In the other eight colonies--New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New
Jersey, Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia--the governors were
appointed by the king, and were commonly known as "royal governors."
They were sometimes natives of the colonies over which they were
appointed, as Dudley and Hutchinson of Massachusetts, and others; but
were more often sent over from England. Some of them, as Pownall of
Massachusetts and Spotswood of Virginia, were men of marked ability.
Some were honest gentlemen, who felt a real interest in the welfare of
the people they came to help govern; some were unprincipled adventurers,
who came to make money by fair means or foul. Their position was one of
much dignity, and they behaved themselves like lesser kings. What with
their crimson velvets and fine laces and stately coaches, they made much
more of a show than any president of the United States would think of
making to-day. They had no fixed terms of office, but remained at their
posts as long as the king, or the king's colonial secretary, saw fit to
keep them there.
[Sidenote: The question as to salaries]
Now it was generally true of the royal governors that, whether they were
natives of America or sent over from England, and whether they were good
men or bad, they were very apt to make themselves disliked by the
people, and they were almost always quarrelling with their legislative
assemblies. Questions were always coming up about which the governor and
the legislature could not agree, because the legislature represented the
views of the people who had chosen it, while the governor represented
his own views or the views which prevailed three thousand miles away
among the king's ministers, who very often knew little about America and
cared less. One of these disputed questions related to the governor's
salary. It was natural that the governor should wish to have a salary of
fixed amount, so that he might know from year to year what he was going
to receive. But the people were afraid that if this were to be done the
governor might become too independent. They preferred that the
legislature should each year make a grant of money such as it should
deem suitable for the governor's expenses, and this sum it might
increase or diminish according to its own good pleasure. This would keep
the governor properly subservient to the legislature. Before 1750 there
had been much bitter wrangling over this question in several of the
colonies, and the governors had one after another been obliged to
submit, though with very ill grace.
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