New England -- History -- Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775
Two years later, however, in connection with the Dr. Child petition, and
the order of the English Commissioners concerning Samuel Gorton, the
local aspects of which have been discussed in a previous chapter, the
General Court undertook to define the colony's relations to England more
definitely. While there was some difference of opinion, the majority of
the magistrates and of the clergy consulted took the stand that by the
charter they had “absolute power of government,” with authority to “make
laws, to erect all sorts of magistracy, to correct, punish, pardon,
govern, and rule the people absolutely,” without the interposition of
any superior power. They denied that any appeal lay against any of their
proceedings, or that they were bound, “further than in a way of
justification,” to make answer to any complaints against them in
England. They drew a distinction between corporations within England and
those without, asserted that plantations were above the rank of ordinary
corporations, and added that “our allegiance binds us not to the laws of
England any longer than while we live in England, for the laws of the
parliament of England reach no further, nor do the King's writs under
the great seal.” They did, indeed, acknowledge some sort of shadowy and
undefined allegiance, and claimed protection by the mother-country as a
right.[765]
Footnote 765:
J. Winthrop, _History_, vol. II, pp. 341, 345, 354, _f._, 352.
This theory of virtual independence was reasserted by the Court in the
year following the Restoration, with the addition that they conceived
that “any imposition prejudicial to the country, contrary to any just
law” not repugnant to the laws of England, was an infringement of their
rights, and that the colony was privileged to defend itself, even by
force of arms, against any who should attempt its “destruction,
invasion, detriment or annoyance.”[766] The duties of allegiance were
defined somewhat more exactly than they had been fifteen years earlier,
and somewhat differently; but any sovereign rights of the English
government over its dependencies in the Empire were denied.[767] More
and more, not merely in theory, but in the form that the colony's
negotiations took with the home authorities through its agents, it was
endeavoring to assume the position, not of an integral part of an
empire, but of an allied sovereign power.
Footnote 766:
_Massachusetts Records_, vol. IV, pt. ii, p. 25.
Footnote 767:
Kaye, _English Colonial Administration under Clarendon_, p. 142.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account