
.
(c)
D AV I S
H
D EL AWARE
.
,
,
.
.
J O S E PH
D OYL E J A
D U N L A P W ILL I AM
Do w,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
FORD HE N RY J O N E S
.
,
,
.
B I B L I OG RAPHY
250
H a m ps
h i re asa Ro ya l P ro vince C o l um
ity St ud y N ew Yo rk 1 908
bia U n i vers
t ica l
Studi esin t he C i vi l Socia l and Eccles
ia s
H is
t o ry o f E a rl y Ma ry la n d N ew Yo rk 1 893
h Stat uteso f fo rce
t o f t he E n g l is
(a ) A Dige s
in t he Sta t e o f G eo rg i a in 1 7 76 Wm Sch l e y
E dito r P h i la d e l p h ia 1826
(b ) C o l o n ia l Reco rd so f t he Sta te o f Geo rg ia
24 v o l A ll en D C h a n d l er Co m p i l e r At l a n ta
W H
F RY,
N ew
.
,
GAMB RAL L RE V
,
TH E O C
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
GE ORG I A
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
1 904 19 1 5
-
.
GRI ME sJ
B RYA N
.
,
Abs
t a
1 9 10
H AN S O N GE ORG E A
N o rt h C aro l i n a W i ll s Ra l e i g h
of
r ct
.
,
.
Ea s
t e rn Sh o re
Old K e n t : T he
,
B a l t i mo re 1 876
H is
t o rica l Co ll ect io n s 2
,
,
.
1 7 92
H A Z ARD SA MUEL
e
a re ,
.
,
,
e
or
.
.
.
.
o
e
a
,
,
e,
o rr
e
r
ec
e
,
o
e
.
c
,
.
,
r
.
,
o
.
e
.
e
,
o
.
a
,
c
a
.
v
.
ro
H o wE s
HE N RY
,
P h i l ad e l p h ia
,
e
-
r
e c
H OLL I STER G H
H O WE LL G
.
a
r
.
,
v ol
An n l so f P n n s
y l v n ia fro m t h Diso v ry o f
P h i l d e l p h ia 1 850
1 609 1682
t he D l w
Pat ick H e n y L i f C es
p n d n e a nd
S p e h s 3 o l N w Yo k 1 89 1
H is
H art fo d 1857
t y f Co n n t icut
t ry o f Al ba n y
J o n t ha n H is
nd T nn y
f m 1 609 t 1 886 N w Y k 1 886
to w n
O utl i ne H is
t o ry o f V i rg i n ia
C h a l es
e a
HE N RY W W
,
.
a
,
M ary l a n d
of
.
,
H AZ ARD E BE N EZ ER
,
or
.
,
'
r
.
,
1 845
.
HU N T I N G TO N E B
H U TC HI N S ON THOMAS
,
.
H is
t o ry o f St a m fo rd St a m f o rd 1868
s
2 v ol
H is
t o ry o f M a s
Seco n d
a ch us
e tt s
E d L o n d o n 1 7 68
H is
t o ry o f H a d l e y
N ew E dit io n e d ite d b y
Geo rge She l do n S prin g fi el d 1 905
Geo rg ia sL a nd m a rks M e mo ria l s a nd Le
ge n ds2 v o l At l a n ta 1 9 1 3
G ra nt s co nces
io nsa n d
a n d S p i ce r J a co b
s
o ri g i n a l co n s
o f t he p ro v i n ce O f N e w
t it ut io n s
e y S o m e rv i ll e
J ers
188 1
Ori g i na ll y p ri nted
P h ilad e l p h i a 1 7 52
T he C o n s
t i t ut i o n a l H is
t o ry o f N e w Yo rk fro m
t h e b e g i nn i n g o f t he C o l o n i a l p erio d t o t he
y ear 1 905 5 v o l Ro ch es
t er 1 906
Geo rg ia a sa Pro prietary Pro v i nce B os
to n
,
,
J U DD SY LVE S TER
,
,
,
,
'
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
J A ME S
Ro
s
s
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
19 1 7
MccRADY ED WARD
,
,
,
.
,
,
Z
,
,
,
L I N C OL N CHARL E S
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
L E A M I N G A A RO N
,
.
,
.
GHT L U C I A N L AMAR
MC CA I N
.
.
.
K NI
.
,
T he
t he
1 856
,
.
t o ry o f So ut h C a ro l i n a t o t he cl o s
H is
e of
Pro prietary Go vernm ent C ha rl es
to n
.
.
,
B I B L I OGRA P HY
252
H AMPSH IRE
(a )
.
of
Actsa n d L a w so f H isMaj sy sP o v ince
h i re in N ew E ng l a nd Port s
N e w H a m ps
e
'
t
r
.
mo ut h
(b ) An
1771
,
.
Add es
so f t h Co n ve nt io n fo F ra m i ng
f Go ve n m e nt fo t he
t it ut io n
N ew C n s
St a t f N w H a m p s
h i e t o t h I n h a b i ta n t s
1 7 81
mo ut h a n d E x t
Por ts
t t
of s
a id s
E dite d b y A S
(c) L w s (1 679
r
e
r
e
r
e
e o
r
r
o
o
a
a e
e er ,
.
a
.
.
.
B atch e l le r Ma n che s
te r 1 904
(d ) Pro v i ncia l Pa pers1 623 1 686 E di te d b y
Na t ha n ie l B o uto n Co n co rd 1 687
Reco rd so f E dit e d b y C J H o a d l e y H art
fo rd 1 85 7 58
Actso f t he G en e ra l As
s
e m b l y o f t he
1 776
Pro vi nce o f N e w J e rs
e y f ro m 1 7 02 t o
Co mp i l ed un d e r t he a pp o i nt me nt o f t he
on
Ge ne ra l As
b y Sa m ue l Allin s
s
e mbl y
B url in gto n 1 776
ey
(b ) A rch i veso f the Sta te o f N e w J ers
t s
fi rs
E dite d b y W A W h ite
eri e s 2 7 v o l
h ea d a n d o t h ers N e w a rk 1880 1906
e o f R e p re
(c) J o urn a l a n d vo te so f the H o us
s
e n t a t iv e s
o f t he Pro v i n ce o f N o v a C a s
a re a o r
N ew J e rs
J ers
1 87 2
ey
1 703 1 709
e y C it y
e m b l y pa s
s
s
e d in t he P ro v i n ce
(a ) Act so f A s
o f N ew Y o rk f ro m 169 1 t o 1 7 1 8
Lo n d o n
.
,
.
-
.
,
H AVE N
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
-
.
,
N EW
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
-
.
.
,
-
,
N EW
Y O RK
.
.
,
.
.
1 7 19
,
.
Assm b l y Docum ntsAl ba ny
Co ll t i nso f t h N w Yo k H is
to i ca l
Soci t y F i s
t S e ri e s 5
o l ; s o n d s ie s
4
o l ; f un d
s
e ie s 3 6
ol
N e w Yo k
(b )
(c)
e
ec
e
,
e
e
o
r
.
v
e
r
1 809 19 1 9
r
v
,
.
.
v
,
r
er
ec
.
,
r
.
,
-
D
.
to ry o f t he St a t e o f
H is
B O C a llaghan 4 v o l
me n ta ry
o cu
Y k
E
Al ba ny 1849 1 85 1
(e ) D o cume n ts re l a t i ve to t he C o l o n i a l
to ry o f t he Sta te o f N e w Y o rk
H is
E dite d b y
E B O C a llagha n a nd B Ferno w 1 5 v o l
Alba ny 1 856 1887
o f N e w Yo r k f ro m t he yea r
(f ) Co lo n i a l L a w s
1 664 t o t he Re vo lut io n 5 v o l A l ba n y 1 894
N ew
or
’
.
.
.
.
,
,
-
,
.
.
’
.
.
.
.
,
,
-
,
.
,
.
,
,
189 6
.
(g)
J o u nal
C o l o ny
A l ba ny
r
of
,
of
N ew
1 820
.
Ge nera l As
e m bly o f t he
s
Yo rk f ro m 1 766 to 1 77 6
t he
.
B I BL I OGRA P HY
253
J o u na l of the Votesand Pro cee dingsof the
s
e m b l y o f th
Ge ne l As
C olo ny o f N ew York
2 o l N w Yo rk 1 7 64 1 766
(1 69 1
l o f the Vo tesan d Procee din gsof the
(i ) J o u
smb l y o f the C o l ony o f N ew Yo k
Genera l A s
Al ba n y 1 820
(1 766
l at ive Co uncil o f t he
(j ) J o u n a l of t he Le g is
C o lo ny f N ew Yo k (169 1
2 v ol
Alba ny 1 86 1
(a ) A C ll ct io n o f ll the P ub lic A tso f As
s
e mbly
f t he Pro v i nc o f N o rt h C a o li na :
N o w in Fo ce a nd Us
e
E d ite d b y Sa mue l
(h )
r
ra
e
v
.
e
,
-
,
.
rn a
e
r
,
.
r
o
r
,
.
,
N O RTH CAROL I N A
.
o
e
a
c
o
e
r
r
.
S w a nn Ne w bern 1 752
a l o f all t he Act s
o f As
(b ) A C o m p l ete Rev i s
s
e mbly o f t he Pro v i nce o f N o rt h C a ro l i na no w
J a mesDav i sPrinter a nd
in F o rce a n d Us
e
E d ito r Ne w bern 1 773
E dite d b y
(c) C o lo n ial Record s(1662 1 7
W L Sa un ders 26 v o l Rale igh a nd Go l d s
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
-
.
.
.
.
,
bo ro 1 886 1905
s
e mb l y
(d ) The Publ ic Actso f t he Ge ne ra l As
Edited b y
o f N o rt h C aro l i na (1 7 1 5
J amesI red ell and F ra nco isXa v ier Mart i n
N e w b ern 1804
-
.
.
-
,
ORC U TT
.
,
,
RE V
.
H is
N 0 p l ace o f p ub l icat ion
to ry o f Strat ford
g i ve n 1 886
The A merican Co l o n i esin the Se ve ntee nt h
Century 3 vo l N ew York 1 904
Votesand P ro ceed i ngs
s
e m bly J o urna l
(a) As
t he
H ous
of
Re pres
enta t i ves o f
o f t he
e
Pro v i nce o f Pe nns
y l van ia 6 v o l P h i l a
d el p h ia 1 752
(b ) C ha rter to W i ll i am Penn a n d La w sof t he
Province o f Penns
ylva nia C o m p i le d and
B enj a mi n M
e d i te d b y Sta ug ht o n Geo rg e
Nea d a n d T h o masMcC arma nt H arris
burg
.
.
.
O SGOOD HERBERT L
,
.
.
P E N N SYLVAN IA
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
‘
.
,
1 879
,
.
( ) Co lo n ia l Record s 1683 1 790 Co mp i l e d
b y Sa muel H aza rd a n d oth e rs 1 6 v ol
P h ila de l p h ia 1 852 1 853
to ri ca l Soc iet y o f
(d ) Me mo irso f t he H is
Penns
y lva nia P h ilad e l p h ia 1870
(e) The Stat utesat L arge fro m 1 682 1 801
Comp il e d by J ame sT Mitche ll a nd H enry
F lande rs 1 6 v ol H a rris
b urg 1 896
c
-
.
,
.
.
-
,
.
.
,
,
-
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
B I B LI OGRA P HY
254
Co lo n ia l Reco rds Ed ite d b y N B S h urtle ff
i fer 1 2 v o l B os
to n 1 855
a n d D a v id P uls
L YMOU TH
P
.
,
.
.
1 861
.
,
,
.
Un re fo rm e d Ho us
e o f Co mmo ns 2 vo l
Ca m bri d ge 1 903
Ea rl y Reco rd so f E d ite d b y L i brarian o f
R 1 H is
t o rica l S ociet y
Pro v i d ence 1 901
H is
y lvan ia fro m 1681 to 1 742
t o ry o f P e n n s
I n tro d uct io n a n d A ppend i x 2 vo l P h i la
d e l p h ia 1 79 7
N o rt h Ca ro l i n a : A Stud y in E ng lis
h Co lo n i a l
Go ve rn m e n t N ew York 1 904
(a ) Act sa n d L a w s 1636 1 705 P ro v i d e nce
PORRI TT
The
.
,
.
PRO U D R O BERT
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
R A PER CHARL E S
,
.
,
PORT S MO U TH
.
.
,
LE E
.
RHOD E I SL A N D
.
,
-
,
1 705
,
.
,
.
A tsa n d L a wsB os
to n 1 7 1 9
A tsa n d L a wsN e w po rt 1 767
A ts n d L w sMad e a nd Pas
i nce t he
s
ed s
R vi s
io n in J un 1 767 N e w port 1 7 72
o l ve s N e w p ort 1 7 77
(e ) A ts n d R s
(f) Act s n d Resl ves N e w po rt 1 783
(g ) Co l n ia l R eco rd s E d ite d b y J o h n
s
el B
t l et t
R us
Pro vi d ence 1 856
1 0 v ol
(h ) The P ub l ic L a w so f the State of R I
P o vid n e 1 798
(i ) T h P ub l ic L a w so f t he Stat e o f R I
P o vid ence 1 8 1 0
A S ketch o f t he H is
t ory o f So ut h C a ro l i na t o
t he C l s
e o f t he P ro pri eta ry Go ve n m n t
(b )
(c)
(d )
c
,
c
,
c
e
e,
a
.
e
o
.
,
,
.
.
,
o
.
ar
e
,
.
a
r
.
,
a
a
c
.
,
c
.
.
,
,
.
e
R IVERS W I LL I AM J AME S
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
r
.
.
,
o
r
e
.
C har l es
to n 1 856
SAN F ORD J OHN L
t ra t io nso f t he Great R e
St udiesa n d I ll us
be ll io n
SC HE N C K E H
t o ry o f Fa irfi e ld
H is
2 vo l N e w Yo rk 1889
SC H UYL ER G E ORG E W
Co l o n ia l N ew Yo rk 2 v o l N ew York 1 885
S E WALL SAMUEL
Dia ry o f 16 74 1 729 Vo l 5 F i ft h Se ries
Mas
s
a ch us
e tt s
H is
to rica l So cie t y
SH ON N ARD FRE D ER I C K
a n d S p o o n er W W
H is
to ry o f W e s
tch e s
te r
C o unty N e w Yo rk N ew Yo rk 1900
S I O S SAT ST GE 0 RGE LE AK I N Eco n o m icsa n d Po lit i csin Mary la n d 1 7 20
1 7 50
Vo l 2 1 o f J o h nsH o p ki nsU n i vers
it y
St udi es
S MI TH G E ORGE G
The Sto ry o f Geo rg ia an d the Geo rg ia P eo p le
1 736 1860
Atl a n ta 1 900
SMI TH SAMU EL
The H is
to ry o f t he Co lo ny o f N o va C a
es
ari a
o r N e w J e rs
e y to 1 72 1
B urlingto n 1 765
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
-
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
-
.
,
.
,
-
.
,
.
B I B L I OGRA P HY
256
WADD ELL A
,
H is
to ry o f N ew H a no ver Co unt y a nd t he
L o w er C a pe Fear Reg ion W ilm i n gto n 19 19
2 vo l
H is
t o rica l Co l le ct io nso f Ge o rg ia
N ew Yo rk 1 855
Go ve rn me nt o f t he Co lo ny o f So ut h Ca ro lina
it y St udies
Vo l 1 3 J o h nsH o p ki nsUn i vers
to n
t o ric a n d P ict ures
H is
q ue Sa va nna h B o s
A
.
.
WH I T E
RE V
,
.
GE ORGE
,
.
.
.
.
WIL S ON AD EL AID E
,
W IL S O N Woo DRo w
W I N S OR J U S T I N
,
,
.
,
,
1 889
.
Re vi s
e d E d i t io n
t o n 1 906
B os
to ry o f A merica
Narrat i ve an d Crit ical H is
t o n a nd N e w Yo rk 1 889
8 v ol B os
H is
to ry o f N e w E n glan d
E d it e d b y J a m e s
to n 1 853
Sa va ge 2 v o l B os
S ketcheso f t he L i fe and C h aracter o f Patrick
He nry Hart fo rd 1 849
The
Sta te
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
W IR T WI LL I AM
,
,
.
W I N THRO P J OH N
.
.
,
WH I TN E Y E
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
V I T A
TH E
A UT H O R of this stud y was born in M are ngo Ohio on
December 5 1 884 H isearly ed uc a tion was in the grade
school s and high s
chool of that town grad uating from the
latter in 1 90 1 I n the fall o f 1904 he entered the University
o f Chattanooga from which institution he r e ceived the degree
of A B in 1 908
The next four years were spent in educational work in the
Sou th under the direction of the B o a rd of Education of the
M e thodist Episcopal Church
I n 1 9 12 he entered Columbia
University as a gra duate student and w asin continuous res
idence at Col umbia until 1 9 14 in which year he re c e ived the
degre e of A M I n August of that year he w a schosen pres
ident O f Grand Prairie Seminary Onarga I llinois a position
which he hel d until resignation in J une 1 9 1 8 to enter the
work of the Army Y M C A
Following his d ischarge i n February 1 9 1 9 the a uthor spen t
the next four months at the university and a t Col umbia
S outh Carolina completing the collection of the material for
thi s dissertation
On J une 1 1 920 he became S tate Student Secretary of
the I ll inois Y M C A but in Augu st wastr a nsferre d to his
present position assecretary of the Student Branch of the
Cleve land Y M C A with special responsibility for the work
at Weste rn Reserve University and Case S chool of Applied
Sci e nc e At the latter institution he isalso in charge of the
department of Economics
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
2 57