USA > South Carolina > The history of South Carolina under the proprietary government, 1670-1719, V.2 > Part 4
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
1 Maryland, Am. Commonwealth, 191.
2 Virginia, Am. Commonwealth (hoke), 332 ; Old Churches, etc .. of Virginia Bishop Meade). 16.
3 Hist. Am. Episcopal Church ( Bishop Perry), vol. I, 377.
When an English nobleman, it is said. asked a bishop why he con- ferred Holy Orders on such an arrant set of blockheads as some of those sent out to our colonies, he replied. .. Because it was better to have the ground ploughed by asses than to leave it a waste full of thistles. "
421
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
son for the provision is thus set out in the preamble in the act.1 It recites : -
" And whereas it may often happen that a rector or minister may be chosen pursuant to the Act . . . of whose qualifications or dis- positions the inhabitants may have but small acquaintance or may be otherwise mistaken in the person, who may act contrary to what was expected of him at his election so that it is highly necessary to have a power lodged in some persous for the removing of all or any of the several rectors or ministers of the several parishes or to translate them from one parish to another as to them shall seem convenient, otherwise in case any immoral or imprudent clergyman should happen to be appointed rector or minister of any parish the people would be without any remedy against him, or in case there should arise such incurable prejudices. dissentions, animosities and implacable offences between such rector or minister and his people, that all reverence for and benefit by his ministry is utterly to be despaired of (although he is not guilty of more grosser or seandalous crimes) yet it may be very convenient to have him removed from being rector or minister of that parish to which he did belong, and where such dissentions and offences are arisen, otherwise great evils and inconveniences may ensue upon the same."
With this recital of the occasion for the enactment, the clause provides : -
. . That the commissioners hereafter named or the major part of them shall have power where they think it convenient (upon the request and at the desire of any nine parishioners that do conforme to and are of the religion of the Church of England and are persons of credit and reputation, together with the request of the major part of the vestry of the parish. signified under their hand and requesting the removal of their rector or minister of such parish) to cite such minis- ter before them and to hear the complaints against such minister or rector allowing him reasonable time to make his defence and upon hearing of the same if the said commission or the major part of them shall think it convenient to remove such rector or minister, they are hereby authorized and empowered to do the same." 2
1 Statutes of So. Co., vol. II, 240.
" An attempt was made to establish a similar Board of Lay Commis- sioners in Maryland. An act for the purpose passed both Houses of the
422
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Upon the passage of this act it was moved "that any member may have liberty to enter his dissent against a vote or proceedings made in this House." But, on the con- trary, it was " Resolved that no member shall have leave to enter his dissent." It has been objected that the act was in the nature of an ex post facto law.1 But no action was taken against Mr. Marston, under its provisions, for what had occurred previously to its passage. On the con- trary. Dalcho says, it does not appear that these proceed- ings of the General Assembly had much influence upon Mr. Marston's conduct. He was again arraigned before the House of Commons, February 5, 1704-1705, for having spoken falsely to the prejudice of Major Charles Colleton, a member, and it was resolved that he had been guilty of high breach of privilege, and that his assertions were false and malicious. A motion was made, February 8, to bring in a bill to displace him "for his imprudent behaviour in general and his reflection on the honour and justice of this House since the last censure by the General Assem- bly." This motion was, however. lost, but another vote of censure passed. It was not until the next year, 1705, that Mr. Marston was arraigned before the Board of Lay Commissioners and deprived of his living.2
The act imposing a religious test was to operate on the members of the Assembly to be chosen; fortunately, there was no such objectionable feature in another important measure of this time upon the same subject, i.e. " An act to regulate the manner of elections."3 Until 1696 there had been no statutory provision regulating elections. except
Provincial Assembly in 1708. Anderson's Hist. of the Colonial Ch., vol. ITI, 150.
1 Hist. Sketches of So. Co. (Rivers), 220.
2 Daleho's Ch. Hist., 62, 03.
3 Statutes of So. Co., vol. II, 249.
.
423
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
those contained in the Fundamental Constitutions, which had never been in operation. During Ludwell's adminis- tration, an act upon the subject had been passed; but it had been disallowed by the Proprietors.1 Elections had been hitherto conducted under the directions of the pre- cepts of the Governor, in pursuance of the instructions of the Proprietors. Thus we have seen Sothell admitting the Huguenots to vote, and Archdale excluding them. Elec- tions had. however, as has appeared, always been conducted by ballot.2 The act of 1706 has not been preserved. We only know of it from the repealing clause of an act of 1704, which is the first upon the subject which has come down to us? This was entitled "An act to regulate the elections of members of the Assembly." This act. which, it will be observed, was one to regulate elections of mem- bers of the Assembly, recognizes the use of the ballot as the manner of elections existing at the time of its passage. It does not prescribe the use of ballots anew, but provides for their preservation from one day to another, during the continuance of the election. In the clause directing the sheriff to publish his precept, or writ, it is true, it is pro- vided " and all voices or votes given before such publica- tions are hereby declared void and of no force," and in that requiring the elections to be held in public. it is said "that no person whatsoever, hereby qualified to vote, shall, being absent from the place of election, give his voice or vote by proxy, letter or any other way whatsoever, but shall be present in person, or his voice to be taken for none."
It is manifest that voice and written vote, i.e. ballot, are used here synonymously ; for one could not send his nat- ural voice by proxy or letter. nor could his voice be taken
1 Hist. Sketches of So. Ca. (Rivers), Appendix, 487. 2 Ante, p. 198 et seq. 3 Statutes of So. Ca., vol. II, 130, 249.
424
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
for any if absent. That the term "voice" is used in this sense is made still more clear from the clause providing that the elections shall continue for two days, which pre- scribes that the Sheriff at " every adjournment shall seal up in a paper bag or box all the votes given in that day in the presence of and with the seals of two or more of each con- tending party and the same shall break open at the next meeting," etc. The phonograph had not been conceived at that time, and the paper bag or box would scarcely have retained during the night and emitted the voices when the seals were broken open the next morning.
The qualifications prescribed for a voter were that the person must be twenty-one years of age and own fifty acres of land. or the value of £10 in money, goods, chat- tels, or rents. and have resided in the precinct in which he offered to vote three months before the date of the writs of election, to which qualifications he was required to make oath. Elections were to continue for two days. and to be held in public. Carrying out the analogy to the House of Lords in England. no Proprietor or deputy of a Proprietor was allowed to vote. No alien born out of the allegiance of the Queen was qualified to be a member of the House.
CHAPTER XIX
1704-1706
MR. ASH, who had been hurried off by the way of Vir- ginia to avoid his being detained by the Governor, had arrived in England and applied at once to Lord Granville, the Palatine ; but finding that his Lordship was entirely in the interest of the church party in Carolina, and de- spairing of obtaining from that source redress of the griev- ances of which he had come to complain, he drew up the representation and address of the Colleton members of the Assembly, from which so much has been quoted, and was superintending the printing of it, but died before it was completed.1 The paper, though addressed to Lord Gran- ville, was no doubt designed to reach higher authority than the Proprietors. Oldmixon admits that Mr. Ash may have represented things with too much partiality ; 2 and Archdale says that he was not a person suitably quali- fied for his mission, not that he wanted wit, but temper.3
Upon Mr. Ash's death Mr. Joseph Boone was sent. Mr. Boone, upon his arrival in England, found that he had not left behind him in Carolina the excitement and passions engendered by the religious controversy which distracted the province. He had, indeed, but come to its source, and found it raging in England with greater violence
1 British Empire in Am .. vol. I, 482.
2 Ibid., 453.
3 Carroll's Coll., vol. II, 112.
425
426
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
than at home. It so happened that contemporaneously with the passage of the church act in Carolina (November 4, 1704). of which he had come to complain, the Tory House of Commons in England had been making another vigorous effort to enact the ". Occasional Conformity Bill." Parliament had met on October 29, and notwithstand- ing all the efforts of the ministry to induce the leading men of the High Church party to restrain their zeal till they might have an opportunity of gratifying it without embarrassing the public business. the measure was at once again introduced, and passed to a second reading. At this stage, well aware that it would be rejected by the House of Lords, upon its own merits, as it had been twice already. it was tacked to a tax bill. so that the Lords would be obliged to reject the tax bill as well as the Occasional Conformity bill. or to pass the one with the other; it being a fundamental principle that the Lords could not alter a money bill. but must adopt or reject it as it was sent to them. Connecting this church matter with a supply bill necessarily involved Marlborough's operations, and it would, it was said, give the French King almost as great an advantage as Marlborough had gained over him a few months before at Blenheim. On the other hand, it was wittily said that the supplies were offered as a portion annexed to the church as in a marriage, and they did not doubt but that the court would exert itself to secure its passage when it was accompanied with two millions as its price. The bill passed the Commons on the 5th of December after a long debate, and was sent to the House of Lords. But the House of Lords would not be intimidated ; on the 14th of December the supply bill with its tack was rejected.1
This, the first Parliament of Queen Anne, was about to
1 Purl. ITist., vol. VI, 359-368.
427
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
expire by the limitation of the biennial act. A proclama- tion was accordingly issued on April 5. 1705, for dissoly- ing it, and on the 23d another was published calling a. new Parliament. It was during the excitement of the election for the new Commons that Mr. Boone arrived in England. Before we take leave of this Parliament, how- ever, it is most interesting to observe that another subject of debate in Carolina had also been before that body. Among the bills which fell with the session, though not actually rejected, was one offered for the naturalization of some hundred Frenchmen, to which the Commons added a clause disabling the persons so naturalized from voting in elections of Parliament. This was done, though it was observed that these people in England gave in all elections their votes for those who were most zealous against France. The Commons. nevertheless, did not be- lieve that they could be so impartial to the interests of their native country as to be trusted with a share in the government of England.1
The elections of the members of the House of Commons was conducted with the greatest zeal on both sides. The clergy took pains to infuse into all minds the great dan- gers to which the church was exposed. The universities were inflamed with the same idea, and took all possible means to spread it over the nation. The danger to the Church of England grew to be the watchword as in an army. Men were known as they answered it. Books were written and distributed with great industry to im- press upon all people the apprehension that the church was to be given up, that the bishops were betraying it, and that the court would sell it to the dissenters. A me- morial of the Church of England, written by some zealous churchman, was printed and spread abroad, setting forth
1 Parl. LIist., vol. VI, 337.
428
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
her melancholy situation and distress. The dissenters, on the other hand. who had formerly been much divided, were now entirely united, and joined with the Whigs everywhere.1 It was in the midst of this excitement that Mr. Boone appeared upon the scene in the interests of the dissenters of South Carolina.
Mr. Boone was a merchant trading with London, and there he induced the principal merchants in the Carolina trade to join him in a second representation of the dis- senters'case. He also applied to Lord Granville, the Pala- tine, to be heard by the Proprietors. But. as we have already seen, it was no easy matter to get a meeting of that body even in quiet times to transact the ordinary and necessary business of the colony. It was still more dif- ficult to do so at this time of political turmoil. especially when the purpose of the meeting was to hear a protest against a measure which was warmly approved, if it had not been actually suggested, by the Palatine himself. It was seven weeks before he could succeed in having a meeting called.2
The Proprietors at this time were : John Lord Granville, Palatine; William Lord Craven ; John Lord Carteret (then a minor); Maurice Ashley, representing his brother, the Earl of Shaftesbury; Sir John Colleton ; Joseph Blake (a minor) ; Nicholas Trott of London, and John Archdale.3
When at last a meeting was obtained, Mr. Archdale, we are told. opposed the ratification of the bill against the dissenters with such solid reasons that it is amazing to find the Palatine so shortly answering them.+ Mr. Arch- dale soon after wrote an account of the province, in which
1 Purl. Hist., vol. VI, 442. 2 British Empire in Am., vol. I, 186.
3 Carroll's Coll., vol. II, 115.
* British Empire in Am., vol. I, 486.
429
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
he treats mainly of this controversy; but his style is so loose and rambling that it is difficult to extract from it the reasons, solid or otherwise, he urged upon the occasion.1 But whatever they were. Lord Granville replied to him very curtly : " Sir, you are of one opinion, I am of another. and our lives may not be long enough to end the con- troversy. I am for the bill, and this is the party I will hear and countenance." Mr. Boone then asked that he might be heard by counsel. To this Lord Granville replied : " What business has counsel here ? It is a pruden- tial act in me. and I will do as I see fit. I see no harm at all in this bill and I am resolved to pass it." 2
The acts were approved by Lord Granville for himself. and for the minor Lord John Carteret, Lord William Craven, and Sir John Colleton. Joseph Blake was a minor in Carolina. It is not known what part Maurice Ashley or Nicholas Trott of London took in the discussion ; or even that they were present. The Proprietors, approving the acts, wrote to Sir Nathaniel Johnson : " Sir the great and pious work which you have gone through, with such unwearied and steady zeal, for the honor and worship of Almighty God, we have also finally perfected on our part : and our ratification of that act for erecting churches, &et together with duplicates of all other dispatches, we have forwarded to you " etc.3
The Tories in England had outwitted themselves and overstrained their power in their futile efforts to tack the measure against the "occasional conformity " of the dis- senters upon the supply bill. Devoted to the church as were the people generally, they were at this time pecul- iarly jealous of the honor of the country, and zealous in
1 Carroll's Coll .. vol. II. 114.
2 British Empire in Am .. vol. 1, 481.
3 Hewatt's Hist. of So. Ca., vol. I, 170.
430
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
the support of the war. They resented the spirit which would have dimmed the lustre of Blenheim in order merely to maintain power. The odium of indifference to the glories of Marlborough and the army in Germany was too heavy a burden for the Tories to bear. The result of the election was a large majority in favor of the war, and a coalition between the moderate men of both parties. The High Church party had lost its power; but the people were still sensitive upon the subject of the safety of the church. The danger of the church was the subject of a great debate in both Houses of the new Parliament and of a proclamation by the Queen. It was resolved by the House of Lords that the church was in no danger. and so her Majesty proclaimed, but among the dissentients to the resolution was Dr. Compton, Bishop of London; and one of the dangers his Lordship declared was "the want of a law to prevent any person whatsoever from holding offices of trust and authority both in church and state who are not constantly of the communion of the church established by law." 1
In this condition of public opinion in England, Mr. Boone, the representative of the dissenters, himself a rigid one. not content with the cause of his own people. assumed also the championship of the church in Carolina. and par- ticularly of Mr. Marston, as against that of the Governor. Council, and Commons of South Carolina. Early in 1706. he presented a memorial in behalf of himself and many other inhabitants of the province of Carolina, and also of several merchants of London trading to Carolina. to the House of Lords, which was still the stronghold of the Whigs.2 The memorial set forth :
1 Parl. Hfist., vol. VI, 479-507.
2 Dalcho's Ch. Hist., 64 ; Colonial Records of No. Ca., vol. I. C37.
431
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
" That when the Province of Carolina was granted to the Proprie- tors, for the better peopling of it, express provision was made in the charter for a toleration and indulgence of all christians in the free exercise of their religion; that in the Fundamental Constitutions agreed to be the form of government by the Proprietors, there was also express provision made, that no person should be disturbed for any speculative opinion in religion, and that no person should on account of religion be excluded from being a member of the General Assembly or from any other office in the civil administration. That the said charter being given soon after the happy restoration of King Charles II and reestablishment of the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity, many of the subjects of the Kingdom who were so unhappy as to have some scruples about conforming to the rites of the said Church. did transplant themselves and families into Carolina: by means whereof the greatest part of the inhabitants there, were Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England, and through the equality and freedom of the said Fundamental Constitutions. all the inhabitants of the colony lived in peace. and even the Ministers of the Church of England had support from the Protestant Dissenters, and the mber of inhabitants and the trade of the colony daily increased to the great improvement of her Majesty's customs, and the manifest advantage of the merchants and manufacturers of the kingdom.
"But that in the year 1703 when a new Assembly was to be chosen, which by the constitution, is chosen once in two years, the election was managed with very great partiality and injustice, and all sorts of people. even aliens, Jews, servants common sailors and negroes were admitted to vote at elections: That in the said Assem- bly an act was passed to incapacitate every person from being a mem- ber of any General Assembly that should be chosen for the time to come, unless he had taken the Sacrament of the Lord's supper accord- ing to the rites of the Church of England; whereby all Protestant Dissenters are made incapable of being in the said Assembly; and yet by the same act all persons who shall take an Oath that they have not received the sacrament in any Disenting Congregation for one year past, though they have not received it in the Church of England, are made capable of sitting in the said Assembly; That this act was passed in an illegal manner, by the Governor calling the Assembly to meet on the 25th of April, when it then stood prorogued to the 10th of May following: That it bath been ratified by the Lords Proprie- tors in England who refused to hear what could be offered against it, and contrary to the petition of 170 of the chief inhabitants of the
482
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Colony, and of several eminent merchants trading hither, though the Commons of the same Assembly quickly after passed another bill to repeal it, which the upper House rejected; and the Governor dissolved the House.
" That the Ecclesiastical government of the colony is under the Bishop of London ; but the Governor and his adherents have at last done what the latter often threatened to do, totally abolished it : for the same Assembly have passed an act whereby twenty lay persons therein named are made a corporation for the exercise of several exorbitant powers to the great injury and oppression of the people in general and for the exercise of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, with absolute power to deprive any Minister of the Church of England of his bene- fice, not only for immorality. but even for imprudence or incurable prejudices between such minister and his parish ; and the only Minis- ter of the church established in the Colony. Mr. Edward Marston, bath already been cited before their Board, which the inhabitants of the province take to be an high ecclesiastical commission-court de- structive to the very being and essence of the church of England, and to be held in the utmost detestation and abhorrence by every man that is not an enemy to our constitution in Church and State.
" That the said grievances daily increasing your petitioner Joseph Boone is now sent by many principal inhabitants and traders of the Colony, to represent the languishing and dangerous situation of it to the Lords Proprietors; but his application to them has hitherto had no effect : That the ruin of the colony would be to the great disad- vantage of the trade of the kingdom, to the apparent prejudice of her Majesty's customs, and the great benefit of the French who watch all opportunities to improve their own settlements in those parts of America."
None can be found at this day to approve the sacramen- tal test proposed in Carolina for the qualification of elec- tors, or the attempted prohibition of occasional conformity in England. But this memorial is certainly a curious docu- ment to have been presented by a Puritan. a Roundhead. and follower of the Blakes, in behalf of those who had left England because of the Stuarts and the reestablish- ment of the church there. If Mr. Boone and those whom he represented could truthfully invoke "the happy res-
433
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
toration of King Charles II." and express their satisfaction "at the reestablishment of the Church." why had they left England because of " their scruples about conforming to its rites "? Did they really rejoice at the overthrow of the Commonwealth and the restoration of the Royal family ? Could they candidly appeal to the equality and freedom of the Fundamental Constitutions, which ex- plicitly established the church? It was not true that the charter prescribed a toleration and indulgence of all Christians. What it did, as already pointed out, was to give authority to the Proprietors to grant such indul- gences and dispensations as in their judgment were fit and reasonable. To such persons as the Proprietors should thus indulge, leave was given freely and quietly to en- joy their consciences in matters of religion, " they behav- ing themselves peacefully and not using their liberty to licentiousness or to the disturbance of others." 1 But this indulgence which the Proprietors were authorized to allow did not by any means necessarily carry with it the right to vote at elections or participate in the government. The elective franchise was not then, nor indeed is it to- day, regarded in England as an inherent right of citizen- ship, necessarily accompanying liberty of conscience in religious matters.
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.