the overthrow of the charter, under the famous quo warranto proceedings in 1684, manifest a disposition on the part of the colonists to yield nothing, which could be retained; and on the part of the crown to force them into absolute subjection.

§ 67. The government of the colony immediately after the removal of the charter was changed in many important features; but its fundamental grants of territory, powers, and privileges were eagerly maintained in their original validity. It is true, as Dr. Robertson has observed, that as soon as the Massachusetts emigrants had landed on these shores, they considered themselves for many purposes as a voluntary association, possessing the natural rights of men to adopt that mode of government, which was most agreeable to themselves, and to enact such laws, as were conducive to their own welfare. They did not, indeed, surrender up their charter, or cease to recognise its obligatory force. But they extended their acts far beyond its expression of powers; and while they boldly claimed protection from it against the royal demands and prerogatives, they nevertheless did not feel, that it furnished any limit upon the freest exercise of legislative, executive, or judicial functions. They did not view it, as creating an English corporation under the narrow construction of the common law; but as affording the means of founding a broad political government, subject to the crown of England, but yet enjoying many exclusive privileges.4

1 1 Hutch. Hist. 25; 3 Hutch. Coll. 199, 200, 203, 205, 207.

2 Robertson's America, B. 10.

3 3 Hutch. Coll. 199, 203.

4 1 Hutch. Hist. 35, 36, 37, 410, 507, 529; 3 Hutch. Coll. 196, 199, 200, 203, 205, 207, 329, 330, 417, 418, 420, 477; 1 Hutch. Hist. 410, 415; 1 Chalmers's Annals, 151, 153, 157, 161; Robertson's America, B. 10; Marsh. Hist. Colon, ch. 5. 139.

§ 68. The General Court in their address to Parliament in 1646, in answer to the remonstrance of certain mal-contents, used the following language:' "For our government itself, it is framed according to our charter, and the fundamental and common laws of England, and carried on according to the same (taking the words of eternal truth and righteousness along with them, as that rule, by which all kingdoms and jurisdictions must render account of every act and administration in the last day) with as bare allowance for the disproportion between such an ancient, populous, wealthy kingdom, and so poor an infant, thin colony, as common reason can afford." And they then proceeded to show the truth of their statement, by drawing a parallel, setting down in one column the fundamental and common laws and customs of England, beginning with Magna Charta, and in a corresponding column their own fundamental laws and customs. Among other parallels, after stating, that the supreme authority in England is in the high court of Parliament, they stated: "The highest authority here is in the general court both by our charter and by our own positive laws."

§ 69. For three or four years after the removal of the charter, the governor and assistants were chosen and all the business of the government was transacted by the freemen assembled at large in a general court. But the members having increased, so as to make a general assembly inconvenient, an alteration took place, and in 1634, the towns sent representatives to the general court. They drew up a general declaration, that the general court alone had power to make and establish laws, and to elect officers, to raise monies and taxes, and to

1I Hutch, Hist. 145, 146; 3 Hutch. Coll. 199, &c.

sell lands; and that therefore every town might choose persons as representatives, not exceeding two, who should have the full power and voices of all the freemen, except in the choice of officers and magistrates, wherein every freeman was to give his own vote.1 The system, thus proposed, was immediately established by common consent, although it is nowhere provided for in the charter. And thus was formed the second house of representatives (the first being in Virginia) in any of the colonies. At first, the whole of the magistrates (or assistants) and the representatives sat together, and acted as one body, in enacting all laws and orders. But at legth in 1644 they separated into two distinct and independent bodies, each of which possessed a negative upon the acts of the other. This course of proceeding continued until the final dissolution of the charter.

§ 70. It may be well to state in this connexion, that the council established at Plymouth in a very short period after the grant of the Massachusetts charter (in 1635) finally surrendered their own patent back to the crown. They had made other grants of territory, which we shall hereafter have occasion to notice, which had greatly diminished the value, as well as importance of their charter. But the immediate cause of the surrender was the odious extent of the monopolies granted to them, which roused the attention of Parliament, and

1 Robertson's America, B. 10; 1 Hutch. Hist. 35, 36, 203; 1 Haz. Coll. 320.

2 Col. and Province Laws, (1814,) ch. 35, p. 97; 3 Hutch. Coll. 203, &c.; 1 Hutch. 449.

31 Hutch. Hist. 35, 36, 37, 94, note, 449; 1 Holmes's Annals, 222; 1 Haz. Coll. 320, 321; 1 Chalmers's Annals, 157.

4 1 Hutch. Hist. 449; 1 Chalmers's Annals, 166; Col. and Province Laws, (1814,) ch. 31, p. 88; 3 Hutch. Coll. 205; 1 Doug. Summ. 431.

1

of the nation at large, and compelled them to resign, what they could scarcely maintain against the strong current of public opinion. The surrender, so far from working any evil, rather infused new life into the colonies, which sprung from it, by freeing them from all restraint and supervision by a superior power, to which they might perhaps have been held accountable.1 Immediately after this surrender legal proceedings were instituted against the proprietors of the Massachusetts charter. Those who appeared were deprived of their franchises. But fortunately the measure was not carried into complete execution against the absent proprietors acting under the charter in America.2

§ 71. After the fall of the first colonial charter in 1684, Massachusetts remained for some years in a very disturbed state under the arbitrary power of the crown. At length a new charter was in 1691 granted to the colony by William and Mary; and it henceforth became known as a province, and continued to act under this last charter until after the Revolution. The charter comprehended within its territorial limits all the old colony of the Massachusetts Bay, the colony of New Plymouth, the Province of Maine, the territory called Acadia, or Nova Scotia, and all the lands lying between Nova Scotia and Maine; and incorporated the whole into one Province by the name of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New-England, to be holden as of the royal manor of East Greenwich, in the county of Kent. It confirmed all prior grants made of lands to all persons,

1 1 Holmes's Annals, 227; 1 Haz. Coll. 390, 393; 1 Chalmers's Annals, 94, 95, 99.

2 1 Holmes's Annals, 227; 3 Hutch. Coll. 101, 104; 1 Haz. Coll. 423, 425; 1 Chalmers's Annals, 161.

3 1 Holmes's Annals, 412.

corporations, colleges, towns, villages, and schools. It reserved to the crown the appointment of the Governor, and Lieut. Governor, and Secretary of the province, and all the officers of the Court of Admiralty. It provided for the appointment annually of twenty-eight Counsellors, who were to be chosen by the General Court, and nominated the first board. The Governor and Counsellors were to hold a council for the ordering and directing of the affairs of the Province. The Governor was invested with the right of nominating and with the advice of the council of appointing all military officers, and all sheriffs, provosts, marshals, and justices of the peace, and other officers of courts of justice. He had also the power of calling the 'General Court, and of adjourning, proroguing, and dissolving it. He had also a negative upon all laws passed by the General Court. The General Court was to assemble annually on the last Wednesday of May, and was to consist of the Governor and Council for the time being, and of such representatives being freeholders as should be annually elected by the freeholders in each town, who possessed a freehold of forty shillings annual value, or other estate to the value of forty pounds. Each town was entitled to two representatives; but the General Court was from time to time to decide on the number, which each town should send. The General Court was invested with full authority to erect courts, to levy taxes, and make all wholesome laws and ordinances, "so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to the laws of England;" and to settle annually all civil officers, whose appointment was not otherwise provided for. All laws, however, were to be sent to England for approbation or disallowance; and if disallowed, and so signified under the sign manual and signet, within three