1632-6

FORMATION OF FRESH TOWNSHIPS.

93

possession of land from the use and occupation of it, and thus, by its tendency to divide the community into large landed proprietors and hired labourers, would have changed the whole character of the settlement. The remedy soon proved worse than the evil. The occupants of the lands at Green Harbour ceased to have any political or religious connexion with Plymouth.' Accordingly, the Governor and Assistants reluctantly gave way, and Duxbury was constituted a township with a church. At the same time the supremacy of the old settlement was asserted by a resolution that the government should be 'tied' to Plymouth, and that the Governor should be required to live there. The old anxiety for union soon reappeared, and in 1636 a proposal was made to build a place of worship which should serve as a meeting-point for the two townships. Besides the practical inconvenience of such a scheme, it could not have failed to be repugnant to the patriotism of Plymouth, and, as might have been expected, it fell to the ground. The process of extension was soon carried further, and a third township came into being at Scituate, some ten miles beyond Duxbury.5 It is worth notice that both these settlements were near to the coast, and both to the north of Plymouth. Thus the tendency of the colony to become a seafaring as well as an agricultural community was confirmed. At the same time it was brought into close connexion with Massachusetts, and the need for some kind of union was increased.

1 Bradford, as above.

2 The admission of Duxbury to the full rights of a township is recorded in 1637 (Records, vol. i. p. 62). But in the previous year a constable was appointed for Duxbury, so that it is clear that it possessed certain separate rights.

3 Records, vol. i. p. 36. 5 The date at which township is not recorded.

4 lb. p. 41.

Scituate was formally admitted to the rights of a But it is described as a town in 1636 (Records, vol. i. p. 44), and it had a constable at the same time as Duxbury.

representa

The growth of these new townships gave an impulse to the political life of the colony. So long as Plymouth System of was the only settlement, constitutional machition. nery of a simple kind sufficed. The power of making laws was vested in the whole Assembly of the freemen. The judicial and executive body, called the Court, consisted of the Governor and seven Assistants elected by the Assembly. This Court admitted freemen and granted land, and in conjunction with a jury tried civil and criminal cases. The addition of Scituate and Duxbury made some system of delegation a necessity. Complete representative government did not, however, come at once. In 1636 eight Deputies met, four from Plymouth and two from each of the other colonies, and in conjunction with the Court revised and codified the laws.2 These delegates, however, were only appointed for the special business in hand, and, as it would seem, without any definite intention of continuing the system. of representation. They confirmed the existing distribution of power between the Council and the General Assembly. The code which they produced was moderate and sensible in its tone, and showed no marked trace of Puritanism either in moral austerity, or in giving any special prominence to offences against religion.

The selection of Deputies was only intended as a temporary measure for a special purpose. But in November 1636 another step was taken in the direction of a representative system. The functions of the General Assembly were divided. The meetings for legislation were to be kept distinct from those for electing the Governor and Assistants. At the former the whole body of freemen were to attend as before; at the latter

1 The constitutional powers of the Court are first formally declared in 1636 (Records, vol. xi. p. 11). But there is every reason to believe that the arrangement described existed from the time of the first settlement.

Records, vol. xi. p. 6.

1638

A REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM INTRODUCED.

95

proxies were to be allowed.1 The need for this change was illustrated by the fact that two years later sixteen. freemen were fined for absenting themselves from the Assembly.

In 1638 the system of representation was definitely introduced, and the functions of the legislative Assembly of freemen were virtually transferred to Deputies. Plymouth returned four, each of the other towns two. It would seem as if this change was accompanied by an extension of the franchise. Hitherto only freemen had been allowed to appear at the General Assembly. Henceforth it was enacted that, while the representatives themselves must be freemen, all the householders without qualification should have a vote in their election. Apparently the new system did not formally supersede the old. The primary Assembly still seems to have remained in theory the supreme legislative body. In practice, the advantages of representation asserted themselves, and the more cumbrous system fell into disuse.

We may profitably compare this change with the like process in Maryland. There, too, a primary Assembly was superseded by a system of representation, and there was a period of transition during which the two were in some measure combined. But the superior political intelligence and constructive power of the New Englander is manifest throughout the process. At Plymouth the change was effected easily, indeed, almost spontaneously, and completely, with none of those compromises which accompanied it in Maryland.

The dissolution of the partnership left the settlers

The clause allowing proxies is in the Records (vol. xi. p. 80). As nothing is said limiting or altering the powers of the general Court, we are, I think, justified in supposing that they were left intact.

2 Records, vol. i. p. 104.

3 Ib. vol. xi.

p.

91.

4 It is expressly ordered in the act which provided for Deputies that the general Court should reserve the power of revising and repealing those proceedings.

The new

3

immediately dependent on the council for New England. It was doubtful how far the Plymouth colonists could claim any rights under the patent of patent. 1621, and, except for that, they were mere squatters with no legal title to the territory which they occupied. In March 1629, Bradford received an alarming letter from Shirley, one of the London adventurers, who still took an interest in the Company. It warned him that Gorges, though avowedly friendly to the colonists, wished in reality to withhold from them all security of tenure. At least one agency was sent to England, but with no effect.2 At length, in January 1630, the desired instrument was obtained. The patent granted. by the New England Council gave to Bradford and his associates all the land bounded by the Cohasset river on the north, the Narragansett river in the south, and the territory of Pokanoket to the west. In addition to this the patent set forth that the colonists had no suitable place for trade and fishing, and to that end granted them a tract of land extending fifteen miles in breadth on each bank of the Kennebec. It also gave power of legislation, subject to the usual reservation in favour of the laws of England, and to a special limitation in favour of any form of government established by the Council. The latter condition greatly lessened the value of the grant, since Gorges might at any time carry out his scheme for establishing a general government over the whole of New England, and thereby sweep away the constitution of Plymouth at one stroke. The patent also granted a monopoly of trade with the Indians within the limits assigned, and empowered the settlers to defend this and their other rights by force of arms. This patent gave the settlers secure possession of

1 Shirley to Bradford, Mass. Hist. 1st series, vol. iii. p. 71.

1622-9

WESTON'S SETTLEMENT.

97

their land, but it did not go farther. It did not guard them against legislative interference by the Council or by the Crown. The latter was probably the more real danger. The King's proclamation, issued in May 1625, referred specially to Virginia. But it also set forth that New England formed part of the King's empire, and it might be supposed to foreshadow a comprehensive system of control by the Crown.2 Dreading such danger, the settlers bestirred themselves to get a charter from the King. Like every form of court favour in that day, it could only be procured through venal officials, and the Plymouth settlers were but scantily supplied with the means of corruption. Nevertheless, the negotiation seemed for a while in a fair way to succeed. Difficulties, however, arose, partly from the dishonesty or incompetence of Allerton, partly, it was thought, from the unworthy jealousy felt by the newly formed Company of Massachusetts. No charter was obtained, and the legis lative independence of Plymouth was left to depend on the precarious good-will of the sovereign.

3

Meanwhile the task of colonization was being carried on along the shores of New England, feebly and imWeston's perfectly indeed, by others besides those of

settlement. Plymouth. One attempt was made by that

Thomas Weston who had played so base a part alike towards the settlers and towards his commercial partners. In 1622 he severed his connexion with the London merchants, and sent out on his own account seventy men, who settled on the south side of Massachusetts Bay, some twenty-five miles by land from Plymouth.1 Our knowledge of their doings is mainly derived from

1 Colonial Papers, 1625, May 13.

3

2 Letter from White to Bradford in Bradford's letter-book, p. 43.

Shirley to Bradford, letter-book, p. 72. In the same letter Shirley says that many locks must be opened with the silver, nay, the golden key.'

4 For Weston's colony see Bradford, passim, pp. 77-107. Something also may be learnt from Gorges.