If we look at the governments of the thirteen colonies in the middle of
the eighteenth century, we shall observe some interesting facts. All the
colonies had legislative assemblies elected by the people, and these
assemblies levied the taxes and made the laws. So far as the
legislatures were concerned, therefore, all the colonies governed
themselves. But with regard to the executive department of the
government, there were very important differences. Only two of the
colonies, Connecticut and Rhode Island, had governors elected by the
people. These two colonies were completely self-governing. In almost
everything but name they were independent of Great Britain, and this was
so true that at the time of the revolutionary war they did not need to
make any new constitutions for themselves, but continued to live on
under their old charters for many years,--Connecticut until 1818, Rhode
Island until 1843. Before the revolution these two colonies had
comparatively few direct grievances to complain of at the hands of Great
Britain; but as they were next neighbours to Massachusetts and closely
connected with its history, they were likely to sympathize promptly with
the kind of grievances by which Massachusetts was disturbed.
[Sidenote: The proprietary governments: Pennsylvania, Delaware,
and Maryland]
Three of the colonies, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, had a
peculiar kind of government, known as _proprietary government_. Their
territories had originally been granted by the crown to a person known
as the Lord Proprietary, and the lord-proprietorship descended from
father to son like a kingdom. In Maryland it was the Calvert family that
reigned for six generations as lords proprietary. Pennsylvania and
Delaware had each its own separate legislature, but over both colonies
reigned the same lord proprietary, who was a member of the Penn family.
These colonies were thus like little hereditary monarchies, and they had
but few direct dealings with the British government. For them the lords
proprietary stood in the place of the king, and appointed the governors.
In Maryland this system ran smoothly. In Pennsylvania there was a good
deal of dissatisfaction, but it generally assumed the form of a wish to
get rid of the lords proprietary and have the governors appointed by the
king; for as this was something they had not tried they were not
prepared to appreciate its evils.
[Sidenote: The crown colonies and their royal governors]
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account