Rhode Island : three centuries of democracy, Vol. I, Part 28

Author: Carroll, Charles, author
Publication date: 1932
Publisher: New York : Lewis historical Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 716

USA > Rhode Island > Rhode Island : three centuries of democracy, Vol. I > Part 28

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

From Randolph's point of view the charges were all true. As to the first charge, taxes had been levied and collected in the Narragansett country. As to the second, the Charter authorized the enactment of laws varying from the laws of England to meet the necessities of different environmental conditions. As to the third, the colonial laws were enforced in the colony courts, but there had been numerous appeals to England, far too many appeals for the welfare of the colony. As to the fourth, it was true that there was not until 1719 a printed copy of colony laws. John Clarke, Roger Williams, John Sanford, John Greene and Joseph Torrey were appointed in 1664 to consolidate the laws, but probably did not do so. John Clarke was ordered to collate the laws in 1666, William Harris and John Greene to examine his work when completed; and in 1667 John Clarke's appointment was continued. Again, in 1680, Thomas Ward, Arthur Fenner, John Greene, Francis Brinley, John Easton, William Wordell and John Sanford were appointed "to take view of the laws and acts of this colony and to put them into such a method that they may be put in print." The laws were not printed in 1680; probably the committee did not function. Again, in 1686 "the Assembly, taking into serious consideration to have the laws of this colony composed, extracted, altered, amended and drawn up into a better method and form," appointed Peleg Sanford, Thomas Ward and John Williams as a committee. The suspension of the Charter followed before this committee reported. On the other hand, provision was made regularly by the General Assembly for the sending of copies of the session laws to the towns, and laws diverging seriously from routine were proclaimed and published by beating of the drum. In 1682 town clerks were ordered to have copies of the colony laws at town meetings for inspection by freemen ; officers might request possession of copies of the laws for examination on giving a

161

PRESERVATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN COLONIAL PERIOD

proper receipt for return before the next town meeting. As to the fifth charge, Randolph had drawn a distinction between the parliamentary General Assembly and the General Assembly of the freemen. As to the sixth, Rhode Island officers were engaged by affirmation. As to the seventh, there is no question that the General Assembly and Governor had put the royal- ist upstart, Francis Brinley, in his proper place by taking from him the alleged commission, and providing for the administration of the oath to enforce the trade and navigation act by properly authorized officers. The charges were only those that might be made against any democracy ; Rhode Island was intensely "democratical" in the seventeenth century.

QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS-The writ of quo warranto was issued October 6, 1685, and was served by Randolph himself on June 22, 1686. The writ was actually invalid when served because the date for return had expired. The General Assembly met by previous adjournment on June 29. The Governor had ordered notice "to be given to all the free inhabitants, especially to those of the chief towns in this colony, that they would be pleased to make their appearance either in person or in writing at the sitting of this Assembly." Many of the freemen of the said towns did meet and give in their judgment to the Assembly, and then left the further proceeding concerning the premises to the judicious determination of the Assembly." In this procedure there was, in a constitutional crisis, a return to direct democracy in practice-the summoning of all the freemen to consider and advise upon the determination of a question not clearly within the jurisdiction conferred upon the representa- tive body. The parallel practice in modern times is the popular referendum. The General Assembly recognized the futility of contesting the writ in his majesty's courts, and voted "not to stand suit with his majesty, but to proceed by our humble address to his majesty to continue our privileges and liberties according to our Charter, formerly granted by his late majesty, Charles II, of blessed memory." This action, in view of the fact that the Charter never actually was surrendered, could be construed, as it was, as a policy of submission, the Char- ter being suspended temporarily, but not abated. Before adjournment this General Assem- bly, the last that was to meet until 1689, made provision for carrying on the affairs of towns in town meetings, thus: "It shall and may be lawful for the freemen of each town in this colony to meet together and appoint five or more or fewer days in the year for their assembling together, as the freemen of each town shall conclude to be convenient, for the managing the affairs of their respective towns; . . . that the freemen of each town yearly . . . nom- inate and elect such and so many town officers as they shall think meet for the managing of the affairs of their respective towns; . . that what the greater part of those that meet shall lawfully order and do concerning making town rates, and the other affairs of their town, shall be valid and firm, until the said freemen shall see cause to repeal or make void such order or orders."

The General Assembly's address to his majesty waived the fact that the writ was received after the date set for answer, and declared that the colony "would not stand suit," but prayed and implored favor and relief in religious and civil concernments "because we are a people that have been and are loyal to the royal interest and despised by our neigh- boring colonies." The address requested specifically (1) that "you will please to continue our privileges in statu quo privis, with respect to indulgence in matters of religious concern- ments and forming of oaths or attestations"; (2) that "as the port of Newport, on Rhode Island, lies in the heart of all your majesty's colonies, it may be a free port for navigation and entries, paying duties"; (3) that "no persons may be imposed over us that suit not the nature and constitution of your majesty's subjects here"; (4) that "all things wherein we have been weak or short through ignorance may be remitted and pardoned." Two other addresses were sent to the King, one by a group of royalists, including Francis Brinley and Richard Smith, who submitted to his majesty and disclaimed the reference of the matter to the

R. I .- 11

162

RHODE ISLAND-THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY

judgment of the General Assembly, which had been the action taken by the majority of the freemen on June 29; the second by the Quakers, who declared that they were "a loyal and peaceable people" who could not "in conscience bear arms nor learn war any more," and prayed "that they may be excused, being willing to pay all just rates and duties for carrying on the commonwealth's affairs and for supporting the government with others, according to estate and strength."

ANDROS IN NEW ENGLAND-Sir Edmond Andros was appointed Governor of the prov- ince of New England including the King's Province, Maine, New Hampshire, Plymouth and Massachusetts, in succession to Dudley, June 3, 1686. It is worthy of note, as affecting Rhode Island's dearest privilege, that the commission to Governor Andros guaranteed liberty of conscience, thus: "And for the greater ease and satisfaction of our loving subjects in matters of religion we do hereby will and require, and command, that liberty of conscience be allowed to all persons." Randolph had been of similar mind; in a letter written from Rhode Island June 22, 1686, to Governor Hinckley of Plymouth, he rebuked the latter, thus : "I am come hither in my way to Narragansett, and am here entertained with an unpleasing story (if true) that is, about three weeks since some persons of this place were at Scituate,* where a constable came and demanded three pounds of Edward Wanlaye, for to pay the minister, and have treated others in the same manner. Truly, I am very sorry, since his majesty has been graciously pleased to grant liberty of conscience in our government, that it should be restrained in your colony, without any particular directions from Whitehall. Sir, let us bring the matter to the square, and perhaps it will be as reasonable to move that your colony should be rated to pay our minister of the Church of England, who now preaches in Boston, and you hear him not, as to make the Quakers pay in your colony, when what is a rule for us, is a very good direction to others; and may be applied securely if not practised to the rest of his majesty's subjects, who are all entitled to that blessing and favor; which I leave to your very serious consideration, and am your assured friend." No small part of the unpopularity of Randolph and Andros in Massachusetts was attributable to their insist- ence upon religious freedom, which was as distasteful in the Bay Colony as it had been fifty years earlier ; on the other hand, Andros could not offend Rhode Island while he insisted upon religious liberty. Upon receipt in England of the General Assembly's address declaring its resolution not to contest the writ of quo warranto, Andros was directed (September 13, 1686), "to demand the surrender of their charter into your hands, in pursuance of their said declaration and address, and taking our said colony of Rhode Island and Providence Planta- tions under your government, to exercise the like powers and authorities in reference to the same, as we have given and granted . ... for the government of other colonies within our territory and dominion of New England."

The attitude of Andros toward Rhode Island was conciliatory and kindly. Perhaps it was the fact that Rhode Island had entertained him hospitably when, in 1679, while Gov- ernor of New York, he had visited Rhode Island. The General Assembly ordered that he "be suitably honored and accommodated as a person of his high degree and worthiness, according to our ability." In compliance with his instructions, in 1686 he demanded sur- render of the Charter, but at the meeting of his first council in Boston he accepted an acknowledgment of surrender of the Charter made by Walter Clarke and Walter Newbury, who, with John Coggeshall, Richard Arnold and John Alborough, represented Rhode Island in the council. He interposed no serious objection when told by Walter Clarke that the Charter of Rhode Island was in his custody at Newport. He heard patiently the statement "that it should be forthcoming when sent for, but in regard to the tediousness and bad weather, it could not then be brought." Later, when Governor Andros finally requested Gov-

*Not Scituate, Rhode Island; Scituate, Massachusetts, formerly Scituate, Plymouth.

163

PRESERVATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN COLONIAL PERIOD

ernor Clarke to surrender the Charter, the latter, who had permitted his brother to carry the Charter away, in anticipation of the request, declared that he did not know where the Char- ter was, and Andros showed little discontent. The Clarke house was searched carefully for the Charter, which could not be found. Andros obtained possession of the colony seal and broke it. Perhaps Andros, who was in many respects a benevolent despot and who did not deserve the harsh epithets applied to him by the Massachusetts historians, who hated him for his insistence upon religious liberty as much as for any other reason, considered the Charter as no longer more than a document having merely historical interest, in view of Rhode Island's failure to answer the writ of quo warranto, and the general attitude of non- resistance in the colony. It did not occur to him that failure to answer a writ that was no longer returnable might be construed as not entailing a forfeiture, or that government under the Charter might be renewed when opportunity was more propitious. Rhode Island evinced little resentment toward Andros. As a royal Governor his picture hangs with those of Gov- ernors elected by the people in the illustrious company in the Corridor of Governors at the State House.

Rhode Island for the time being became a county in the Province of New England. The administration of justice and the conduct of routine business was entrusted to a general quar- ter sessions and inferior court of common pleas, with Francis Brinley as presiding justice, the other justices being Peleg Sanford, Richard Smith, John Torrey, John Coggeshall, Caleb Carr, Arthur Fenner, Simon Ray and James Pendleton. The court appointed constables and overseers of the poor for the several towns, and disposed of complaints involving minor mis- demeanors, including violations of laws regulating the sale of liquors and forbidding sales on Sunday. It ordered a bounty for the killing of wolves, and for Newport the regular cleaning of chimneys as a precaution against fire, and the provision with each house of a lad- der long enough to reach the ridge. The court ordered the construction of two courthouses, one at Newport and the other at Rochester (Kingstown), and the assessment and collection of taxes. The last session of the court of which there is a record preserved was held on December II, 1688.

LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE IN ENGLAND-Meanwhile, in England, liberty of conscience, so far as it involved concessions to Catholics in a Protestant country, had proved the undoing of King James II toward the end of the fourth year of a tumultuous reign. Charles II had died a Catholic. James incurred displeasure by appointing Catholics to public office. Liberty of conscience to all denominations was proclaimed in England and Scotland in April, 1688. A second declaration of liberty of conscience was ordered read in every church on April 25, 1688. The Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the established Church in England, and six other Bishops demurred, and were committed to the Tower. In June the Bishops were acquitted, and William of Orange was invited "to save England from a Catholic tyranny." William, with an army landed at Torbay on November 5, 1688, and James II fled from Lon- don on December II, and escaped to France eleven days later. Parliament declared "that it hath been found by experience to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protes- tant kingdom to be governed by a Popish prince." From this Parliament as from others for the 150 years from 1678 to 1828 Catholics were rigidly excluded under the "disabling" act. William and Mary became joint sovereigns in February, 1689.

An uprising against Andros occurred in Boston immediately upon receipt of news of William's invasion of England. Andros and his immediate followers were arrested and imprisoned, and the General Court was reestablished. The revolution was complete by the middle of April, two weeks after a messenger had brought the news from England.

164

RHODE ISLAND-THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY

CHARTERS RESUMED-On April 23, 1689, two who signed themselves "W. C." and "J. C." issued a "call to the people of Rhode Island to assume their former government," thus :

WHEREAS, We have seen a printed paper, dated from Boston, the eighteenth of April last, which sig- nifieth that Sir Edmund Andros, our late Governor, with several others, are seized and confined, so that many of the free people of this place are bent to lay hold of their former privileges:

Neighbors and friends, we therefore cannot omit to recommend unto you our present grievance, to wit, that we are sufficiently informed that as our late government, under which we were subservient, is now silenced and eclipsed, we, under a sense of our deplorable and unsettled condition, do offer to you, whether it may not be expedient for the several towns of this late colony, the several principal persons therein, to make their personal appearance at Newport before the day of usual election by Charter, which will be the first day of May next, there to consult and agree of some suitable way in this present juncture, and whether our ancient privileges and former methods may not be best to insist upon, which we leave to your judicious consideration, and that you may not say you were ignorant, but had the most timeliest notice that could be given at so little warning, is all at present from your real friends and neighbors.

The paper believed to be the original was in the handwriting of Walter Clarke, Governor by last election, which identifies him as "W. C." Probably John Coggeshall, Deputy Gov- ernor, a courageous soul, was "J. C."

At a meeting of the freemen held in Newport on May 1, 1689, government under the Charter was resumed, and the Governor, Deputy Governor and Assistants elected in 1686, were continued in their several offices for the years ensuing or until further news from Eng- land. A declaration was adopted, as follows:

We, the Assembly of freemen of the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in New England, having assembled this first day of May, 1689, do with all due and humble submission make our humble address to the present supreme power of England, declaring that the late government of New England, whereof Sir Edmund Andros was Governor-in-Chief . is now silenced .. ,By which overture, we, the freemen aforesaid, were void of government, the consequences whereof appearing dangerous, we have thought it most safe for the keeping of the peace of our colony to lay hold of our Charter privileges, establishing our officers according to their former station. . . . Further, we humbly pray, if any ill-affected person should endeavor to suggest any complaint against us, it may be so favorably constructed and suspended, so that we may make our defence.

The declaration was signed for the Assembly by Walter Clarke, John Greene, and Wal- ter Newbury. Andros escaped from prison in Boston and reached Newport, but there was captured by Peleg Sanford and returned to Boston. Under date of January 30, 1689-1690, John Coggeshall, Deputy Governor and six of the ten Assistants chosen in 1686 addressed a petition to William and Mary to grant "a confirmation to our Charter, which, although it was submitted to his late majesty, nevertheless it was not condemned nor taken from us." The petition conformed to the facts ; there had not been in England a voiding of the Charter ; it had not been surrendered in America. The petition alleged that Charter government was resumed, because, with the imprisonment of Andros, Rhode Island was "destitute of gov- ernment." Walter Clarke refused to serve as Governor. At a meeting of the General Assem- bly in February, 1689-1690, Christopher Almy was elected Governor and refused to serve. Henry Bull, one of the earliest settlers of Newport, was elected. Governor Clarke refused, on request, to deliver the Charter, which was in his possession, but declared "that it was in a chest, and he would give leave to take it." Upon the appearance of a committee he "refused to let the Charter go unless the committee would forcibly open the chest and take it." Thus cautiously did Governor Walter Clarke assist in the restoration of Charter government in Rhode Island. The former Treasurer, upon request, turned over to a new Treasurer the colony funds in his possession. A new seal "being the Anchor with the motto 'Hope'" was adopted. At a meeting of the Assembly on May 1, 1690, the Charter was "produced by gen-

165

PRESERVATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN COLONIAL PERIOD

tlemen appointed, to the open view of the Assembly, and as carefully returned to his custody again," that is, to Walter Clarke. At the meeting of May 7, following, Walter Clarke sur- rendered the Charter to the Assembly, which, as was the custom, placed it in the custody of the new Governor, John Easton. On May 1, Thomas Ward, who had possession of the colony records, refused to "deliver them without they be taken out of his hand by distraint." The crisis was past, however, although, not until December 7, 1693, was there action in Eng- land which was decisive. On that date the Attorney General, Edward Ward, held that the Charter had not been revoked by quo warranto, and was actually in force in Rhode Island de lege et de facto. "I see nothing in point of law," he wrote, "but that their majesties may (if their royal pleasure be so, and no objection in point of state arise against it) gratify the petitioners and confirm their Charter."

INDEPENDENCE ASSERTED-King William's War had begun in Europe in 1689 and soon thereafter involved the English and French colonists in America .* During this war Rhode Island was once more constrained to assert sturdy independence-the occasion arising from the attempt of Sir William Phipps, royal Governor of Massachusetts, to obtain control of the Rhode Island militia. Phipps endeavored also to obtain control of the Connecticut militia and there met conflict not only with the colonial government but with Governor Fletcher of New York, who likewise was trying to control the Connecticut militia. A special session of the General Assembly was convened by Governor Easton on August 2, 1692, to discuss the situation. It appeared that Phipps in a letter to the Governor had asserted that he had a commission as commander-in-chief of the militia and of all land and naval forces of New England. Phipps kept John Greene, who was sent to Boston to see the commission and to discuss the establishment of a post office, waiting five days, and then sent Greene home with- out answer. When Phipps visited Newport, Governor Easton was equal to the occasion; he listened to Phipps and then promised to refer the matter to the General Assembly. The special session of the General Assembly was called, not so much because of the failure of diplomacy, as because Phipps had endeavored to issue commissions to persons known not to be in sympathy with the colonial government for the time being. The Assembly determined to appeal to their majesties. Other appeals had been filed by Connecticut, East Jersey and West Jersey, against Governor Fletcher's claim to control their militia. On April 2, 1684, the Attorney General and Solicitor General sustained Rhode Island thus: "We are humbly of the opinion that the Charter and grants of these colonies do give the ordinary power of the militia to the respective governments thereof; but do also conceive that their majesties may constitute a chief commander who may have authority at all times to command such propor- tion of the forces of each colony or plantation as their majesties shall think fit. . . .. But in times of peace and when danger is over the militia within each of the said provisions ought, as we humbly conceive, to be under the government and disposition of the respective Gov- ernors of the colonies, according to their charters." By royal decree Rhode Island's quota of men to be sent to the defence of New York in war times was fixed at forty-eight; and the Governor of Massachusetts was limited to a quota properly apportioned and to be called to his colors only in the event of war. Otherwise the Rhode Island militia was reserved exclusively to the control of the colony. When, in 1697, the Earl of Bellemont was appointed as Governor of New Hampshire, New York and Massachusetts and as "captain general over the colonies of Connecticut, Rhode Island and other places," it was provided that "in times of peace the militia within each of the said colonies be left to the government and disposition of the respective Governors of the same," with power reserved to the captain general "in case of apparent danger or other exigency . ... to take upon himself the superior command of these forces." Rhode Island continued to maintain successfully throughout the colonial

*Chapter VIII.

166

RHODE ISLAND-THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY

period command of the militia. In the later wars, the Rhode Island troops were consolidated in a Rhode Island regiment under their own officers.

ALLEGED FRIENDSHIP FOR PIRATES-Pretexts for conflict were found occasionally. Rhode Island did not send troops to New York during King William's War, though fre- quently solicited ; pleading the necessity of home defence, the colony offered commutation in money. The English Board of Trade censured Rhode Island for neglect and cautioned care in the future, in a letter dated February 9, 1696-1697. The same letter complained of the activities of pirates, and quoted statements made in the course of the trial of a pirate named Avery in London that Rhode Island was a "place where pirates are ordinarily too kindly entertained." The letter accused Rhode Island, on hearsay evidence, of conniving at the fitting out of pirates. Governor Cranston answered on behalf of the colony that one of the pirates named had cleared from Newport with regular papers for a legal voyage, and that the other was not known. The General Assembly issued a proclamation against piracy and directing officers to apprehend pirates and persons suspected of piracy or of aiding and abet- ting pirates. A statute forbidding the bringing of the spoils of piracy-foreign coin, gold, bullion, silver, merchandise and other treasure-into the colony was enacted. Robert Mun- day and George Cutler, suspected of piracy, were arrested and held for trial. Randolph brought serious accusations against Rhode Island with reference to piracy, thus: That Munday and Cutler, after two days in jail, were admitted to bail, and departed, leaving the Governor and the bondsman (his uncle) to share the gold and silver taken from them, £ 14,000 or £ 15,000; that Governor Clarke and his brother had countenanced piracy and profited from it; that Deputy Governor Greene had cleared a pirate without bond. There appears to be no doubt that Rhode Island was a resort for privateers, and it was entirely probable that pirates also occasionally found shelter in the convenient anchorages in and about Narra- gansett Bay. Bellemont and Randolph were both persistent enemies of Rhode Island, and neither hesitated to make any accusation, false or true, to support which even a scintilla of evidence could be found.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

Rhode Island : three centuries of democracy, Vol. I, Part 28

Author: Carroll, Charles, author Publication date: 1932 Publisher: New York : Lewis historical Pub. Co. Number of Pages: 716

Author: Carroll, Charles, author
Publication date: 1932
Publisher: New York : Lewis historical Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 716