colonies. In 1732, hats were prohibited from being shipped, or even laden upon a horse, cart, or other carriage, with an intent to be exported to any other plantation, or to any place whatever. At the same time, no hatter in the colonies was allowed to employ more than two apprentices, at once, or to make hats, unless he had served an apprentice to the trade seven years; and no black or negro, was permitted to work at the business of making hats.

The manufacturers of iron next claimed their share in the benefits to be derived from the colonies. They were willing, the poor colonists should reduce the iron ore, with which their lands abounded, into pigs, and even bar iron, and that the same be brought to their doors, duty free, provided they could monopolize the manufacture of it, beyond this incipient stage. In the year 1750, parliament permitted pig and bar iron, to be imported from the colonies into London, duty free, but prohibited the erection or continuance of any mill, or other engine for slitting or rolling iron, or any plating forge, to work with a tilt hammer, or any furnace for making steel in the colonies, under the penalty of two hundred pounds.

More effectually to carry this act into execution, every such mill, engine, plating forge, and furnace, was declared a common nuisance, and the governors of the colonies, on the information of two witnesses, on oath, were directed to cause the same to be abated, within thirty days, or to forfeit the sum of £500.

These various restrictions and prohibitions were considered by the colonists extremely oppressive, and some of them a violation of their rights, and they were regarded no farther than was necessary, to prevent an open rupture with the parent country.

If the colonists, indeed, were English subjects, entitled to all the rights of their fellow-subjects at home, it was difficult for them to see, why they should be placed on a footing so materially different; why they should not be permitted, equally with those in England, to seek the best markets for their products; why subjects in America, should not be suffered to manufacture the iron, which the God of nature had given them, in such a manner and to such an extent, as they might think proper. Nor could the manufacturers

of hats in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, very easily be brought to believe, they had not an equal right to employ as many apprentices, as the manufacturers of the same article in London, Bristol, and Liverpool.

No one can read these acts and their preambles, without perceiving how much the framers of them were under the influence of the narrow and interested views of individuals; and how easily the interests of subjects, at the distance of three thousand miles from their legislators, can be sacrificed to the supposed interest of those in the neighborhood of their rulers. Nor in contemplating them can an American fail to contrast the present situation of his country, with respect to commerce and manufactures, under the influence of his own laws, with what it must have been, had it continued to the present time, under this system of restrictions.

The people of England, from an early period, viewed the North American colonies, particularly those of New England, as their rivals, in navigation and trade. Sir Josiah Child, in his well known discourses on trade, published about 1670, no doubt spoke the language of Englishmen in general, when he declared that "New England was the most prejudicial plantation to the kingdom."

While he commends the "frugality, industry, and temperance, as well as the happiness of the laws and institutions" of the New Englanders, he, at the same time, asserts that "of all the American plantations, his majesty has none so apt for the building of shipping, as New England, nor none, comparably qualified for the breeding of seamen, not only by reason of the natural industry of that people, but principally by reason of their cod and mackerel fisheries."

And this assertion is accompanied, with an expression of his opinion, that "there is nothing more prejudicial, and in prospect, more dangerous, to any mother kingdom, than the increase of shipping in her colonies, plantations and provinces."

The views of Dr. Davenant, on this subject, were in accordance with those of Sir Josiah Child. His political and commercial writings are still more celebrated than those of the baronet; and

66

had no little influence in establishing the commercial policy of England. In his discourse on the plantation trade, written in the reign of William and Mary, he pointed out the political and commercial policy, proper to be pursued by the parent country towards her plantations. Colonies," he observed, "are a strength to their mother kingdom, while they are under good discipline; while they are strictly made to observe the fundamental laws of the original country, and while they are kept dependant on it. But otherwise they are worse than members lopped from the body politic, being, indeed, like offensive arms, wrested from a nation, to be turned against it, as occasion shall serve." "Not that we think the greatness these colonies may arrive at, in a natural course, and in the progress of time, can be dangerous to England. To build ships in the way of trade, or for their own defence, can administer no true cause of jealousy. There is much difference between letting them be in a condition to defend themselves, and rendering them a kind of staple for naval stores, which can be hardly politic, and perhaps very bad husbandry." To make "those distant colonies a lasting benefit to the nation," he says, "the principle care will always be, to keep them dependant upon the mother country, and not to suffer those laws, upon any account, to be loosened, whereby they are tied to it, for otherwise, they will become more profitable to our neighbors than to us."

The idea of a board of trade and plantations, was first suggested, it is believed, by this celebrated writer. He proposed that the care of America should be made "the province of a select number of Lords and gentlemen of reputation, both for parts and fortune," and suggested that it would be in their power, "to put things into a form and order of government, that should always preserve these countries, in their obedience to the crown, and dependance upon this kingdom."* While he thus advocates the obedience and dependance of the colonists, he, at the same time, insists that "those conditions, privileges, terms, and charters, should be kept sacred and inviolate, by which they were first encouraged, at their great expense, and with the hazard of their lives, to dis

Davenant's works, by Whitworth, vol. 2.

cover, cultivate, and plant remote places, when, in truth they labor as well for us, as for themselves, for here, at last, their treasure centers." The proceedings of the British government towards the colonies, were generally in accordance with the views of these celebrated writers, except the former did not consider the charters, granted to the original adventurers, in so sacred a light, as Dr. Davenant. Adam Smith, it is believed, was the first English writer of eminence, who dared to deny, not merely the policy, but the justice of the British colonial system. After stating the outlines of the system itself, this distinguished political economist, adds, “to prohibit a great people, however, from making all they can of every part of their own produce, or from employing their stock and industry, in the way they judge most advantageous to themselves, is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind.”*

* Smith's Wealth of Nations, vol. 2, p. 73.

CHAPTER IV.

Charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island obtained at a favorable moment-Measures taken to resume the Charters-Difference between the crown and the colonists on this subject-Declaration of Massachusetts concerning charter rights in 1661Royal commissioners sent to regulate the New England colonies-Their reception-Massachusetts refuse to submit to their authority and send a petition to the king-Complaints against Massachusetts-Committee of trade require an answer to these complaints-Answers not satisfactory-Massachusetts refuse to submit to the wishes of the king-Writs of quo warranto issue against the charter of that colony-Judgment against it-Writs issue against those of Connecticut and Rhode Island-Their letters considered a surrender of them-Sir Edmund Andrus appointed governor general of New England-His despotic acts-Revolution in New England-Connecticut and Rhode Island resume their Charters-New Charter granted Massachusetts-Great Britain jealous of the independence of the coloniesBills brought into parliament to resume the Charter governments-Defeated-King sustains appeals from the colonial courts in civil suits-Explanatory Charter of Massachusetts-Law of descents in Connecticut declared void-Massachusetts refuse to provide a permanent salary for the governor-Present an address to the king on the subject-Heard before the board of trade-Conduct of that colony condemnedJealousy of its growing power increases.

CONTROVERSIES soon arose between the parent country and the colonists, under the charter governments. These disputes, as we have before stated, commenced in Massachusetts, as early as 1635, nor did they end, till the American revolution.

The charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island, were obtained at a favorable moment. Just called to the government of his kingdom, Charles was not disposed to deny favors to any of his subjects. In addition to this, Lords Say and Seal, and the Earl of Manchester, both the friends of New England, were then in favor with the king.

Mr. Winthrop, the agent of Connecticut, a gentleman of talents and address, was in possession of a ring given to his grand. father, by the father of Charles II, which he presented to that monarch. This secured him a most gracious reception at court.*

* Trumbull's History of Connecticut, vol. 1.