Iceland. By Sir D. Wedderburn.. Visualizing Faculty.. Wedderburn, Sir David; Iceland. Week in Athens, A (Blackwood's Mag.).. ..... ................. ........................199 60 ...33 .............. ..312 310 ..... ... Zoology: Jelly-Fishes. By A. Wilson.................. THE LIBRARY MAGAZINE. VOLUME 3, SEPTEMBER, 1880. WHY THE AMERICAN COLONIES SEPARATED FROM GREAT BRITAIN. WHEN James I. gave his royal assent to the colonisation of Virginia and New England, he did so in the belief that the colonies could be governed by the Crown, for its own use and behoof, without fear of hindrance from Parliament. In point of fact the colonies themselves generally maintained that Parliament had no authority over them because they were not represented in it; but at the same time their relations to the Crown were extremely illdefined and vacillating, and as a general thing they doled out their allegiance with as scanty and grudging a hand as they possibly could. It was seldom that anything was declared concerning their rights so explicitly as in the proprietary grant of Maryland, which declares that the English Government shall have no authority to raise taxes within the colony. In general, the colonists showed no inclination to press the question of the definition of their rights, preferring to do as they liked so long as they were uninterfered with, while making as few emphatic declarations as possible. is peculiarly true of the English race that the most independent spirit often takes this quiet method of asserting itself. In this way the object is as likely to be attained as in any other, while there is much less waste of breath in argumentative wrangling than there would be if it were felt to be necessary to settle every doubtful question by a solemn and dogmatic pronunciamiento. In this way, though there were occasional and local disputes between the Crown and the colonies, even in the seventeenth century, yet anything like a general issue was avoided until the colonies had grown strong enough to maintain their own position successfully. early as 1638 some of the disorderly people whom the puritanical government of Massachusetts would not allow to remain in the colony returned to England with their complaints, and 30 worked L. M. v-1 It As f upon the King's mind that a very stringent royal order was sent over, positively demanding that the charter should be surrendered. In reply to this order Massachusetts sent back, not the charter which was demanded; but an energetic protest against the injustice of the demand. How far this dispute might have been carried we cannot tell, for in the course of the following year the Presbyterians of Scotland began the revolt which cost the King his throne and his life, and for the next ten years very little attention was paid in England to American affairs. Down to this time the Parliament had not assumed any control over colonial affairs. In 1624 they had grumbled at James I.'s high-handed suppression of the Virginia Company, but they had not gone so far as to call in question the King's supreme authority over the colonies. In 1628, in a petition to Charles I. relating to the Bermudas, they had fully admitted this royal authority. But after the execution of the King in 1649 a new and somewhat anomalous state of things arose. There was now no King, and all the royal powers devolved upon Parliament, among other things the prerogative of superintending the affairs of the colonies. Such, at least, was the theory held in England, and it is difficult to see how any other theory could logically have been held; but the Americans never formally admitted it, and in practice they continued to behave towards Parliament very much as they had behaved towards the Crown, yielding just as little obedience as possible. Virginia submitted gracefully to the parliamentary commissioners; but when these same commissioners seized upon a Royalist vessel in Boston harbour, the colonial legislature of Massachusetts debated the question whether it was compatible with the dignity of the colony to permit such an act of sovereignty on the part of the Home Government. It was finally decided to wink at the proceeding, partly because the Puritans of New England were on general principles friendly to the Puritan Parliament and hostile to the Royalists, partly because the Parliament, reciprocating this friendly feeling, was inclined to favour New England in its commercial legislation, and it was thought to be impolitic to quarrel with one's bread and butter. At the same time the question of the constitutional supremacy of Parliament over the colonies was not pressed to a direct issue. In 1651 Parliament ordered Massachusetts to surrender its charter and take out a new one, in which the relations of the colony to the Home Government should be made the subject of fresh and more precise definition. To this request the colony for something like a year vouchsafed no answer; and finally, when it became necessary to do something, instead of sending back the charter, the legislature sent back a memorial, setting forth that the people of Massachusetts were quite contented with their form of government, and hoped that no change would be made in it. At about the same time Massachusetts ventured upon an act such as in nearly all ages and countries has been supposed to involve an assertion of independent sovereignty. A mint was established, and shillings and sixpenny and threepenny pieces were coined, bearing on the one side a tree with the inscription Massachusetts, and on the other side the inscription New England, with the date of issue. There was no recognition of England upon this coinage, which was kept up for more than thirty years. Though favourably disposed towards Cromwell, Massachusetts carefully avoided recognising his authority. When asked to contribute a military contingent for the conquest of the Dutch settlements on the Hudson, she courteously informed his Highness that he might enlist five hundred volunteers within her territory if he could find so many willing to serve. The death of the Lord Protector is not even alluded to in the colonial records. After the restoration of the Stuart monarchy, Massachusetts persevered as long as possible in maintaining this independent attitude. The cruel and ill-advised persecution of the Quakers in Boston called forth an order from Charles II., forbidding the Colonial Government to inflict bodily punishment upon the Quakers, and directing it hereafter to send them home to England for trial. But it was a fundamental principle with the New England settlers that all offences against the laws of the colony should be tried in the courts of the colony; and accordingly the King's message was not only disregarded, but in direct defiance of it the law threatening Quakers with flogging was expressly re-enacted. At the same time the colonists thought it worth while to send commissioners to England to confer with the King and avoid a direct quarrel. The good-natured though faithless Charles promised to respect their charter, but insisted that in return they must take an oath of allegiance to the Crown, must administer justice in the King's name, and must repeal their laws restricting the right of suffrage to church members and prohibiting the Episcopal form of worship. When the people of Massachusetts received this message they consented to administer justice in the King's name, but all the other matters were referred for consideration to a committee, and so they dropped out of sight. Two years afterwards, in 1664, the King sent over four commissioners to adjust various troubles in New England, and in particular to ascertain whether Massachusetts had complied with his demands; but upon this point the legislature stubbornly withheld any definite answer, while it frittered away the time in trivial altercations with the royal commissioners. It might seem strange that such an independent attitude on the part of the colony could be maintained without provoking the active hostility of the Crown. But the war with Holland and the turbulent state of English politics throughout the reign of Charles II. operated in favour of the colonists. It was not until 1679 that the easy-going King got his mind sufficiently free from complications at home to begin to re |