USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 1 > Part 10
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).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73
1Simp. Defence (R. I. H. S. Coll. ii, 166).
2Deane's Gorton, p. 41.
83
THE OBTAINING OF THE FIRST CHIARTER, 1639-47.
delegates to the direction of the Almighty, wishing them "a comfort- able voyage, a happy success, and a safe return".
On May 19, this general assembly, constituting the "major part of the Colony", gathered at Portsmouth to accept the Charter, to elect officers, and to draw up a code of laws. After having chosen John Coggeshall moderator, they all agreed to "set their hands to an engage- ment to the Charter". They made provision for a quorum and for representation of the towns at future General Courts, admitted War- wick to the same privileges as Providence, and then proceeded to the election of officers. John Coggeshall of Newport was chosen by ballot to be President of the Colony, and an Assistant was chosen for each town-Roger Williams for Providence, John Sanford for Portsmouth, William Coddington for Newport, and Randall Holden for Warwick. William Dyer was elected General Recorder, and Jeremy Clarke Treasurer.
The method of originating legislation was then prescribed. A law was first to be discussed and voted upon in the town, which was to subject the result of the decision to the approval of the three other towns. Each of the four towns was to commend its decision to a committee of six to be discussed in "General Court" or committee meeting. If it was then found that the major part of the colony con- curred in the case, it was to stand as a law until its final confirmation by the general assembly of all the people. It was further agreed that this General Court could discuss and determine new cases brought before them and carry the result of their decision to their respective towns. The townsmen were to vote upon the matter, when it could stand as a law until the next general assembly of all the people, to be finally approved or repealed. Thus it will be seen that the people, being extremely jealous of delegated authority, insisted upon reserv- ing to themselves the final voice in legislation. They enjoyed both the "initiative" and the "referendum"; in fact, they possessed the sov- ereign political power, not in their collective capacity as inhabitants of the town, as has been often supposed, but as individuals belonging to the Colony. This law was probably framed by those on Aquedneck. If the political unit was to be the town, then Newport's greater num- bers, wealth and culture would all go for naught. Having the largest population, the Islanders naturally desired a majority rule. It is doubtful, however, whether laws originated elsewhere than in the General Courts, or whether the people ever exercised their right of
1Prov. Rec. xv, 9.
84
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
repeal. The method of legislation was too cumbersome and soon yielded to a representative system more worthy of the namc.1
After ordering a colony scal, adopting a complete military system, and making several minor provisions, the assembly proccedcd to the adoption of their bill of rights and code of laws. In the preamble they assert that "the form of government established in Providence Plantations is Democratical, that is to say, a government held by the free and voluntary consent of all, or the greater part of the free inhabitants". This characteristic doctrine is followed by a bill of rights, embracing under four distinct heads the foundation of all sub- sequent legislation. The first of these sections rc-enacts the clause in the Magna Charter that no man shall be molested except by the lawful judgment of his peers. The second guards the right of the individual against the government by enacting that no officer shall do either more, or less, than what he is authorized to do. As far as principle was concerned, there was to be no sanction of a "loose con- struction" by these carly legislators. The third section secures the rights of the minority by requiring that all laws must be "founded on the Charter and rightly derived from the General Assembly". The fourth enacts that those who serve the public shall be duly compen- sated and also establishes a fine for refusal to serve.
The code of laws, which follows the bill of rights, is truly a most remarkable instrument. It may not define crimes with the fullness and legal precision employed in a disquisition on criminal law, but its meaning is never in doubt. Through it all there breathes a spirit of frankness and freedom strongly in contrast to the spirit of the age. These legislators well knew that the source of their power resided in their dependence upon England, but they had no intention of allowing any of their chosen principles of religious and political toleration to be frustrated by any ancient provisions of English law. Their enact- ments concerning the formation of a military force, the regulations with reference to the payment of import duties by foreigners, the limitation of punishable crimes to those expressly listed in the code, and the provision which allowed all men "to walk as their conscience persuade them", all show their disregard for English laws relating to the same subjects. The provision that laws should be conformable to the laws of England only in "so far as the nature and constitution of the place will admit", was not inserted in the Charter without reason.
1See the Act of Oct. 26, 1650 (R. I. Col. Rec. i, 228) in which the law of 1647 was repealed.
-
85
THE PERIOD OF THE FIRST CHARTER, 1648-63.
Although there is not space here to allude in detail to the provisions of this code, the remarks of Judge Staples on the subject, written over fifty years ago, should certainly be quoted. These early legislators, he says, "began at the foundation, and adopted a bill of rights which secured all that their ancestors had wrested from their kings, and which their countrymen had subsequently lost, and were then endeav- oring to regain. They clothe them in language too plain not to be understood. They were a simple people, and the language of their laws was such as a people would naturally use. They regarded them- selves, within the scope of their charter, as the only source of power among them, and they in practice declared 'that their government derived all its just powers from the consent of the governed'. They expressly declared their government to be a democracy, or 'govern- ment held by the consent of all the free inhabitants'. This declaration was as heterodox in the political systems of that day, as were their notions of soul-liberty. This code, and the acts and orders passed at its adoption, constituted the fundamental laws of the colony while the charter remained in force. The alterations made in them during that period were rather formal than substantial. Their spirit remained unchanged, and has been infused into all the subsequent legislation of the colony and state".1
CHAPTER VII.
THE PERIOD OF THE FIRST CHARTER, 1648-63.
The people of Rhode Island had started the machinery of their new framework of government, but they were poorly qualified to keep the machine running smoothly and easily. When to the controversies within the separate towns were added the disputes arising from a general union, the burden seemed more than they could bear. The absence of a state protected church, while of incalculable benefit from many points of view, was in that day somewhat of a bar to political order. The blind subordination of the people and the calm ascend- ency of the rulers-both the fruits of a theocracy-gave place in Rhode Island to rampant individuality. Eccentrics, enthusiasts, men
1Code of 1647, p. 63.
86
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
of original and bold minds-those who are in the vanguard of every great reform-are seldom best qualified to submit peacefully and quietly to a newly framed government. And the early colonists of Rhode Island were no exception to the rule. The addition of new politieal relations only gave opportunity for further dissension.
Trouble soon began to erop out between Newport and Portsmouth. Seareely had the charter been adopted, when the former town, by a vote of 41 to 24, signified its desire to continue under the same joint government as before; but the Portsmouth men, adopting a more reasonable construction of the charter, replied to the Newport messen- gers that they would "act apart by themselves and be as free in their transactions as any of the other towns in the colony".1 Providenee, although not entertaining a dislike toward the new government, was too disturbed by internal disputes to be of much assistance in its man- agement. Williams, either to escape these distraetions or to seek a closer acquaintance with the Indians, had established a trading house in the heart of the Narragansett country.2 He continued, however, to lend his aid and presence to the condueting of Providence affairs, and in December, 1647, prevailed upon several of his associates to subscribe to an aet, whereby they renewed their allegianee to the town and eolony, and eonsigned all former differences to the "Grave of Oblivion".3 This aet bore little fruit, since the few who signed it were least addicted to contentious aetions.
Affairs were running far more smoothly, then, when the General Assembly met at Providenee in May, 1648. Seareely had Coddington been elected President when he was suspended, pending eertain bills of complaint exhibited against him. As he did not attend the court to elear himself of the aceusations against him, Jeremy Clarke, the assistant from Newport, was chosen to supply his place.4 The issue between the state party and the Coddington faetion lay in the latter's refusal to side with the colony in her controversics with Massachusetts ; and this course Coddington undoubtedly pursued from his dislike for Samuel Gorton.5 Williams, from his trading post near Wiekford,
1Portsmouth Rec. p. 35, 37.
2For this phase of Williams's life, see Narr. Hist. Reg. ii, 25.
3Prov. Rec. xv, 11.
The General Assembly record does not mention the specific nature of these charges, but Coddington says that the case in question was one with William Dyer. (4 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. vi, 321.) The records of the Court of Trials (MS. volume in Sec. of State's office) mention the case as one of assault and battery. Coddington and Dyer signed an agreement of reconcilia- tion, Mar. 14, 1656, (Narr. Club. Publ. vi, 294).
"See his letter to Winthrop in Hutchinson, Collection of Papers, p. 224.
87
THE PERIOD OF THE FIRST CHARTER, 1648-63.
viewed the proceedings with much trepidation. "Our poor colony", he writes, "is in civil dissension. Their last meetings, at which I have not been, have fallen into factions. Mr. Coddington and Captain Partridge, etc., are the heads of the one, and Captain Clarke, Mr. Easton, etc., the heads of the other faction", and again, "The colony now looks with the torn face of two parties, and the greater number of Portsmouth with other loving friends adhering to them, appear as one grieved party ; the other three towns, or greater part of them, appear to be another".1 Williams's proposal for a general conference met with but little response. The Coddington party cherished designs and ambitions which no attempt at arbitration could frustrate.
The first move in the scheme was made in September, 1648. William Coddington and Captain Partridge presented to the Commissioners of the United Colonies the following application :
"Our request and motion is in the behalf of our Island; that we the Islanders of Rhode Island may be received into combination with all the United Colonies of New England in a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity; of offence and defence, mutual advice and succor, upon all just occasions, for our mutual safety and welfare, and for preserving of peace amongst ourselves ; and preventing, as much as may be, all occasions of war and difference; and to this our motion we have the consent of the major part of our Island".2 The Commis- sioners responded that the request should be granted only in case the Islanders should acknowledge themselves within the jurisdiction of Plymouth. This condition was no bar to Coddington's traitorous de- sign. In company with Captain Partridge, says Williams, he re- turned "with propositions for Rhode Island to subject to Plymouth; to which himself and Portsmouth incline; our other three towns decline".3 Such action would have been a complete disavowal of opinions which the people of Rhode Island had cherished for over a decade. Forgetful of the agency of Roger Williams both in procuring the grant of Aquedneck and in obtaining the Charter, this Newport Royalist would have deserted him when he most needed the help and strength of the larger towns ; disregarding those principles of religious liberty for which he had contended for so many years, he would have subjected himself and his companions to a colony where church and state were one; unmindful of the hardships and self-sacrifice which all had undergone in order to found an abode of democracy and toleration
1Narr. Club. Publ. vi, 150, 166.
2Request and reply in Plym. Rec. ix, 110.
3Narr. Club. Publ. vi, 154.
88
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
in the New World, he would have abandoned the two smaller towns to be overcome by their aggressive neighbors. Fortunately the great majority in the colony saw fit to continue the "experiment" and Rhode Island was saved.
Failing to impress even the people of his own town with the wisdom of destroying their government, Coddington was now prepared to exccute a more covert, but equally destructive, schemc. He had wit- nessed the decline of his own influence, due to his unwillingness to act with his fellow colonists in their contentions with Massachusetts, and he now thought that harmony could be restored only through the restoration of his own authority. Ambition and a mistaken idea of his own importance caused in him the desire to be absolute ruler of the Island. As Dr. Turner has said in his most excellent account of Cod- dington : "Almost any man would be in favor of monarchy, if he could be king"; and Coddington was no exception to the rule. Not disclosing his design to any one, he sailed for England in January, 1649, leaving Captain Partridge in charge of his affairs at Newport.1 Of his subsequent fortunes we shall hear later.
During his absence, matters went on in the same inharmonious routine as before. At a special meeting of the Assembly in March, 1649, Williams was chosen Deputy-President, and charters of incor- poration were granted to the different towns .? The annual May ses- sions for 1649 and 1650 resulted in the regular elections of officers, and in the making and amending of certain laws to suit new conditions. The most important item of business at these meetings was the effort to resist the intended occupancy by Massachusetts of the Pawtuxet and Shawomet lands. At Pawtuxet dwelt the little band of men, led by the Arnolds, who had subjected themselves to Massachusetts in 1642, and who thenceforth kept that colony constantly informed as to Rhode Island affairs. Their refusal to pay taxes and to attend the colony courts led Rhode Island legislators to make frequent complaints of their traitorous conduct.3 At Shawomet, also, Massachusetts still
1Narr. Club Publ. vi, 169; R. I. Hist. Tracts, iv, 50.
2The Charter for Providence is in Prov. Rec. ii, 113, 151. That for War- wick is copied in the MS. records of that town. The Portsmouth charter is referred to in the Port. Rec. p. 41.
This Pawtuxet body took every opportunity to oppose Rhode Island inter- ests, and were thoroughly determined to belong to the jurisdiction of Massa- setts. In a letter of Aug. 11, 1653, they ask that "some small rate" shall be laid upon them, and that officers shall be appointed to collect it. The rest of the letter, as usual, is filled with abuse of Rhode Island, this time directed against the people of Warwick, whom they accuse of restraining some of their inhabitants from subjecting themselves to Massachusetts. (Letter in Ex- tracts from Mass. MSS. ii, 144, in R. I. Hist. Soc. Library.)
1
89
THE PERIOD OF THE FIRST CHARTER, 1648-63.
claimed jurisdiction. In June, 1650, Plymouth, at the request of a Bay commissioner, relinquished whatever claim to Shawomet and Paw- tuxet lands she possessed. The Commissioners of the United Colonies, however, advised that the lands in question should be restored to Ply- mouth, and the Massachusetts Court acceded.1
To all of these assignments of her territory, Rhode Island made a vigorous protest. At this time when the interchange of warnings and summons could have engendered little good feeling between the two colonies, there occurred an exhibition of Puritan intolerance which must have obliterated what little friendship there was left. In July, 1651, three members of the Newport church-John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes, and John Crandall-were deputed to visit an aged fellow member, who was residing near Lynn. Scarcely had they arrived and begun holding worship in the house when they were arrested, "being strangers". A few days later they were tried at Boston, charged with being anabaptists, and heavily fined. Holmes, for refusing to pay his fine, was so unmercifully beaten with a corded whip that it was a torture for him to move for many weeks afterwards.2 Thus did the Massachusetts clergy, through the fear of being deprived of their temporal power, repress those who dared to worship God in their own manner. Bigoted as they were, they could not heed Clarke's pro- phetic warning that the "forcing of men in matters of conscience towards God to believe as others believe, and to practise and worship as others do, cannot stand with the peace, liberty, prosperity and safety of a place, commonwealth, or nation".
Coddington, in the meanwhile, had succeeded in having himself installed as ruler of Aquedneck. He had entered a petition with the Council of State, praying for a personal grant of the islands of Aqued- neck and Conanicut from Parliament. He stated that he had discov- ered those islands, had purchased them of the Indians and lived in quiet enjoyment ever since, and was now desirous of being governed by English laws under the protection of the Commonwealth. On April 3, 1651, after nearly a year's delay, he was commissioned as Governor of the two islands. He was allowed to raise forces for de- fence, and to appoint annually not more than six counsellors, who,
1See Mass. Col. Rec. iii, 216, iv, 16; Plym. Rec. ix, 170; Arnold, i, 230. The ease with which Massachusetts could assign and reassign Rhode Island lands is chiefly explained by the disparity in the size of the two colonies.
2The chief original sources for this narrative are in Backus's Hist. of Bap- tists, i, 207, Clarke's Ill Newes, and Cobbett's Civil Magistrate's Power. The best modern treatment is H. M. King's Visit of three Rhode Islanders to Mass. Bay.
90
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
however, were to be nominated by the freeholders of Newport and Portsmouth.1 There is not the slightest doubt that Coddington obtained this commission under false pretences. His representation as to personal ownership of the island was certainly untrue, and was expressly denied by him a year later. That his neighbors so regarded it, is shown in Dexter's letter to Vane of August, 1654, in which he says, "We were in complete order, until Mr. Coddington, wanting that public, self-denying spirit which you commend to us in your letter, procured by most untrue information, a monopoly of part of the colony, viz., Rhode Island to himself, and so occasioned our general disturbance and distractions".2
Coddington's return to Rhode Island in the late summer of 1651 is strongly in contrast with the return of Williams seven years previous. Sixty-five of the inhabitants of Newport, and forty-one at Portsmouth, joined in requesting John Clarke to proceed to England and there seek a repeal of the commission.3 The inhabitants of Providence and Warwick immediately took active exertions towards raising two hun- dred pounds to send Williams to England.4 Overcome by their impor- tunities, he sold his trading house at Narragansett, petitioned the Bay for passage through their jurisdiction, and embarked at Boston prob- ably in November, 1651. He and Clarke, though acting for different constituencies, both sought the same object-the repeal of Codding- ton's commission.
The sudden arrival of Coddington with his commission left the two northern towns in the unenviable position of having to form a new government. As Arnold wrote to the Bay rulers: "Coddington hath broken the force of their charter, because he have gotten away the greater part of the colony". After a preparatory organization at Warwick in October, the commissioners of the two towns met at Provi- dence in November, 1651, and declared that the Island towns had deserted from the chartered government formerly established. Act-
1The proceedings of the Council are given in Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1574-1666, pp. 335-354. See also Palfrey, ii, 344.
2R. I. C. R. ii, 50, 287.
Staples's Annals, p. 82. Coddington wrote Winthrop that the plantation "hath not hitherto succeeded as was expected by me", and said that a rebel- lion had been occasioned by some proceedings against William Dyer. (4 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. vi, 322; vii, 282.) Dyer and some others petitioned Massachusetts in Nov., 1651, for freedom to embark at Boston on their way to seek redress in English courts. (Copied in Extracts from Mass. MSS. i, 53, in R. I. H. S. Library. )
4Letter to Mass. from William Arnold, who hopes that their purpose may be frustrated and humbly desires that his name be concealed, Sept. 1, 1651 (R. I. C. R. i, 234). See also Narr. Club Publ. vi, 228, 231,297.
91
THE PERIOD OF THE FIRST CHARTER, 1648-63.
ing under that charter, they chose a President-Samuel Gorton-and enacted that the legislature should henceforth consist of six men from each town in the colony.1 Gorton called a general assembly for May, 1652, when they elected a new set of officers, and ordered among sev- eral laws of minor importance, that no slave, black or white, could be held in servitude for more than ten years. This was one of the very first laws ever made which provided for the emancipation of the negro.2
A small controversy now arose between Providence and Warwick which showed that some strong hand was necessary in order to keep the inhabitants from bickering over matters of trivial importance. In July, 1652, the Providence commissioners wrote to Warwick, com- municating the latest advices from Roger Williams and proposing the appointment of a committee to compose an answering letter of encour- agement. To this Warwick assented, and further provided that the committee might if they saw fit, treat with Newport and Portsmouth about expressing the unanimous desire of the four towns of renewing the Charter. But the Providence men would not contemplate this "enlargement" of their plans and in a plainly written letter replied to that effect.3 They met at Providence in October and drew up a reply according to their own way of thinking, in which they urged that Williams should have himself appointed by Parliament as Gov- ernor for one year. At the next meeting, held at Warwick, the com- missioners declared against certain particulars in the letter which were "contrary to the end for which the said Roger Williams was sent". And so these and other matters of local importance-engendering "uncivil speeches", vilification of neighbors, and allegations of ille- gality-continued to disturb the meetings of this truncated remnant of a colony, until the success of Williams's mission made them abandon local animosities to face problems of state.
At Newport Coddington was rapidly discovering that even the smallest of monarchies cannot be successful with disaffected subjects. One cause of controversy was his withholding of the original purchase deeds of the Island. The settlers knew that he had obtained his com- mission through representing himself as sole purchaser, and this claim they made him flatly disavow by inducing him to deliver over to them
1Prov. Rec. xv, 49; R. I. C. R. i, 233-38.
2R. I. C. R. i, 243.
"These three letters, all dated in July, 1652, are in Copies of Warwick Rec- ords, p. 3-4, in R. I. Hist. Soc. Library; and in Prov. Rec. xv, 56. See also R. I. C. R. i, 249, 356.
92 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
all the original deeds and reeords.1 Another eause of trouble had its origin in controversies begun in the mother country. The war that had been declared between England and Holland early in 1652 spread to the New World, and led to certain restrictions upon the enterprising Dutch traders who had already opened a flourishing eommereial inter- course between New York and Narragansett Bay. In April, 1652, some letters borne by Duteh messengers to Governor Coddington were intercepted, opened, and found to contain an offer of soldiers to be employed against the inhabitants of Rhode Island. The General Assembly immediately charged both Coddington and the Duteh Director with conspiraey and treason.2 Although the case does not seem to have been pressed, the event does not display the character of Coddington in the most favorable light.
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.