•'•f^ff^'V '■■"". ' '^,-Lh7*lP^^ 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 University of 
 Pennsylvania Publishing 
 Committee 
 
JK96.A3 MiT """""">'^™'V 
 
 ^iiiliiimfflKitet',isgj;!3.,;hijhir^^ e 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 030 452 373 
 
 Overs 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030452373 
 
publicatione 
 
 OF THE 
 
 IHniverstt^ of ipenns^lvanla 
 
 SERIES IN 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 No^ 2 
 
 THE SUFFRAGE FRANCHISE IN THE 
 THIRTEEN ENGLISH COLONIES ■ 
 IN AMERICA 
 
 . BY , 
 
 ALBERT EDWARD McSlNLEY 
 
 Sometime Honorary Fellow in American History in the 
 University of Pennsylvania 
 
 Pvblislied for ilieUniversit!/ " 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 GnjN & Co., Selling Ageints, 29 Beacon Street, Boston, Msea^ 
 
publications 
 
 XDlniversit^ of Pennsylvania 
 
 SERIES IN 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 No. 2 
 
 THE SUFFRAGE FRANCHISE IN THE 
 
 THIRTEEN ENGLISH COLONIES 
 
 IN AMERICA 
 
 BY 
 
 ALBERT EDWARD MCKlNLEY 
 
 Sometime Honorary Fellow in American History in the 
 University of Pennsylvania 
 
 Published for the University 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 1905 
 
 GiNN & Co., Selling Agents, 29 Beacon Street, Boston, Maes. 
 
"2., 
 
 -^v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ ' r<^- r 
 
 
 ^P^'^s- 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 jc 
 
 
 A2> , 
 
 
 /^/JT^ . 
 
 !i 
 
 ^•1^S14^ 
 
 Copyright, 1905, by 
 Albert Edward McKinley 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This historidil sketch of the colonial suffrage is the out- 
 growth of studies begun' several years ago in the Department 
 of Philosophy of the University of Pennsylvania. The pur- 
 pose of the writer has been to present the dynamic or devel- 
 opmental aspect of the subject rather than the analytic; he 
 has not been content with a mere summary of the suffrage 
 qualifications in the several colonies, but has endeavored to 
 /trace the growth of colonial ideals and practices respecting 
 the elective franchise. A comparative or anal)rtic' treatment 
 might have been of value to the student of colonial institu- 
 tions, but there were sufficient reasons for putting this 
 method aside. In the first place, the excellent analysis to be 
 fouifd in Bishop's .f/utory of Elections irv the American Colo- 
 nies couM scarcely be improved upon ; and, secondly, the 
 -comparative arrangement would give but slight opportunity 
 for the narrative element. Consequently, the subject has 
 been treated locally ; and, wherever the existing records have 
 rendered such treatment possible, sufficient details have been 
 given to' lead to a comprehension of the motives of colonial 
 legislators in' their' policy of suffrage restrictions. The dis- 
 advantages of repetition have been braved rather than sacri- 
 fice the consecutive narrative in anycoloiiy. 
 
 To a complete knowledge of the suffrage franchise, an ac- 
 quaintance with the representative systems, the methods of 
 voting and the whole elective machinery is necessary; and 
 frequent references have been made to liiese subjects. The 
 author has, however, had in mind the fact that detailed stud- 
 ies of some of these features have already been made, and he 
 has governed himself largely in the inclusion or rejection of 
 such material, by the extent to which it has hitherto been 
 used. Thus in the New England colonies, the systems of 
 which have been carefully studied, he has limited himself 
 narrowly to the suffrage qualifications ; in other cases, as in 
 
 iii 
 
iv Preface. 
 
 the Carolinas and New York, more attention has been given 
 to these circumstances under which the suffrage was exer- 
 cised. 
 
 The material for the study has been gathered almost ex- 
 clusively from the printed records of the several colonies, and 
 from the various editions of colonial laws. For the latter, 
 continuous use has been made, during the preparation of the 
 work, of the valuable Charlemagne Tower Collection of Col- 
 onial Laws in the library of the Historical Society of Penn- 
 sylvania. The writer regrets that the two volumes of Pro- 
 fessor H. L. Osgood, which have done so much to classify 
 the facts and clarify our ideas of colonial administration in 
 the seventeenth century, were not in print during the prepa- 
 ration of this volume. The absence of an extended bibliog- 
 raphy is to be accounted for by the copious use of foot-notes. 
 
 In conclusion, the author wishes to extend his thanks for 
 the encouragement and advice given so generously by the 
 members of the Department of History of the University of 
 Pennsylvania, and particularly to express his appreciation of 
 the interest in the work shown by Professor John Bach Mc- 
 Master and Professor Herman V. Ames. At a time when it 
 seemed that the work must remain unfinished, their interest 
 led to its completion. Acknowledgment is gratefully made 
 also of the uniform courtesy shown to the author by the 
 librarian of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
 John W. Jordan, and by his assistants, during many months 
 of almost continuous use of the Society's collections. 
 
 Albert E. McKinley. 
 
 Philadelphia, January, 1905. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. Parliamentary Suffrage in England i 
 
 II. The Suffrage in Virginia 17 
 
 III. The Suffrage in Maryland 48 
 
 IV. The Suffrage in North Carolina 79 
 
 V. The Suffrage in South Carolina -, 122 
 
 VI. The Suffrage in Georgia 163 
 
 VII. The Suffrage in New York 174 
 
 VIII. The Suffrage in New Jersey 227 
 
 IX. The Suffrage in Delaware 259 
 
 X. The Suffrage in Pennsylvania 273 
 
 XI. The Suffrage in Massachusetts 300 
 
 XII. The Suffrage in New Hampshire 370 
 
 XIII. The Suffrage in Connecticut 380 
 
 XIV. The Suffrage in Rhode Island 430 
 
 XV. Conclusion 473 
 
 Index 489 
 
THE SUFFRAGE FRANCHISE IN 
 THE ENGLISH COLONIES 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 
 
 The thirteen American colonies were communities whose 
 thoughts and habits as well as language were English. 
 Groups of settlers from other nations might be found along 
 the Atlantic seaboard in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- 
 turies, but their numbers were, proportionately, small, and 
 their influence upon American institutions slight. But while 
 the colonies were distinctively English, they were also 
 American. Frequent reference will be made in the follow- 
 ing pages to the purely arbitrary English suffrage qualifi- 
 cation of an annual income of forty shillings from freehold ~Li^ 
 land, which at one time or another the strength of English "" 
 precedent forced upon the voters of more than half of the . 
 colonies. On the other hand, the only reason for making 
 this study has been to show the adaptation of English politi- 
 cal ideals and practices to American conditions; had the 
 new environment or conscious endeavor forced no change in 
 the English customs, this story would have been but a short 
 one. 
 
 The body of this work will, therefore, be devoted to an 
 account of the attempt in each colony to administer the Eng- 
 lish theories of election and representation under widely 
 different conditions from those which held good in the Eng- 
 land of colonial days. We shall trace the influence of cheap ^_ 
 land, of religious zeal, or of frontier ideals of equality upon T?' 
 the English aristocratic political system ; and we shall notice 
 the ever-continuing effort of the English authorities to dupli- 
 
2 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 cate in the diverse American settlements the political fran- 
 chise of England. In the final chapter the features of diver- 
 gence from the English system will be summarized and the 
 points of similarity collated. The present chapter will be 
 devoted to a short account of the parliamentary suffrage in 
 England. 
 
 In the seventeenth century, the age of greatest American 
 colonization, the English House of Commons was still repre- 
 sentative, as it had been for over three hundred years, of two 
 quite distinct constituencies. There were, first, the county 
 representatives, two of whom were elected for each county 
 of England, and one for each Welsh county; and secondly, 
 the corporation members, two of whom usually, but in a 
 few cases only one, came from the cities,^ certain designated 
 towns or boroughs, the Cinque ports and the two universi- 
 ties. Previous to 1677 frequent changes in the number of 
 members of the house were made ; but after that date, until 
 the reform act of 1832, there were 513 representatives of 
 England and Wales. Of this number, 92 came from the 
 counties, and the remainder, 421, represented the various 
 corporations.* 
 
 The electors of these county and corporation members 
 were required to possess definite qualifications, certain of 
 which were imposed upon all electors of members of parlia- 
 ment, while others were required only of narrow groups of 
 electors. The ancient age restriction of twenty-one years 
 was required of all electors,^ and the immemorial exclusion 
 of women from political life was always adhered to in the 
 letter, although perhaps broken in the spirit in the elections 
 
 ^ London alone sent four representatives. 
 
 ^ Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons, I, 15-17. 
 
 ' Originally there were several ages at which men of different classes 
 of society reached a legal station (Pollock and Maitland, History of 
 English Law, II, 436) ; but at the time of the colonization of America 
 the age of twenty-one years required for those who held by knight's 
 service had been extended from the gentry and had become the lawful 
 age for all classes {ibid.; Coke, Inst., I, 78 b, 171 b, 245 b; Black- 
 stone, I, 173)- 
 
Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 3 
 
 of a few boroughs.^ The actual presence of the elector, a 
 requirement which made proxy voting illegal,^ was found 
 throughout the English elective system, and led to an opposi- 
 tion in England to the establishment of balloting methods 
 in America.^ The voter in all cases must be either a native- 
 born English citizen, or a naturalized foreigner.* 
 
 Besides these time-honored qualifications, there were more 
 temporary ones which for a greater or less length of time 
 were imposed upon all electors. These were commonly some 
 form of oath or attachment to the established government. 
 Thus under Cromwell, the Instrument of Government of 
 1653 excluded Catholics from all elections for members of 
 parliament, and disfranchised all who had " aided, advised, 
 assisted or abetted" the war against Parliament, " unless 
 they have been since in the service of the Parliament, and 
 given signal testimony of their good affection thereunto." ^ 
 After the Restoration there was no such intervention with the 
 suffrage. The legislation of the Cavalier Parliament was 
 directed against the holding of office by dissenters in the 
 national government or in the municipalities, but it did not 
 
 ^ In the boroughs where the right of suffrage was dependent upon 
 the holding of certain ancient lands or lots, called therefore burgage- 
 boroughs, women who held such land were permitted to transfer the 
 right to vote in virtue thereof to their husbands, sons, sons-in-law, or 
 their nephfews (Porritt, I, 40, 223) ; and in freeman boroughs, where 
 the freemanship was conferred by marriage with a freeman's daughter, 
 such marriageable females were much in demand (ibid., 78-80). See 
 also History of Richmond in County of York (anon., 1814), 138. 
 
 '5 Day's Reports, 333, quoted by Baldwin, New Haven Hist. Soc. 
 Papers, V, 196. Except in the case of peers, who were privileged to 
 select proxies to vote for them in the House of Lords (Blackstone, 
 I, 168). At a very early period proxies may have been permitted (Cox, 
 Antient Parliamentary Elections, 109). 
 
 ' See post, 131, 156, 157. 
 
 *As the foreigner possessed few civil rights even in England at 
 common law, so he could exercise no political rights while out of 
 allegiance to the king. Even naturalized persons could not serve as 
 members of the House of Commons until 1870 (33 and 34 Vict., 
 chap. 13). 
 
 'Instrument of Government, sects, xiv-xviii. 
 
4 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 extend to a general restriction upon the suffrage.^ The 
 Revolution of 1688, however, brought a more general and 
 more permanent qualification upon electors. By a statute 
 of 1696^ the sheriffs or officers of election for members of 
 Parliament were required, upon the request of any candi- 
 date, to administer certain oaths to electors, and no person 
 refusing to take the oaths could vote " for the Election of 
 any Knight of the Shire Citizen Burgesse or Baron of the 
 Cinque Ports to serve in Parliament." The enforcement of 
 this provision,^ later amended * and extended to parliamen- 
 tary elections in Scotland,^ while not excluding Catholics 
 by name, must necessarily have cut out many of them from 
 parliamentary elections, especially those who had Jacobite 
 sympathies.® 
 These qualifications, — age, sex, attendance upon election, 
 
 'The "Five-Mile Act," 17 Chas. II, ch. 2, practically excluded all 
 dissenting preachers from voting for members of Parliament in bor- 
 oughs; but it did not extend to all dissenters, nor, presumably, did it 
 even exclude these preachers from voting in the counties. 
 ^ 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, ch. 27, sect, xviii. 
 ' The oaths are as follows : 
 
 " I A B doe sincerely Promise and Svyeare That I will be 
 FaithfuU and beare true Allegiance to Their Majestyes King 
 William and Queene Mary. Soe helpe me God &c. 
 
 " I A B doe Sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhor 
 Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall that Damnable 
 Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or De- 
 prived by the Pope or any Authoritie of the See of Rome 
 may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects or any other 
 whatsoever. 
 
 " And I doe Declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person 
 Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Juris- 
 diction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Eccle- 
 siasticall or Spirituall within this Realme. Soe helpe me 
 God &c.'- (i Wm. and M., ch. 8). 
 ' 6 Ann., ch. 23. 
 ° I Geo. I, St. 2, ch. 13, sect. 4. 
 
 ° Catholics were, of course, excluded in a more definite way from 
 serving in the House of Commons by reason of the denial of belief in 
 transubstantiation taken by all members of the House. It is probable 
 that Catholics during the eighteenth century abstained from political 
 activities (Amherst, History of Catholic Emancipation, I, 78-80). 
 
Parliamentary Suffrage iti England. 5 
 
 native or naturalized citizenship, and the taking of certain 
 oaths, — ^were the general restrictions imposed upon all elect- 
 ors in England during the colonial epoch. In addition to 
 these, however, there were numerous local or special quali- 
 fications which made the suffrage in England a most un- 
 systematic political practice. These can best be appreciated 
 by separating the uniform suffrage for county members 
 from the heterogeneous qualifications required of electors in 
 the boroughs. 
 
 A. THE COUNTY FRANCHISE. 
 
 During the first two hundred years of the history of 
 parliamentary representation, it seems probable that the 
 knights of the shires were elected by all the free men of the 
 respective counties.^ Not freeholders alone, but persons of 
 lower standing took part in the elections during the thir- 
 teenth, fourteenth, and early part of the fifteenth centuries. 
 In 1430, however, Parliament restricted this wide franchise.* 
 The reasons for so doing are set forth in the preamble of 
 the statute : 
 
 " Whereas the Elections of Knights of Shires to come to the Par- 
 liament of our Lord the King in many Counties of the Realm of 
 England have now of late been made by very great outrageous and 
 excessive Number of People dwelling within the same Counties of the 
 Realm of England, of the which most Part was of People of small 
 Substance and of no Value whereof every of them pretended a Voice 
 equivalent as to such Elections to be made, with the most worthy 
 Knights and Esquires dwelling within the same Counties, whereby 
 Manslaughters Riots Batteries and Divisions among the Gentlemen 
 and other People of the same Counties, shall very likely rise and be, 
 unless some convenient and due Remedy be provided in this Behalf." 
 
 Whereupon it was enacted, 
 
 " That the Knights of the Shires to be chosen within the same Realm 
 of England, to come to the Parliaments of our Lord the King, here- 
 after to be holden, shall be chosen in every County of the Realm of 
 England by People dwelling and resident in the same Counties, whereof 
 every one of them shall have free Land or Tenement to the Value of 
 Forty Shillings by the Year at the least above all Charges." 
 
 ^H. Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections, 64-86 passim; 103-108, 
 124 ; Grego, History of Parliamentary Elections, 7. 
 '8 Hen. VI, ch. 7- 
 
6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 The persons having the greatest number of such " choosers 
 in their favor were to be the knights for the county; and 
 sherififs were impowered " to examine upon the Evangelists" 
 every chooser to determine if he possessed the required quali- 
 fication. 
 
 In spite of the great changes in the value of the shilling; 
 in spite of the growth of the copyhold and other tenures 
 than the freehold; in spite of the difficulty of determining 
 the value of a freehold under the law, and in spite of the 
 indefinite meaning of the word freehold itself; despite all 
 ^ these facts, English conservatism retained the forty shilling 
 freehold as the exclusive qualification of county voters for 
 over four hundred years, and as an alternative to other 
 qualifications it is still a part of the English elective system. 
 
 It will be noticed from the above excerpt that the voter 
 was required to reside within the county. A similar pro- 
 vision had been enacted some years before the property 
 requirement was adopted ; ^ and it was continued in subse- 
 quent statutes.^ In spite of the statutory provision, how- 
 ever, by the time of American colonization, the opposite 
 practice had been adopted; the freeholder was no longer 
 required to be a resident of the county where his freehold 
 lay and where he voted ; but he could vote in several counties 
 if he possessed the necessary freehold in each. The process 
 by which this change had come about is not very clear, but 
 the right of non-residents to vote was well-established in 
 the seventeenth century; * and, in 1774, when the early resi- 
 dence acts had been found " by long usage to be unneces- 
 sary" and obsolete, they were formally repealed.* A poll in 
 Northampton County in 1 730 showing a proportion of about 
 seven per cent, of " outvoters," or non-residents,^ gives an 
 
 ' I Henry V, ch. I. 
 
 ' A convenient work upon elections is A Collection of the Statutes 
 Now in Force Relative to Elections down to the Present Time, R. 
 Troward, London, 1790. 
 
 ' Porritt, House of Commons, I, 24; A. Kelly, An Essay on the 
 Elective Franchise, 25. 
 
 ' 14 Geo. Ill, ch. 58. 
 
 ' See Copies of the Polls taken at the Several Elections for Members 
 to Represent the County of Northampton in Parliament in the Years 
 
Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 7 
 
 idea of the extent to which non-residents voted in the county 
 elections. 
 
 Throughout the eighteenth century, while no change was 
 made in the forty-shilling freehold, yet there was abundant 
 parliamentary legislation relating to the conduct of elections. 
 Some of these acts, particularly those of 1696,* and 171 1,* 
 exercised a wide influence upon the machinery of elections in 
 the colonies, and their provisions were sometimes copied 
 verbatim into the colonial election laws. For convenience 
 of comparison with the American legislation, a few of the 
 terms of these acts may be mentioned in this connection. 
 In 1696, to prevent " charge and expense" in elections, 
 various forms of bribery were forbidden.® In the same year 
 a comprehensive election act was passed to abolish the evil 
 practices which had " greatly injured and abused" the right 
 of election.* The method of issuing and returning election 
 writs' and precepts was fixed ; the place of election was to be 
 the most public and usual place of meeting of the county 
 court for the last forty years ; in case the election could not 
 be determined " upon the View with the Consent of the 
 Freeholders there present," a poll was to be taken by the 
 sheriff and clerks, who were sworn to " truely and indif- 
 ferently" take down the names of each freeholder, the place 
 of his freehold, and the persons for whom he voted. Voters 
 could be required to swear or affirm that they possessed a 
 freehold of the yearly value of forty shillings ; and the poll 
 should be continued from day to day until all the freeholders 
 had been polled. Trustees and mortgagees were not to hz 
 
 jjos, 170S, 1730, 1745, and 1806, Northampton, 1832, p. 79~i8s passim. 
 At the election of June 8, 9, 10, 1730, there were at least 288 outvoters 
 out of 4171 electors. 
 
 ^ 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, chs. 7 and 25. 
 
 ' ID Ann., ch. 31 (so numbered in Statutes of the Realm, IX, 698-700, 
 but in previous editions of the Statutes at Large it was ch. 23). 
 
 ' 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, ch. 7. No candidate shall " directly or indirectly 
 give, present or allow, to any person or persons having voice or vote 
 in such election, any money, meat, drink, entertainment, or provision, 
 or make any present, gift, reward, or entertainment, or shall at any 
 time hereafter, make any promise, agreement, obligation or engage- 
 ment to give or allow any money, meat" etc. Elections so obtained 
 were to be void. * 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, ch. 25. 
 
8 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 permitted to vote by virtue of their trusts or mortgages, 
 unless they were in actual possession or in receipt of the rents 
 and profits of the estates.^ Conveyances to multiply votes, 
 or to split and divide the interest in freeholds in order to 
 qualify several persons for the suffrage were to be void.* 
 Another clause provided that " noe more than one single 
 Voice shall be admitted to one and the same House or Tene- 
 ment." 
 
 By the preamble of the act of 171 1,' it is stated that 
 " many fraudulent and scandalous Practices have been used of 
 late, to create and multiply Votes at the Election of Knights 
 of the Shires;" and it is enacted that all such conveyances, in- 
 stead of being void as was provided in the former act, were 
 to be good and valid against the persons making them, while 
 all bonds given to defeat the purpose of the present act were 
 to be void. Further, both the person making such a transfer 
 and the one voting by virtue of it were to be liable to a fine 
 of forty pounds apiece. Two other provisions were in the 
 nature of direct additions to the old forty-shilling qualifica- 
 tion. The first of these provided that no person could vote 
 by virtue of lands or tenements " which have not been 
 charged or assessed to the publick Taxes, Church Rates, and 
 Parish Duties, in such Proportion as other Lands or Tene- 
 ments of Forty Shillings per Annum ;" * thus virtually re- 
 
 ' " Noe Person or Persons shall be allowed to have any Vote in 
 Election of Members to serve in Parliament for or by reason of any 
 Trust Estate or Mortgage unless such Trustee or Mortgagee be in 
 actual possession or receipt of the Rents and Proffits of the same 
 Estate, but that the Mortgager or Cestui que trust in possession shall 
 and may vote for the same Estate notwithstanding such Mortgage or 
 Trust." 
 
 ""And that all Conveyances of any Mesuages Lands Tenements or 
 Hereditaments in any County, City, Borough, Towne Corporate, Port 
 or Place in order to multiply Voices or to splitt and divide the Inter- 
 est in any Houses or Lands among severall Persons to enable them to 
 vote att Elections of Members to serve in Parliament are hereby 
 declared to bee void and of none Effect." 
 
 '10 Ann., ch. 31 (23). 
 
 * By 12 Ann., ch. s, it was explained that this ought not to exclude 
 persons from voting who were in possession of the required amount 
 of freehold land, which legally was not taxed— such as church lands. 
 
Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 9 
 
 quiring the elector to be a taxpayer as well as a freeholder.^ 
 The second provision required the elector to be in receipt of 
 the rents and profits of the freehold, or entitled to receive 
 them for one year before an election " unless such Lands or 
 Tenements came to such Person within the Time aforesaid 
 by Descent, Marriage, Marriage Settlement, Devise or Pre- 
 sentation to some Benefice in the Church or by Promotion to 
 some Office, unto which such Freehold is affixed." 
 
 By later legislation annuities and rent-charges must have 
 been registered with the clerk of the peace twelve months 
 before the date of the election j^ and in 1757 it was pro- 
 vided that no person could be qualified to vote for knights 
 of the shires by virtue of a copyhold estate.^ 
 
 In concluding the subject of the county suffrage it may 
 be mentioned that the franchise under the forty-shilling free- 
 hold provision was extended in two ways. The first of these 
 was by means of the splitting up of estates into parcels just 
 large enough to qualify a person as an elector. Such voters 
 were called " faggot" voters, and, as has been noticed, par- 
 liament attempted by statute to prevent their multiplication. 
 There is no question, however, that as the value of money 
 declined, the forty shilling qualification became easier of 
 attainment, and thus led to a wider franchise. The same 
 result was reached in a second way by a broader interpreta- 
 tion of the word freehold as an estate for life or greater 
 dignity. What had originally been attached to real estate 
 alone, now came to be applied to annuities or to rent- 
 charges, or any other form of income continuing during the 
 life of the holder. It was even extended to positions in the 
 church or the judicial service where the tenure and income 
 were for life. Thus, clergymen of the Church of England, 
 the holders of lectureships, judicial officers and clerks of the 
 peace, schoolmasters, and even choristers in the cathedrals * 
 voted in respect of their offices. By the increase in the num- 
 
 ^ The statute only required the freehold to have been assessed for 
 the taxes, they need not have been paid; but in the majority of cases 
 at least tax-assessing and tax-paying would be equivalent terms. 
 
 'Blackstone, I, 173. 
 
 °3i Geo. II, ch. 14. 
 
 ' Porritt, Unreformed House of Commons, I, 22, 23. 
 
lo The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 ber of freeholds, and by the extension of the term freehold 
 the suffrage under the act of 1430 was thus gradually ex- 
 panded.^ 
 
 B. THE BOROUGH AND CORPORATION FRANCHISE. 
 
 While the suffrage in the counties was based upon a single 
 and uniform legal requirement, there existed in the seven- 
 teenth and eighteenth centuries a bewildering variety of 
 qualifications for the borough and corporation suffrage 
 franchise. There was no law imposing a general qualifica- 
 tion upon the electors in these places, but their franchise was 
 fixed by local custom, by royal charters, or by the " last de- 
 termination" of the House of Commons.^ The right of 
 suffrage might extend to all the householding inhabitants of 
 the borough, or it might be limited solely to the score of 
 officers of the corporation; it might include hundreds of 
 resident and non-resident freemen, or pertain only to the 
 holders of a dozen or fifty ancient land-tenures; in some 
 places it included the forty-shilling freeholders, in others the 
 occupants of certain original houses, often little more than 
 dilapidated hovels, in others still every potwalloper, or man 
 boiling his own pot, had the right to vote. For the sake of 
 clearness a short statement will be made of the suffrage under 
 each of the following heads: (i) The inhabitant, and in- 
 habitant-householder suffrage; (2) the potwalloper suf- 
 frage; (3) the burgage tenure suffrage; (4) the freeman 
 suffrage; (5) the corporation suffrage; and (6) the univer- 
 sity franchise.^ 
 
 I . The Inhabitant and Inhabitant-Householder Franchise. 
 This was the broadest borough suffrage, the most natural 
 
 ' After the Reform Act of 1832 had added several new optional 
 qualifications, it could be said that there were eighty-five avenues to 
 the suffrage, most of which led to the county franchise through various 
 interpretations of the term freehold {ibid.). 
 
 ' 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, ch. 7 ; 2 Geo. II, ch. 24. 
 
 'This analysis is nearly identical with that used by Porritt, Unre- 
 formed House of Commons, I, chap. III. I cheerfully acknowledge my 
 indebtedness to this writer for many of the following illustrations 
 concerning the borough suffrage. 
 
Parliamentary Suffrage in England. ii 
 
 one, and that which conformed most closely to the early 
 English custom. In the earliest days of borough representa- 
 tion, it is probable that the suffrage included all the legal 
 burgesses, and these are believed to be the householding 
 inhabitants who bore a part in the taxes and other burdens of 
 the community, — in other words, paid scot and lot.^ This 
 early suffrage continued to be exercised in many boroughs 
 throughout the period of English history we have under con- 
 sideration. During the eighteenth century there were over 
 fifty boroughs in which the inhabitants, or inhabitant-house- 
 holders, exercised the suffrage, either alone or in conjunction 
 with other classes of voters.^ In some cases the ancient scot 
 and lot provision appears to have been lost,® while, on the 
 other hand, in most of these boroughs, an inhabitant re- 
 ceiving alms could not act as an elector.* There was no 
 general residence requirement in these places during the 
 period we are studying, and not until after the American 
 Revolution was there a compulsory six months' residence 
 before the election.'* 
 
 2. The Potwalloper Franchise. This was similar to the 
 inhabitant-householder franchise, except that it extended the 
 right to vote to those who, not owning or renting an entire 
 house, yet l^ad a separate fireplace, or boiled the pot for 
 themselves and their families.® Potwallers or potwallopers, 
 as determined in one contested case, were " persons furnish- 
 ing their own diet, whether householders or only lodgers." '' 
 In such cases usually the elector must, as in the inhabitant- 
 householder boroughs, be assessed for the local taxes (pay 
 scot and lot) ; ^ and, generally also, those receiving alms 
 
 ' Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections, 165-181. 
 
 " Kelly, Essay on the Elective Franchise, 27-41 passim. 
 
 'Ibid. 
 
 *01dfield, History of Boroughs (ed. 1794). passim; Grego, History 
 of Parliamentary Elections, 5. 
 
 ° 26 Geo. Ill, ch. 100. 
 
 'Wa.llop = ebullire, infervescere ; walling = boiling (Cox, Antient 
 Parliamentary Elections, 191, note). 
 
 'Kelly, Elective Franchise, 33. 
 
 "But even this was not required in Honiton; Porritt, I, 31. 
 
12 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 were excluded. As in the inhabitant boroughs there was no 
 general residence qualification.^ 
 
 3. The Burgage Tenure Franchise. A burgage tenure 
 has been defined as land or tenements lying in a borough and 
 paying to the king or other lord a certain annual rental.* 
 These tenures dated back hundreds of years from the seven- 
 teenth century, and often formed but a small part of the 
 land of a populous community. Yet to them and them alone 
 in many towns was the privilege of electing members of 
 Parliament attached. 
 
 In no group of boroughs did the suffrage vary more than 
 it did in the burgage boroughs, and local custom here seems 
 to have done its best to bring confusion into the elective 
 system. In some cases the right to vote was given to the 
 freeholders only of the original burgages, as in Petersfield, 
 where the electors were " the freeholders of lands, or ancient 
 dwelling-houses or shambles built on ancient foundations ;" ^ 
 in other boroughs the franchise was vested in the inhabitants 
 of the ancient tenures, as in Weobley, where it rested upon 
 the " inhabitants of certain ancient vote-houses of twenty 
 shillings per annum and upwards, residing in the houses 
 forty days before the election and paying scot and lot, and 
 also in the owners of such houses paying scot and lot and 
 resident in the houses at time of election." * Again it might 
 be the leaseholders for a certain term of years, or even, in 
 two cases, the copyholders ^ of the estates, who possessed the 
 right to vote. There was a similar diversity within the 
 thirty-nine burgage boroughs respecting the residence of 
 voters. In Cricklade ^ and Weobley "^ a residence of forty 
 
 ^In only three boroughs, apparently, did the potwalloper suffrage 
 rest upon parliamentary determination (Tregony, Honiton, and Taun- 
 ton; see Oldfield, Hist, of Boroughs, I, 92, 171; II, 53) ; probably it 
 existed in other places under local interpretations of the words inhabi- 
 tants or housekeepers. 
 
 " Coke, Inst., I, 108 b, 109 a. 
 
 ' Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 297. * lUd., 308. 
 
 "In the two boroughs of Westbury and Cricklade occur the only 
 instances known of the suffrage based upon copyholds (Oldfield, Bor- 
 oughs, II, 216, 223). 
 
 " Porritt, I, 34. ' Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 308. 
 
Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 13 
 
 days was required of the voter; while in other places the 
 vote-houses were occupied only a few days before the elec- 
 tion ; ^ and in others still no residence at all was required, or 
 indeed could be where, as at Droitwich, one of the burgage- 
 holds was in the middle of a water course.^ 
 
 The attachment of the suffrage to these ancient land- 
 tenures led to the greatest anomalies of the English repre- 
 sentative system. The case of Old Sarum has become 
 famous ; in Westbury the twenty-four tenures comprised one 
 long stone wall ; * in Calne the electors were of the same 
 number, all possessing a right of common in a certain field ; * 
 in Droitwich the members of the corporation, who were the 
 sole electors, must each " be seized in fee of a small quantity 
 of salt water arising out of a pit." ^ The number of the 
 burgage-holds was rarely over two hundred ; ® it often was 
 under fifty ; '' and in Old Sarum there were nominally seven 
 voters for the two members of Parliament.* 
 
 4. The Freeman Suffrage. In the common sense in which 
 the word freeman was used in England during our colonial 
 period, it meant that the person so called was accepted into 
 some commercial or municipal corporation and therefore 
 was free to exercise all the privileges and franchises of the 
 corporation. In this sense the freemen or burgesses of 
 sixty-two boroughs ® possessed either the exclusive right to 
 elect members of Parliament, or exercised that right in con- 
 junction with other groups of electors.^" 
 
 There were many ways in which a man couTd become a 
 freeman of the English boroughs. He might be admitted 
 
 * Porritt, I, 35- ' ^*»'^-' 37- 
 ° Oldfield, II, 216. 
 
 ^Ihid., 218. The same requirement of participation in a common 
 field is found in Richmond {ibid., II, 276). 
 
 " Ibid., 261 ; Porritt, I, 36. 
 
 "There were 330 in Pomfret {ibid., 285), 270 in Richmond {ibid., 
 276). 
 
 ''Ibid., 147, 160, 166, 192, 215, 216, 218, 281. 
 
 'Ibid., 236. 
 
 • Porritt, I, 30. 
 
 " The former was the more common custom, but for instances of the 
 latter feature see Oldfield, Boroughs, I, S, 106, 148, 2S3, 3I9, 3S0, etc. 
 
14 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 by the gift and direct vote of those who were already free- 
 men/ or he might purchase the freedom ; ^ he could gain it 
 by serving an apprenticeship, usually of seven years, to a free- 
 man in the borough,' or by serving toa freeman of the 
 borough anywhere ; * he could obtain it because he was the 
 son of a freeman,^ or the heir of a freeman ; ® or because he 
 was the eldest son,'' or the youngest son,* or a son born after 
 his father had obtained the freedom ; ® or because he had 
 married a freeman's daughter,^" or widow.^^ 
 
 In over half of the freeman boroughs a local attachment 
 of some form was maintained, either by the relationship 
 of birth, servitude and marriage, or by the more definite 
 one of residence. But in more than a third of the bor- 
 oughs, where the freedom could be obtained by gift of the 
 corporation or by purchase, even residence was not re- 
 quired.*^ In these cases the freemen could dwell in any 
 part of the country, and simply journey to the town whose 
 freedom they possessed at the time of the election.** The 
 
 ' Porritt, I, 58-66 passim; Brooke, Liverpool during last Quarter of 
 Eighteenth Century, 208. 
 
 'E.g., St. Albans; Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 314; Zacke, Memorials of 
 Exeter, 38, 39. 
 
 ''Ibid.; Creighton, Carlisle, 194; in Coventry, see Oldfield, Boroughs, 
 
 n, 173- 
 
 * When the apprentice was also the younger son of a freeman ; in 
 Nottingham (Oldfield, Boroughs, II, 2). 
 
 " Ibid., I, 120, 314, 359 ; II, 45, 312, 338. 
 
 ' In Exeter, Zacke, Memorials of Exeter, 39, 74. 
 
 ' In East Retford, Hastings, Rye, Richmond, etc. ; Oldfield, Bor- 
 oughs, II, 8, 301-304, 333; Hist, of Richmond (anon.), 120. 
 
 'In Durham; Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 244. 
 
 " In Newcastle-on-Tyne, London, Sudbury, etc. ; ibid., I, 418, 380 ; II, 
 122. 
 
 "In Ludlow, Bristol, Wells {ibid., II, 39, 45, 50), Dover (Kelly, 
 Elective Franchise, 57), etc. 
 
 "In Sandwich (Kelly, Elective Franchise, 66). 
 
 " The short pamphlet on the Elective Franchise by Arthur Kelly is 
 a study of the residence and non-residence conditions in the English 
 boroughs; see passim, especially 70, 71. 
 
 " So many freemen of various boroughs dwelt in London that some- 
 times parliamentary candidates called meetings in London of the free- 
 men of the respective constituencies (Porritt, I, 63). 
 
Parliamentary Suffrage in England. 15 
 
 freeman must^ pay the local taxes of scot and lot ^ in some 
 boroughs, while in others the freemanship admitted to the 
 suffrage such irresponsible persons as could be brought from 
 jails or work-houses.^ In the non-resident freeman bor- 
 oughs the greatest election evils existed. The travelling 
 expenses of non-residents were often paid by the candidates, 
 who also felt themselves under the necessity of furnishing 
 refreshments to the electors; and often wholesale admis- 
 sions to the freemanship were made upon the eve of an 
 election.* 
 
 5. The Restricted Corporation Franchise. The election 
 evils in the freeman boroughs usually arose by reason of the 
 extension of the franchise to those who possessed no interest 
 in the locality; but in a number of boroughs the right of 
 electing members of Parliament had taken a different, but 
 equally vicious form, — an election by a group of corporation 
 officers. This right, like the status of freemen, had developed 
 from the earlier inhabitant-householder franchise of the 
 boroughs ; * and in this case it was often strengthened not 
 only by local custom but by the actual grant of such powers 
 in royal charters of incorporation. The municipal officers, 
 also, in many places became self-perpetuating bodies, thus 
 bringing them still farther away from the early liberal suf- 
 frage. To the features of exclusive control of elections and 
 of self-perpetuation there was often added the equally vicious 
 principle of non-residence, which permitted a person to hold 
 office, even the office of mayor, in a select municipal cor- 
 poration without entering the borough once a year." Over 
 forty boroughs elected their members of Parliament in this 
 manner, and the number of officers or select burgesses ac- 
 tually participating might be as low as two.* Usually, how- 
 ever, the number was about twenty-five,'' and in a few cases 
 
 'Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 43, 112, 234, 312, 342; II, 104, 117, 173, etc. 
 
 ' Porritt, I, 69, 70. 
 
 'Ibid., 58-84 passim. 
 
 ' Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections, 186-190. 
 
 ° Porritt, Unreformed House of Commons, I, 53, 54. 
 
 ° In Castle Rising ; Oldfield, Boroughs, I, 409. 
 
 ' Ihid., I, 25, 137, 293 ; II, 24, 49. 126, 264, 274. 
 
1 6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 it might rise to almost fifty. In the town of Bath, at the 
 close of the eighteenth century, twenty-two municipal officers 
 elected the two members to represent themselves and the 
 other thirty thousand inhabitants of the borough. 
 
 6. The University Suffrage. The charters of James I 
 (1603) conferred the right of election of members of 
 parliament upon the chancellor, masters and scholars of 
 each university.^ Under the terms of these charters, the 
 elections became limited to the " senates" of the two uni- 
 versities, — that is, to those who were masters of arts, or 
 doctors in one of the three faculties of divinity, civil law, or 
 physic, and who retained a connection by residence or other- 
 wise with some college of the university.^ 
 
 The suffrage for university members is interesting because 
 it furnishes the only instance, so far as the writer knows, 
 of the use of the ballot in parliamentary elections before the 
 nineteenth century. The written ballot or " scrutiny" ap- 
 pears to have been used at an early date in the elections for 
 university officers ; ^ later it was applied to the elections of 
 members of Parliament; and in 1780, it was even held up 
 as a grievance * by a group of reformers at Cambridge. In 
 the university elections no other qualifications were re- 
 quired other than those set by the statutes of the univer- 
 sity respecting membership in the university senate. 
 
 ' The words of the charter of Cambridge are " Praedicti Cancellarius 
 Magistri et Scholares Universitatis Cantebrigiae, et Successores sui, 
 Virtute Praecepti, Mandati, seu Processus super Breve nostri, Haere- 
 dum et Successorum nostrorum in ea Parte debite directi, habeant et 
 habeunt Potestatem, Auctoritatem, et Facultatem eligendi et nominandi 
 duos de discretioribus et magis sufficientibus viris de prsedicta Univer- 
 sitate pro tempore existentibus fore Burgenses Parliamenti" (Dyer, 
 Privileges of Cambridge, 13S, 136). 
 
 " For further details see the calendars of the universities. 
 
 "Mullinger, op. cit., 112; Present State of the Universities (London, 
 1744), I, Oxford, 284, 288, 419. The ballots were burnt after the 
 result was determined (ibid.; Cox, Recollections of Oxford, 66). The 
 term scrutiny in canon law meant a written ballot. 
 
 * Porritt, I, 102. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 The Suffrage in Virginia. 
 
 The first twelve years of Virginia's history present few 
 facts on the American side of the Atlantic for the student 
 of political institutions. The early life of the colonists was 
 an intense physical struggle for existence in which no gen- 
 eral political consciousness is apparent. The terrible con- 
 tests with the fevers of the river valley, the struggle against 
 the ever-impending famine, the horrors of Indian warfare, 
 and the animosities of domestic quarrels together left scant 
 opportunity for political action ; while the arbitrary powers 
 granted by the English authorities to the governors and 
 councillors repressed any movement towards popular gov- 
 ernment which might have arisen. The personal and epic 
 interests are aroused by the facts of this period, but there 
 is practically no institutional development. 
 
 For this development of institutions the student must look 
 at the Virginia Company of London and the royal charters 
 of 1606, 1609, 1612. The first charter left the control of 
 the colony largely in the hands of the king or his ap- 
 pointees; the second charter shifted the responsibility upon 
 the council of the company; and the third one gave large 
 powers to the democratic general court of the Virginia Com- 
 pany. Under the last charter quarterly meetings of all the 
 stockholders could be held for the consideration of company 
 affairs, the election of officers, the making of laws for the 
 colony, the hearing of complaints from the colony, and the 
 admission of new members. When it is remembered that 
 there were six hundred and fifty-four stockholders in 1609, 
 and that others were added from time to time, it will be 
 seen that these meetings of the Virginia Company were 
 truthfully spoken of as a " seminary to a seditious parlia- 
 ment." ^ 
 
 A large party in the newly organized company of 161 2 
 
 ' Cooke, Virginia, 114. 
 
 2 17 
 
1 8 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 was composed of Puritans, and this faction gradually in- 
 creased in power in the succeeding years. They introduced 
 the democratic ballot-box in place of viva-voce voting in 
 their company ; ^ and at last they elected as chief officer of 
 the company ("treasurer"), Sir Edwin Sandys, who, al- 
 though an attendant of the established church, was the firm 
 friend of the Puritans. The election of Sandys was the 
 culmination of a struggle between the faction favoring arbi- 
 trary control and those of the company who desired a more 
 popular form of government in the colony. Sandys him- 
 self was known to favor the erection " of a free state in 
 Virginia ;" ^ and while he held the office of assistant treas- 
 urer, a " great charter of privileges" was ratified at a quarter 
 court of the company and dispatched to the colony for the 
 guidance of the governor and council in Virginia.^ In this 
 charter there is found the origin of the first representative 
 government in America. 
 
 While these changes had been accomplished in the organi- 
 zation of the London Company, affairs in the colony had 
 become more settled and its permanence was now assured. 
 The improved economic condition of the colony in 1619 
 made the new popular policy of the Puritan stockholders of 
 London almost a necessity, and contributed largely to its 
 success. The instructions of 1606 to the first councillors of 
 the colony gave authority to the councillors and president 
 to " govern, rule, and command all the captains and sol- 
 diers, and all other of his Majesty's subjects of his colony," 
 according to the terms of the king's instructions.* For 
 three years after the landing in May, 1607, the colony did 
 not possess even a definite code of laws, but was governed 
 by the councillors, or the strongest one among them. One 
 of these councillors apparently intended to call a "parlia- 
 ment" of the colonists, but was prevented from doing so 
 by the arrival of new instructions.^ This is the period of 
 
 ' Neill, Virginia Company of London, 189, 204. Brown, First Re- 
 public in America, 305, 307. 
 ' Brown, First Republic, 251. 
 ' November 28, 1618, Brown, First Republic, 293. 
 * Neill, Virginia Company of London, 4-8. 
 ° According to Wingfield, in Brown, First Republic, 55. 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 19 
 
 quarrels among the councillors and the final election of John 
 Smith, or, — shall we say, — his assumption of control. 
 After the lifting of Smith's strong hand, more quarrels of 
 the councillors took place; until at last the arrival of Gov- 
 ernor Delaware with his broad personal powers in govern- 
 ment ^ put an end to the council jealousies. 
 
 The colony now entered upon the second stage of its 
 political history. The first had been the troublous times 
 under a plural executive; the new era saw the governor a 
 petty despot in the colony, bringing order out of confusion, 
 repressing factions by retaining the government in his own 
 hands, but yet ruling according to known laws. Up to 161 o 
 the colony had possessed no legal code, even of a criminal 
 nature, except the occasional instructions given to the coun- 
 cillors. For three years the colonists had been compelled to 
 conform to the whim or will of the councillors. From 1610 
 to 161 9 the governors and the councils appointed by them 
 had arbitrary power, but this was used, in general, according 
 to published regulations.^ Within this period of nine years 
 the colony prospered, increased in population, and at last 
 the colonists solved the economic problem of making the 
 vast natural resources of Virginia meet the needs of Euro- 
 peans. 
 
 At this point, when the economic life was broadening, and 
 when it would soon have come into conflict with the arbi- 
 trary powers of the governor, the colony received from Lon- 
 don the instructions for the holding of a representative 
 assembly. The Virginia Company of London held one of 
 its quarterly courts or meetings on November 28, 161 8, and 
 agreed upon the following measures : 
 
 "I. The great charter of privileges, orders, and Laws, which had 
 been previously drafted, and considered, was ratified, signed, and 
 directed to the Governor and the Council of Estate in Virginia." 
 
 ^ See Lord De la Warr's commission in Brown, Genesis of United 
 
 States, I, 37S ff • 
 
 " See Laws of Gates, Delaware, and Dale in Force's Tracts, III, No. 2. 
 There are twenty-four capital crimes according to these laws, some 
 religious rules, and some sanitary measures ; but no constitutional pro- 
 visions whatever. 
 
20 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 " II. The commission for establishing the Council of Estate and the 
 general Assembly (two Burgesses out of every Plantation), wherein 
 their duties were described to the life." 
 
 " III. Sundry instructions" for governor, council, and colony. 
 
 Thus through the action of the radical members of the 
 Virginia Company the foundation was laid for popular gov- 
 ernment in the colony. 
 
 It is generally believed that the privileges and orders of 
 i6i8 were similar to those given to Governor Wyatt in 
 1621.* The latter document is called " An Ordinance and 
 Constitution of the Treasurer, Council, and Company ip^ 
 England, for a Council of State and General Assembly," ^ 
 and in it the Company authorities expressed their intention of 
 establishing a form of government in the colony which would 
 be of the " greatest benefit and comfort" to the people, and 
 would keep " off as much as possible" all " injustice, griev- 
 ances, and oppression." It provided also for a general as- 
 sembly composed of the council of state and " two burgesses 
 out of every town, hundred, or other particular plantation, 
 to be respectively chosen by the inhabitants." 
 
 Governor Yeardley, with the instructions for an assembly, 
 arrived in the colony early in 1619, and shortly afterwards 
 issued a proclamation announcing that the services due to 
 the company would be remitted to all persons who had come 
 before April, 16 16, that the former cruel laws had been 
 abrogated, and that a share in government was to be given 
 to the colonists.* He said, 
 
 " And that they might have a hand in the governing of themselves, it 
 was granted that a General Assembly should be held yearly once, 
 -whereat were to be present the Governor and Counsell, with two Bur- 
 gesses from each Plantation freely to be elected by the inhabitants 
 thereof ; this Assembly to have power to make and ordaine whatsoever 
 laws and orders should by them be thought good and proffittable for 
 our subsistence." 
 
 ' Brown, First Republic, 293. Brown even thinks that similar instruc- 
 tions were given to Governor Delaware. 
 'Hening, Statutes at Large of Virginia, I, 110-113. 
 ° Brown, First Republic, 312. 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 21 
 
 In accordance with the terms of this proclamation the 
 famous first representative assembly met in the church at 
 Jamestown. The facts concerning this assembly have been 
 told so frequently and so well that it would be presumption 
 to repeat them here. We are, however, interested in the 
 suffrage for this assembly, and can but regret that the details 
 concerning the election are so meagre. The governor's proc- 
 lamation had declared all " inhabitants" to be electors, but 
 there is no certainty of meaning attaching to the word. 
 Brown in one place makes inhabitants synonymous with 
 " planters," while in another case he says that suffrage 
 " was general." ^ Another writer holds that " all the set- 
 tlers had a voice in public affairs, first in the daily matters 
 of the hundreds, and after 1619 in electing burgesses." * 
 I have found no contemporary description of the voting 
 cla^s other than the word inhabitants, or the still more vague 
 statement that burgesses were elected " by the major part 
 jL^ of voices ;" * but from later legislation it seems apparent 
 "^ that all free men hot bound to service had the right to vote. 
 For, when the assembly in 1646 levied a fine upon freemen 
 who did not vote, they thought it necessary to state that this 
 fine should' not be collected from freemen who were cov- 
 enanted servants, thus extending compulsory voting through- 
 out the whole class of free laborers and planters.* Another 
 later act was based upon the principle of the union of tax- 
 paying and political rights ; ^ but it is unlikely that such a 
 definite theory was held in the time of the first assembly. 
 It seems true that all men not bound to service were privi- 
 leged to vote in the first and subsequent early elections. 
 As we are in doubt concerning the persons who held the 
 
 '■ Brown, First Republic, 6i6, 315- 
 
 ° Cooke, Virginia, 223. 
 
 "This phrase was applied to the election of 1624, Brown, First Re- 
 public, 570. Rolfe in his account merely said that hurgesses were 
 "chosen in all places;" and the journal of the assembly said "two Bur- 
 gesses elected out of each Incorporation and Plantation;" N. Y. Hist. 
 Soc. Coll., Second Series, III, 332, 335- 
 
 ' Chapter XX, 1646, Hening, I, 333-4- 
 
 = Ch. XVI of March, 1655-6, Hening, I, 403- Discussed more fully in 
 the following pages. 
 
22 The Suifrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 franchise in these early days, so the manner of voting is 
 by no means clear. Brown quotes the Virginia Company 
 records as requiring the " principall officers in Va. To be 
 chosen by balloting box ;" ^ but it is not believed that this 
 formal method was used. Viva voce voting is implied in the 
 phrase " major part of voices," used in 1624, and by the 
 writs requiring personal attendance at the elections.^ On 
 the other hand, it is plain that some form of proxies, or 
 " subscribing of hands," was used, and sometimes this was 
 so general that " it happeneth that few or none doe appeare 
 personally according to the summons." * In what form 
 this " handwriting" was produced is not stated. It might 
 have been gained by candidates or their friends as signa- 
 tures to papers; it may have been in the form of proxies, 
 as in the neighboring colony of Maryland; the names may 
 have been taken by the sheriff as he went from settlement 
 to settlement giving the legal warning of the election at 
 each house ; or the votes may have been in the form of indi- 
 vidual ballots. The custom, in whatever form, probably was 
 furthered by the act of 1639-40, which said, " No sheriff 
 to compell any man to go off the plantation where he lives 
 to choose burgisses ;" * for, since several plantations made 
 up a county,^ the sheriff would be obliged to adopt some 
 proxy system or other method of collecting the votes from 
 the different plantations. 
 
 After the first assembly, almost ten years passed before the 
 representative system was permanently adopted. Governor 
 Wyatt, who succeeded Yeardley, kept up the assembly sys- 
 tem; at first issuing regular writs according to the com- 
 pany's instructions, and later, after the Virginia Company's 
 
 ^ First Republic, 315. It is more likely that this requirement related 
 to the election of colony officers by the Company in its London meetings. 
 
 = Hening, I, 333. 
 
 'Ihid. 
 
 * Ibid., 227. 
 
 " Counties were erected and became the formal unit of representation 
 in 1634. But the burgesses from a county may have continued to be 
 elected by the plantations within the county instead of by the county 
 at large. There can be no doubt this was true of some parishes; 
 Hening, I, 154, 250, 277. 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 23 
 
 charter had been forfeited, he discussed public affairs in 
 meetings of " The Governor, Council, and Colony of Vir- 
 ginia assembled together." ^ In spite of petitions from the 
 people praying that no military government be established 
 over them,^ and in spite of Governor Yeardley's request that 
 he be allowed to call an assembly and have officers elected 
 by the people,^ neither King James in 1624, nor Charles in 
 his first commission for the government of Virginia, granted 
 any popular political features.* But the colonists petitioned 
 against the tobacco monopoly Charles had granted, and in 
 the fall of 1627 Charles sent out instructions for the election 
 of assemblymen in the colony. In accordance with this 
 permission the first assembly under royal authority was held 
 in March, 1627-8,^ and thereafter the representative system 
 was to continue with slight interruptions until the revolution 
 of 1776. 
 
 The next interesting fact concerning the suffrage is the 
 attempt of the people to extend the elective principle from 
 the choice of the legislature to the choice of their executive 
 officer. It was not an unusual thing in the colonies for a 
 small settlement of Englishmen to choose a governor. Such 
 action is seen quite frequently in the New England settle- 
 ments ; in West Jersey there is a succession of elected execu- 
 tives ; on Long Island occurred the short and strange career 
 of President John Scott; in Maryland and the Carolinas 
 other instances can be found; while in Virginia itself the 
 assumption of power by John Smith in 1608 was, in fact, a 
 popular choice of the most powerful of the councillors. In 
 163s this popular choice is seen, when the people " thrust 
 out" an obnoxious English governor, John Harvey, and put 
 
 ' Brown, First Republic, 647. For these early assemblies, see Hening, 
 I, 1 19-136; Neill, Virginia Company, 274-5; Brown, First Republic, 
 458, 647, 648; Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 55. 
 
 'Ibid., 573. 
 
 ' Neill, Va. Carolorum, 27. 
 
 * See the Commissions in Hazard, Historical Collections, I, 183-205, 
 230-234. 
 
 " Neill, Va. Carolorum, 55 ; Brown, First Republic, 648 ; Hening, I, 
 134-136. 
 
24 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 in his place one Captain John West. West, in explaining 
 his election to the English government, said, 
 
 "The counsell with one consent were so pleased as to fasten their 
 votes on mee to wc^i the peoples suffrages as willingly condiscended ;" ^ 
 
 It is not likely that the election of West was a formal matter 
 on the part of the people. Previous meetings of discontented 
 persons had been held,^ and it is probable that after the 
 council had selected Captain West the choice was submitted 
 to the burgesses and the people present for ratification. It 
 is scarcely necessary to say that Charles I. would suffer no 
 such assumption of " regal power," as he termed the action 
 of the colonists; Harvey must be sent back, if only for a 
 day, to maintain the royal authority.^ While there was no 
 choice for the Virginians but to accept the governor, yet 
 fortunately for them his new administration lasted only a 
 short time. 
 
 During the first twenty years there was no permanent 
 unit of representation. Up to 1634 the country was divided 
 into plantations,* and each of these was originally entitled 
 to send two representatives; but later some of the planta- 
 tions were grouped into hundreds, and from one to four 
 burgesses came from each hundred or plantation or " cor- 
 poration." ^ In 1634 the colony was divided into eight 
 
 ' Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 129; see also, ibid., 116-133; Hening, 
 I, 223 ; Va. Mag. of History, III, 21-34 ; VIII, 147 ff, 398 ff. 
 
 ^ Neill, Va. Carolorum, 119. De Vries, who stopped in Virginia in 
 May, 163s, said a new governor had been made by the council and 
 people. 
 
 " Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 126. 
 
 *A plantation was generally a settlement made by servants or free 
 laborers under the direction of some one person who had received a 
 large land grant. Under such circumstances the elections must have 
 been in the control of the local proprietor; and in the first assembly 
 the burgesses from one plantation were called Mr. Martin's burgesses 
 {N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 2d Ser., Ill, 338, 344). 
 
 ^ The list of burgesses to the assembly of February, 1632-3, shows this 
 irregularity; Hening, I, 202-3. See also Chandler, Representation in 
 Virginia, J. H. U. Studies, XIV, Nos. 6-7, 6-14. 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 25 
 
 counties/ which were made the new units of representation ; 
 yet for many years after this time the burgesses are spoken 
 of as coming from the several plantations.^ No definite 
 number was at first given to each county, but the actual 
 representation varied from one to eight burgesses for a 
 county; and the total number of burgesses in the assem- 
 blies meeting between the years 1634 to 1662 varied from 
 eighteen to forty-four, the number of counties meanwhile 
 growing from eight to eighteen. Later legislation fixed the 
 number of burgesses for each county at four,* and still later 
 it was reduced to two.* 
 
 It is not believed that the early county burgesses were 
 always elected at large, but that in some counties they con- 
 tinued for a time to be elected by the plantations or par- 
 ishes. The act of 1639-40 forbidding sherififs to compel 
 any man to go off his plantation to choose burgesses has 
 already been quoted, but the exact meaning of the act is 
 obscure.^ As early as February, 1631-2, parishes are men- 
 tioned as a representative unit ; ® and later, when some of 
 the counties were divided into parishes, each parish was 
 . permitted to choose a burgess or burgesses within its own 
 limits.'^ Until 1662 it was permissible for any parish to 
 send its own burgesses if it desired to do so, although after 
 1656 the wages of such " parochial" burgesses were to be 
 
 ' Hening, I, 224 ; Brown, English Politics in Early Virginia History, 
 100. 
 
 = Hening, I, 239, 282, 298, 373, 379. 527- 
 
 ' Hening, I, 299-300, act of Nov., 1645. James City County was per- 
 mitted to elect five burgesses for the county and one for the city. 
 
 * Hening, II, 20, 106; acts of 1660-1, 1661-2. See also act of 1669 
 making the sending of two burgesses compulsory; and that of 1670 
 laying a fine of 10,000 pounds of tobacco upon counties refusing to 
 elect (Hening, II, 272, 282). 
 
 "Hening, I, 227. Hening found only abstracts of the laws of this 
 session. 
 
 ' Hening, I, IS3, I79- 
 
 ' Hening, I, 249, 250, 251, 277. I have not found the original act givmg 
 general power to all parishes to choose burgesses; but the preamble 
 of an act of 1656 says that "by a former act of Assembly priviledge 
 was granted to any parish to send one or two Burgesses." Hening, 
 I, 421. 
 
26 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 paid by the parishes electing them.^ The vestry of the 
 parish had the power of determining if parochial burgesses 
 should be elected, and, when requested, the sheriff of the 
 county was compelled by law to attend such parish elec- 
 tions.^ While parish burgesses were thus permitted, — and 
 no doubt in many cases were elected, — ^they were chosen for 
 the "particular occasion" of the parish,* and the county 
 paid only for the usual number of burgesses as formerly.* 
 It may be that the distinction between parish and county 
 burgesses is only another expression for our modern ideas 
 of election by general ticket and by districts. James City 
 (Jamestown) received the right to send one burgess in 
 1645,® ^'id continued to exercise this privilege until the 
 Revolution. The promise was also made in 1662 that 
 every county which would lay out a town of one hundred 
 acres and people it with one hundred tithable persons should 
 have the right to another representative.® 
 
 Returning now to our main topic of the suffrage, it is 
 noteworthy that a quarter of a century elapsed after the 
 assembly of 1619 before a single important, act was passed 
 bearing upon the suffrage. The subject came up in 1646, 
 owing to the inconveniences which were occasioned " by dis- 
 orderly and illegal election of Burgesses, by subscribing of 
 hands contrary to the warrant." "^ The act then forbade 
 the use of handwriting, and imposed a fine upon ^those who 
 did not appear to vote. It was ordered 
 
 " That noe election shall be made of any Burgesse or Burgesses but 
 by a plurality of voices and that no hand writing shall be admitted: 
 Be it alsoe further inacted, That what freeman soever haveing lawful 
 sumons of the time and place for election of Burgesses that shall not 
 make repaire accordingly, Such person or persons vnless there be law- 
 full cause for the absenting himselfe shall forfeit 100 lb. of tob'o. for 
 his non-appearance flfreemen being covennt. servants being exempted 
 
 ' Hening, I, 421. 
 ' Hening, I, 520, 545. 
 ' Hening, I, 421. 
 ' Ihid. , 
 
 'Ibid., 300. 
 'Hening, II, 106. 
 ' Hening, I, 333-4. 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 27 
 
 from the said fine to be levyed by distresse in case of refusall and is to 
 be disposed of towards the defraying of the Burgesses charges in the 
 county." 
 
 Thus, under a penalty of a fine of one hundred pounds of 
 tobacco, compulsory viva voce voting was imposed upon all 
 freemen who were not covenanted servants. The act shows ' 
 
 ^^ clearly that manhood suffrage was the rule in early Vir- 
 
 "^ giriia as it was in early Maryland. 
 
 The next suffrage question arises out of the civil war in 
 England. Berkeley and the Virginians had shown their 
 loyalty to the Stuart family, and in September, 1651, the 
 English Council of State appointed four commissioners to 
 reduce the plantations along Chesapeake Bay.^ The instruc- 
 tions of the commissioners directed them to offer a general 
 pardon, and to permit the election of burgesses by " those 
 taking the oath to be true and faithful to the Commonwealth 
 of England, without a King or House of Lords." ^ On 
 March 12, 165 1-2, the governor, council, and assembly sur- 
 rendered the government on favorable terms to the commis- 
 sioners.^ The inhabitants were offered the new oath to 
 Parliament, and a few weeks after the surrender elections 
 were held for assemblymen.* The oath was widely taken; 
 in Northumberland County alone one hundred and seventy- 
 five persons subscribing to it, and the first assembly under 
 the commonwealth was, with one exception, the largest 
 which had met since 1632. For the next nine years the 
 assembly of the colony was practically supreme, not only 
 performing acts of legislation, but electing the governors 
 and other general and county officers.^ They exercised the 
 powers of the Long Parliament of England without the 
 monarchical restraint of a Cromwell. 
 
 During the Commonwealth period an attempt was made 
 to change the existing broad basis of the suffrage. An act 
 
 ^ McMahon, Hist, of Maryland, 204. 
 
 'Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 218. For exact words of oath, see ibid., 
 ^21, note 2. The same form of oath was administered in Maryland. 
 
 • Hening, I, 363-368 ; Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 221-224. 
 
 * Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 224. 
 'Hening, I, 358-9, note; 369, note; 371-2. 
 
28 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 of March, 1654-5, limited the suffrage to housekeepers, and 
 allowed no more than one voter in each family.^ It pro- 
 vided 
 
 " That all housekeepers whether freeholders, lease holders, or other- 
 wise tenants, shall onely be capeable to elect Burgesses, and none 
 hereby made vncapable shall give his subscription to elect a Burgesse 
 vpon the pennalty of four hundred pounds of tobacco and cask to be 
 disposed of by the court of each county where such contempt shall be 
 vsed : Provided that this word housekeepers repeated in this act extend 
 no further then to one person in a family." 
 
 Perhaps growing out of the experience of the last few years ^ 
 the burgesses were now required to be " persons of knowne 
 integrity and of good conversation, and of the age of one 
 & twenty years." ^ It was made the sheriff's duty, by him- 
 self or deputy, to go from house to house and warn all per- 
 sons interested in elections of the time and place of choosing 
 burgesses; and the viva voce provision of the act of 1646, 
 whereby the burgesses were elected by the " plurality of 
 voices," was now changed to an election " by subscription 
 and of the major part of the hands of the electors." 
 
 The limitation of the suffrage to housekeepers did not 
 long continue. The next legislature, adopting to the full 
 the English ideas of taxation and representation, in March, 
 1655-6, declared that "we conceive it something hard and 
 vnagreeable to reason that any persons shall pay equall 
 taxes and yet have no votes in election." * They therefore 
 repealed that part of the earlier act which " excludes freemen 
 from voters," but they required the voters to " fairly give 
 
 'Hening, I, 411-412. 
 
 ^ In 1652 two persons were ejected from the house, one for scandalous 
 libel, and the other for mutinous declarations. A minister was also 
 excluded from the assembly in the following year, and the subscribers 
 to a certain mutinous paper were forbidden to hold office. Hening, I, 
 374, 378, 380. 
 
 'This clause is drawn literally from Article XVII of the English 
 Instrument of Government of 1653. 
 
 'Hening, I, 403. In 1659 tithables were all white male servants of 
 any age imported into the colony, all imported negroes, male or female, 
 all Indian servants over sixteen years of age, and all Christian (white) 
 males over sixteen. 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 29 
 
 their votes by subscription and not in a tumultuous way." 
 The policy of manhood suffrage was expressed still more 
 definitely by the assembly in March, 1657-8, when they per- 
 mitted " all persons inhabitting in this collonie that are free- 
 men to have their votes in the election of Burgesses." ^ It 
 need scarcely be remarked that the word freemen as used 
 here means free man, and has no connotation of membership 
 in corporations such as it contains in the northern colonies. 
 This was manhood suffrage extending to all adult males 
 \ who were not slaves or indentured servants; and all the 
 I voters, too, were taxpayers, for the poll-tax was levied upon 
 all males over sixteen years of age. 
 
 By the speedy repeal of the limiting act the commonwealth 
 government in Virginia showed its regard for universal 
 suffrage. During these years the government of Virginia 
 was practically a republic, with the legislature exercising 
 supreme power. Yet after electing three governors, the 
 assembly took the strange step of electing a council of state 
 for life, and providing for the election of the governor from 
 among the life councillors;^ but, fortunately, the council 
 refused to accept the honor, and the next assembly passed an 
 act " for the annihilation of councillors." * At the same 
 time they declared that the " supreme power of the govern- 
 ment" was resident in the assembly, and in their second act 
 elected Sir William Berkeley as governor.* 
 
 After the restoration of Charles II. there was no imme- 
 diate change in the government. Berkeley was accepted as 
 royal governor and was directed by his instructions to call 
 assemblies according to the usages of the colony.^ These 
 instructions were carried out to the letter, and elections and 
 the suffrage were practically unchanged; indeed it may be 
 said that popular suffrage scarcely existed until 1676, for 
 fifteen years passed without an election of assemblymen. 
 
 ' Hening, I, 475. 
 
 ''Hening, I, 517; March, 1658-9. The new organization of the coun- 
 cil was very likely suggested by that of the English Council of State. 
 
 ' Hening, I, 537. 
 
 ' Hening, I, 530. 
 
 " Dated September 12, 1662 ; Hazard, Historical Collections, II, 607- 
 611; Virginia Historical Magazine, III, 15. 
 
30 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Berkeley's " long parliament" in Virginia almost equalled 
 in duration its English namesake. Some minor changes in 
 county representation and the abolition of the parochial 
 burgesses made in 1661 and 1662 have already been men- 
 tioned.^ The fear that some candidates for the assembly 
 might promise to serve for low wages led the assembly in 
 1661 and 1662 to fix a regular daily allowance of one hun- 
 dred and fifty pounds of tobacco for each member, in order 
 that " diverse heart burnings" might be allayed, and in- 
 terested persons might not " purchase votes by offering to 
 undertake the place at low rates and by that means make 
 the place both mercenary and contemptible." ^ 
 
 The subjects of taxation and the suffrage appear to have 
 been mingled in an attempt made in 1663 to abolish the 
 poll-tax, but the exact form of the contest is not clear. 
 Burk^ thinks that there was an effort to change the basis 
 of taxation to property and at the same time limit the suf- 
 frage to freeholders. If this were the aim of a party in the 
 assembly, it met with no immediate success. 
 
 In 1670, however, a decided change from universal suf- 
 frage was made, and the first step taken towards elections -^ 
 by a definite propertied class. The preamble of the act of 
 October, 1670,* shows the fear universal suffrage would 
 bring certain evils into the elective system, and that this belief 
 had worked a change in the opinions of the assembly since 
 the days when it was held that tax-paying and political privi- 
 leges should go hand in hand. It is probable, too, that a 
 change in the personnel of the assembly had taken place, and 
 that the wealthier planters had more weight now than in 
 the commonwealth period ; while the emigrant cavaliers who 
 had fled to Virginia during the Cromwellian rule were now 
 directly influencing politics.^ The reasons for the passage 
 
 ^ Ante, p. 25. 
 
 ''Hening, II, 23. In the year 1663 a burgess who was charged with 
 sympathy for the Quakers and opposition to the baptism of children 
 was dismissed from the assembly when he refused to take the oaths of 
 allegiance and supremacy (Hening, II, ig8). 
 
 " Burk, History of Va., II, 137. 
 
 * Hening, II, 280. 
 
 ° Cooke, Virginia, 226--230. 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 31 
 
 of the new act were, first, that 
 
 " the usuall way of chuseing burgesses by the votes of all persons who 
 haveing served their tyme are ffreemen of this country who haveing 
 little interest in the country doe ofner make tumults at the election to 
 the disturbance of his majesties peace, then [than] by their discretions 
 in their votes provide for the conservasion thereof, by makeing choyce 
 of persons fitly qualifyed for the discharge of soe great a trust ;" 
 
 and, secondly, that 
 
 " the lawes of England grant a voyce in such election only to such as 
 by their estates real or personall have interest enough to tye them to 
 the endeavor of the publique good." 
 
 The law then provided 
 
 " that none but freeholders and housekeepers who only are answerable 
 to the publique for the levies shall hereafter have a voice in the election 
 of any burgesses in this country ; and that the election be at the court- 
 house." ' 
 
 Thus the first limitation of the suffrage, ostensibly adopted 
 on account of evil practices in the colony and because of the 
 force of English custom, restricted the voters to the house- 
 holding and freeholding classes. 
 
 In 1673, when Charles II gave away Virginia to Arling- 
 ton and Culpepper, the colonists took measures to assert 
 their rights ; and in the correspondence concerning this grant, 
 while no mention is made of the suffrage, yet the right of 
 representation is most strongly asserted.^ The colony agents 
 in applying for a new charter for the province asked that 
 " no manner of impositions or taxes shall be laid or imposed 
 upon the inhabitants and proprietors there, unless by the 
 common consent of the governor, council, and burgesses, as 
 
 ^ Hening, II, 280. Bishop, Elections in American Colonies, p. 71, calls 
 attention to the fact that the customs of England permitted only free- 
 holders, and not those possessing a certain amount of personal prop- 
 erty, to have a voice in county elections. 
 
 'For facts and papers relating to the Culpepper grant, see Hening, 
 II, 311, 427-428, 518-521, 578-583; Beverly (London ed. of 1722), 64- 
 66; Burk, Hist, of Va., II, 142-152, Appendix xxxiii to cxii; Neill, 
 Virginia Carolorum, 381 ff. 
 
32 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 hath been heretofore used." ^ The right of taxation in their 
 own assembly, they said, " contains that which we conceive 
 to be the right of Virginians, as well as all other English- 
 men, which is not to be taxed but by their consent, expressed 
 by their representatives." ^ 
 
 While this question was exciting the colonial land-owners, 
 a greater danger threatened the authorities in Virginia. 
 Many reasons for discontent had arisen throughout the col- 
 ony; heavy taxes had been laid and unwisely expended, the 
 Indian wars were poorly managed, forts had fallen into 
 decay, the usual meetings of the assembly had been costly, 
 evils had crept into the management of county and parish 
 affairs, and the governor had kept one assembly without 
 dissolution since i66i.^ The hostility aroused by these evils 
 in administration found its outlet in the uprising called 
 Bacon's Rebellion. It is not our part to enter into the causes 
 or purposes of this popular movement. There can be no 
 doubt that Bacon's followers were not simply the lower and 
 disfranchised classes, but that many of the revolutionists 
 were well-to-do Englishmen, indignant against certain 
 wrongs and willing to take what appeared to be a good 
 opportunity to obtain redress of their grievances.* Bacon's 
 energy and arguments won over many usually conservative 
 citizens, and even gained control of the assembly which met 
 in June, 1676; while among the people his courage and 
 rough eloquence gained the support of the poor freemen, 
 who had recently been excluded by the Virginia Long Par- 
 liament from political power. It appears that non-property- 
 
 ' Burk, II, appendix, p. xl. 
 
 ' Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 383. 
 
 ' See the very interesting sets of grievances presented to the royal 
 commissioners after the rebellion, Va. Mag. of Hist., II, 166-173, 289- 
 292, 380-392; III, 132-147. The "long parliament" convened for the 
 first time March 23, 1660-1, and its last session began March 7, 1675-6 ; 
 see W. G. and M. N. Stanard, The Colonial Virginia Register, p. 76. 
 
 •After the insurrection was suppressed, the Isle of Wight electors 
 instructed their burgesses in assembly, " Wee desire you our Burgesses 
 to give none of our estates away as formerly ye have done, but if ye 
 must give such great sumes dispose of your own," Va. Mag. of History 
 II, 387. 
 
^ 
 
 The Suffrage in Virginia. 33 
 
 holding freemen participated in the elections for members 
 of the assembly of June, 1676/ and the assembly took pains 
 to restore the suffrage to such persons. 
 
 One of the most significant features of " Bacon's Assem- 
 bly" of 1676^ is the broader democratic basis which was 
 given to the state ; not only was the suffrage restored to its 
 former extent, but many offices which had been appointive 
 were now for the first time made elective. Chapter VII of 
 the acts of this assembly provided that the statute of 1670, 
 
 " which forbids freemen to have votes in the election of burgesses be 
 repealed, and that they may be admitted together with the freeholders 
 and householders to vote as formerly in such elections." ' 
 
 All militia officers had formerly been appointed by the 
 governor, but now it was permitted that in certain troops 
 " the soldiers for greater encouragement have free liberty 
 to nominate theire owne officers," provided they were chosen^ 
 from the militia officers of the respective counties.* In the" 
 same manner the " long continuance of vestries" was de- 
 clared a grievance; the old self-perpetuating vestrymen 
 were set aside for new boards elected for a term of three 
 years by the " freeholders and freemen of every parish," and 
 the members of the vestries were to be freeholders or sub- 
 stantial householders.® Still another step towards democ- 
 racy is seen in the provision for a representative county levy 
 court, composed of the justices and an equal number of 
 representatives elected by the majority of votes of freehold- 
 ers, householders, and freemen in each parish of the county.® 
 
 Bacon's power was of short duration, and his changes in 
 the laws did not long survive the overthrow of his authority. 
 Royal instructions sent to Governor Berkeley in November, 
 1676,'' said: 
 
 ' Campbell, History of Virginia, 289 ; Cooke, Virginia, 245. 
 ' For legislation of this assembly, see Hening, II, 341-365. 
 
 • Hening, II, 3S6. 
 •Hening, II, 348. 
 ' Hening, II, 3S6. 
 
 • Hening, II, 357- 
 
 ' Hening, II, 424-5. 
 
 3 
 
34 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 "I. You shalbe noe more obliged to call an assembly once every 
 yeare, but only once in two yeares, unlesse some emergent occasion 
 shall make it necessary, the judging whereof wee leave to your discre- 
 tion. Alsoe whensoever the assembly is called ffourteene dayes shalbe 
 the time prefixed for their sitting and noe longer, unlesse you finde 
 goode cause to continue it beyond that tyme. 
 
 " II. You shall take care that the members of the assembly be elected | ^ 
 only by ffreeholders, as being more agreeable to the custome of Eng- '-r 
 land to which you are as nigh as conveniently you can to conforme j^ 
 yourselfe." 
 
 The king further directed Berkeley to declare all the legisla- 
 tion of Bacon's Assembly null and void, an instruction which ^ 
 was enacted into law by an assembly of February, 1676-7.^ 
 It is not certain that the suffrage was at once limited to free- 
 holders, for after the repeal of the Bacon acts no new law 
 was passed for a number of years, and it is thought probable 
 that the freeholder and householder clause of the act of 1670 
 was enforced for a time.^ 
 
 Lord Culpepper's commission as governor of Virginia 
 gave him power to call assemblies elected by the " ffreehold- 
 ers and Planters" of the colony according to the former 
 usage of the province.^ An assembly of 1684, however, 
 passed a resolution which is the first formal act limiting the 
 suffrage to land-holders. From this year, 1684, until 1830,^43? 
 no one but freeholders could vote in Virginia. The assembly 
 
 " Resolved, That it is the undoubted right of every person who holds 
 lands, tenements or hereditaments for his owne life, for the life of his 
 wife, or for the life of any other person or persons to vote in Election 
 of Burgesses for the county where such lands, tenements, &c, doe lye." 
 
 This resolution, by a negative interpretation, might be taken 
 as excluding from elections those who did not possess land ; 
 but it did not expressly do so, and it contained no punitive 
 provision for irregular voting. 
 
 These errors were corrected fifteen years later in an act 
 
 '■ Hening, II, 380. 
 
 'Lord Culpepper's instructions of 1680 provided that voters should 
 be freeholders and householders, Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 390. 
 ' Calendar of Virginia State Papers, I, 14-16 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 35 
 
 of 1699, the purpose of which was said to be the " prevention 
 of undue elections of Burgeses." ^ This act distinctly dis- 
 qualified from voting those who were not freeholders of the 
 respective counties and towns, and imposed a fine of five 
 hundred pounds of tobacco upon any disfranchised person 
 presuming to vote. An important feature of the act was the 
 exclusion of certain freeholders who under the earlier vague 
 phrases might have claimed a voice in elections : 
 
 " Provided always and it is the true intent of this act that no woman . 
 sole or covert, infants under the age of twenty-one years, or recusant / 
 convict being freeholders shall be entitled to give a vote or have a 
 voice in the election of burgeses." 
 
 The direct exclusion of women is unusual in colonial 
 laws, the practice of male suffrage generally being so strong 
 that no formal exclusion was considered necessary. This 
 clause, by excluding " recusant convicts," deprived Catholics 
 of the right to vote, an exclusion which was continued until 
 the Revolution; and an act of the same session rendered 
 popish recusants convict incapable of being witnesses in any 
 case whatever.^ Other sections provided that if the sheriff 
 could not determine the election " upon the view," that he 
 should appoint clerks, who were to write down the electors' 
 names and the persons for whom they voted ; that where a 
 person's freehold were in doubt, he might be compelled to 
 . swear or affirm to his qualification ; that a candidate bribing 
 electors should be rendered incapable of sitting in the assem- 
 bly for which he had been chosen ; together with a number 
 of other administrative provisions. 
 
 An act of the same year with this election law restricted 
 jury service also to freeholders who possessed one hundred 
 pounds sterling real and personal estate.^ In 1705 the de- 
 tails of the elective system were much more fully elaborated.* 
 The forms of writs and their proclamation in the churches, 
 the duties of sheriffs and their deputies, the manner of 
 
 "■ Hening, III, 172-175. Cf. English Statute, 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, ch. 25. 
 » Hening, III, 298. 
 'Hening, III, 175-176. 
 * Hening, III, 236-246. 
 
h 
 
 36 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 making election returns, and many other features were now 
 specified. Some slight change was made in the suffrage 
 provisions. The new section said that, 
 
 "After publication of writs, and time and place for election of bur- 
 gesses as aforesaid, every freeholder, actually resident within the county 
 where the election is to be made, respectively shall appear accordingly, 
 and give his vote at such election, upon penalty of forfeiting two hun- 
 dred pounds of tobacco to such person or persons as will inform and 
 sue for the same." 
 
 Thus to freeholdership inhabitancy was added, and a fine 
 was again levied upon those neglecting to vote. The term 
 freeholder, already limited by the resolution of 1684, received 
 another definition in this act. It was now held to extend to 
 " every person who hath an estate real for his own life, or 
 the life of another, or any estate of greater dignity." 
 
 A curious provision is to be found in another law of the 
 year 1705.^ This act declared that negro, mulatto, and 
 Indian slaves should be accounted real estate, and with some 
 slight changes should descend in fee simple according to the 
 rules for the descent of land. But if slaves were to be held 
 as real estate, the question would arise whether a man could 
 vote who possessed this form of real estate alone. This 
 question the assembly answered in the negative, expressly 
 stating that the holders of slaves and not of other real estate 
 should not possess the privilege of a freeholder in elections. 
 j Women, Catholics, and minors being freeholders had been 
 I expressly excluded from the suffrage by the acts of 1699 
 and 1705. In the latter year negroes, mulattoes, and Indians 
 were forbidden, under penalty of heavy fines, to hold any 
 civil, military, or ecclesiastical office in the colony.^ A fur- 
 ther limitation came in 1723, perhaps as a result of an 
 attempted negro insurrection,^ when the assembly enacted 
 -S> " That no free negro, mulatto, or Indian whatsoever shall 
 
 * Hening, III, 333. 
 
 'Hening, III, 251. A mulatto was defined as a child of an Indian, 
 and the child, grandchild or great-grrandchild of a negro. 
 
 'J. A. C. Chandler, The History of Suffrage in Virginia, J. H. U. 
 Studies, XIX, Nos. 6 and 7, p. 12. 
 
The Suifrage in Virginia. vj 
 
 hereafter have any vote at the elections of burgesses, or any 
 other election whatsoever." ^ The attorney of the Board 
 of Trade, Richard West, when commenting upon this law, 
 gave expression to views which show the English tendency 
 towards legal equality, but which also prove that he knew 
 little of colonial conditions. He wrote, 
 
 " I cannot see why one freeman should be used worse than another, 
 merely on account of his complexion. ... It cannot be right to strip 
 all persons of a black complexion from those rights which are so justly 
 valuable to any freeman." ^ 
 
 His opinion was not accepted either in England or the col- 
 ony, and after 1723 the voting privilege was limited to 
 white male Protestant freeholders, twenty-one years of age, 
 who resided in the county where they offered to vote. 
 
 Thus by successive limitations Virginia was getting away 
 from the earlier manhood suffrage, and another restriction 
 Avas soon to come. As early as 1710 we learn of election 
 frauds and contested seats in the assembly.* In a letter of 
 October 15, 1712, Governor Spotswood described the evil 
 to the Board of Trade, as follows : * 
 
 "This unhappy State of her Maj't's Subjects in my Neighbourhood 
 is ye more aflfecting to me because I have very little hopes of being 
 enabled to relieve them by our Assembly, which I have called to meet 
 next Week; for the Mob of this Country having tryed their Strength 
 in the late Election and finding themselves able to carry whom they 
 please, have generally chosen representatives of their own Class, who 
 as their principal Recommendation have declared their resolution to 
 raise no Tax on the people, let the occasion be what it will. This is 
 owing to a defect in the Constitution, which allows to every one, tho' 
 just out of the Condition of a Serv't, and that can but purchase half an 
 acre of Land, an equal vote with the Man of the best Estate in the 
 Country." 
 
 The governor here hinted at the next restriction which 
 would be placed upon the freedom of elections, although the 
 
 'Hening, IV, I33-I34- 
 ' Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 330, note i. 
 ' Calendar of Va. State Papers, I, 142-3. 
 * Letters of Governor Spotswood, II, I. 
 
38 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 defect in the constitution which he mentioned was not reme- 
 died until almost a quarter of a century after the date of his 
 letter. The English Board of Trade instructed Spotswood 
 to try to have a law passed for raising the qualifications of 
 voters, and they promised to see that something was done 
 in England to force the colonists to adopt such a measure.^ 
 There can be no doubt that the granting of the suffrage to 
 all freeholders without placing any lower limit to the size 
 of the freehold led to many evils. " Divers frauds" were 
 practised " to create and multiply votes" by the making of 
 " leases of small and inconsiderable parcels of land upon 
 feigned considerations, and by subdividing lots of ground 
 in towns ;" all of which was declared to be " in prejudice of 
 the rights of the true freeholder."^ 
 
 To remedy these conditions the act of 1736 was passed,* 
 which named a minimum amount of freehold to be held by 
 electors. The limiting clause directed 
 
 " That no person or persons whatsoever shall hereafter have a right 
 to vote at any election of members to serve in the general assembly, 
 for any county, who hath not an estate of freehold, or other greater 
 estate, in one hundred acres of land, at least, if no settlement be made 
 upon it; or twenty-five acres with a house and plantation, in his pos- 
 session, or in the possession of his tenant or tenants, for term of years, 
 an the same county where he gives such vote." 
 
 Where the freehold had come by purchase, the holder could 
 not vote in virtue of it until he had been in possession one 
 year. In the case of joint tenants, only one vote was to be 
 given, unless the freehold was sufficient in quantity to give 
 each joint tenant the amount required for legal electors. In 
 towns the qualification was different from that in the country 
 districts, and was based upon houses and lots rather than 
 acres of freehold. 
 
 "Provided always, that nothing in this act contained shall be con- 
 strued to hinder any person to vote at such elections, in respect or in 
 right of any houses, lands, or tenements, lying and being in any city 
 
 ^ Chandler, The Suffrage in Va., J. H. U. Stud., XIX, 12. 
 
 ° Hening, IV, 475. 
 
 "Hening, IV, 475-478. Cf. English statute, 10 Ann., ch. 31. 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 39 
 
 or town, laid out and established by act of assembly, so as such person 
 be a freeholder, in any house or lot, or a house, and part of a lot; but 
 where the interest in any such house and lot, or house and part of a 
 lot, is or shall be divided among several persons, no more than one 
 single voice shall be admitted for one and the same house or lot." ' 
 
 A fine of forty pounds was laid upon any one making or 
 drafting a fraudulent conveyance in order to qualify voters, 
 and upon those voting by virtue of such estates; and all 
 these conveyances, vi^hether made before or after the passage 
 of the act, were pronounced null and void. It is to be noted 
 also, that neither this act nor the later ones of 1762 and 1769 
 contained the limitation imposed by the act of 1705, that 
 voting freeholders should be inhabitants of the county. 
 Later, plural voting was apparently permitted where free- 
 holders held the requisite amount of land in several counties, 
 and elections in neighboring counties were held on dififerent 
 days.* 
 
 The Virginia act of 1736 has a number of interesting 
 features. It is remarkable for the attempt to adapt the suf- 
 frage qualifications to different classes of the inhabitants. 
 The three alternatives, — one hundred acres of land, or 
 twenty-five acres and a house, or a town house and lot, — 
 
 ' A town lot by some early laws must be one-half an acre (Hening, 
 III, 417, 423) ; but by the later acts it might be less but could not be 
 greater than that amount (Hening, IV, 23s; V, 193, 198). In the 
 laws erecting towns many specifications are given concerning the size, 
 position, and manner of building houses in the towns; and as these 
 regulations differed in the several towns, the exact nature of the suf- 
 frage clause would be a matter of local interpretation. In Williams- 
 burg, houses on the main street must be twenty by forty or fifty feet, 
 and on the other streets each house must cover four or five hundred 
 feet (Hening, III, 429) ; in Fredericksburg, houses were to be twenty 
 by twenty feet with a pitch of nine feet (Hening, IV, 236) ; in Leeds 
 the building rules were similar to those in Fredericksburg (Hening, V, 
 193) ; while in Suffolk the legal size of houses was sixteen by twenty 
 feet, with a height of eight feet (Hening, V, 198). 
 
 ' See a contested election case hinging upon plural voting, quoted by 
 J. F. Jameson, The Nation, Vol. 56, 309- Also Beverly (1722), 206: 
 " The freeholders are the only electors, and wherever they have a free- 
 hold . . . they have a vote in the election." 
 
40 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 while all requiring a freehold, so adapted the freehold quali- 
 fication to the varying circumstances of the people that in 
 reality the restriction upon the suffrage was not so great as 
 at first might appear. Later, when the act of 1762 lowere^ik 
 the freehold to fifty acres, and reduced the size of towHrr* 
 houses, the franchise was placed upon a more liberal basis 
 than in many of the other colonies. Further, after 1736, 
 two places, Williamsburg and Norfolk, had a peculiarly 
 \y wide borough franchise. The act contains, too, the unique 
 feature of fractional voting.* Plural voting has been men- 
 tioned in this work in several places, but it is believed that no 
 case of fractional voting for colonial assemblymen is to be 
 found except in Virginia, where a number of joint-tenants 
 could unite to cast one vote for their freehold. Thus, 
 throughout this act, and the later ones of 1762 and 1769 
 which liberalized, rather than restricted, its provisions, there 
 is an evident intention to examine closely the various classes 
 of landholders and frame a law which would admit all the 
 reputable freeholders to the elective franchise. 
 
 An elaborate election law, which set the voter's qualifi- 
 cations and explained in detail the electing process, was 
 passed in 1762. The former laws had "proved defective," 
 and the new law organized the electoral system so thor- 
 oughly that its provisions remained in force long into the 
 commonwealth period. The act "■ provided for the election 
 of " most able and fit men" as burgesses ; two elected by 
 ; the freeholders of each county, one by the freeholders of 
 V James City, and one each by the city of Williamsburg, the 
 borough of Norfolk, and the College of William and Mary 
 according to their respective charter privileges. No assem- 
 bly could continue longer than seven years, and a new elec- 
 tion must be held at least three years after a dissolution 
 of an assembly. The general elector's qualification was 
 changed in the direction of a broader suffrage by lowering 
 the amount of unsettled land from one hundred acres with a 
 fifty acres; the old provision of twenty-five acres with a 
 house and plantation was now rendered more explicit by 
 
 " Reference will be made to fractional voting on Long Island and 
 in New England. 
 ^ Chapter I of November, 1762, Hening, VII, 517-530. 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 41 
 
 requiring the house to be at least twelve feet square; and 
 the same sized house was required of town voters,^ except 
 in Williamsburg and Norfolk, where the charters and for- 
 mer laws should govern the elections.^ 
 
 " Every person shall have a right to vote at any election of Burgesses 
 for any county who hath an estate of freehold for his own life, or the 
 life of another, or other greater estate in at least fifty_acres_of land, if 
 no settlement be made upon it, or twenty-five "Seres, with a plantation 
 and house thereon, at least twelvrTeeTsquire, in his possession, or in 
 the possession of his tenant or tenants, for term of years at will or 
 sufferance, in the same county where he gives such vote; . . . and 
 every person possessed of a lot, or part of a lot, in any city or town 
 established by act of assembly, with a house thereon at least twelve feet 
 square, shall have a right to vote at such elections." 
 
 Joint tenancies should qualify all the joint owners only 
 when the freehold was of sufficient quantity to furnish the 
 legal amount to each, and where it was less than this, but 
 one vote was to be given for the tenancy, and that only in 
 case all the parties interested could agree. The disfran- 
 chised class remained the same as under the earlier acts, 
 except that a convict freeholder was excluded from voting 
 only during the time for which he had been transported. 
 The fine of five hundred pounds of tobacco upon disqualified 
 persons who voted illegally was retained, as also that of 
 two hundred pounds upon qualified persons who neglected 
 to vote. Freeholds, as previously, must be held for one year 
 before qualifying a person to vote, unless the lands came by 
 descent, marriage, marriage settlement, or devise. The act 
 of 1762, while attaining a desirable end by carefully out- 
 lining the management of elections, must also have worked 
 an extension of the suffrage, since it cut down the general 
 land requirements from one hundred to fifty acres, and low- 
 ered the legal size of houses in the towns. The qualifica- 
 
 ^ The size twelve by twelve feet would work an extension of the 
 suffrage in the towns also, for the legal requirement for house-building 
 in the towns always specified a larger structure than twelve by twelve 
 feet, the usual proportions being twenty by twenty feet. 
 
 ' Hening, VII, 529- 
 
yn. 
 
 42 The Suifrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 tions thus established were practically unchanged down to 
 1830.1 
 
 Turning from these uniform suffrage qualifications, we 
 must now notice three exceptions to the general election pro- 
 ^ visions, — ^the cases of electors in the city of Williagjabiirg, 
 /in the borough of Noridk, -and in the College.._of ..William 
 and Mary.2 The first law relating to the city of Williams- 
 burg was passed in 1699,* and this was followed by a sup- 
 plemental act in 1705.* The plot of the city was divided 
 into half-acre lots upon which the owners were required to 
 erect buildings within two years after purchase, and the 
 height, size, and position of houses were determined by law 
 and by regulations of the commissioners appointed under 
 the law. On July 28, 17^2, the city received a charter ^ 
 which established a municipal corporation with self-perpetu- 
 ating officers, and gave the city the privilege of sending 
 one burgess to the assembly. Following the English and 
 general colonial custom, the borough franchise was placed 
 upon a basis differing from the county freehold qualifica- 
 tion. The electors in the city were ( i ) the mayor, recorder, 
 aldermen, and common councilmen; (2) all freeholders own- 
 ing a whole lot of ground with a house built thereon accord- 
 ing to law,® (3) all actual inhabitants and residents of the 
 
 'The act of 1769 (Chapter I, November, 1769, Hening, VIII, 305- 
 317) re-enacted almost all the provisions of the law of 1762. The most 
 important omissions were the sections requiring the dissolution of 
 assembly at least once in seven years, and an election at least three 
 years after the dissolution. By the new act lands need be held only six 
 months before the election, and unanimity upon the part of joint tenants 
 was not required. 
 
 'Jamestown, which was another exception to the uniform county 
 representation, was not the recipient of any special suffrage privileges. 
 
 "Hening, III, 197. 
 
 * Hening, III, 419-432. 
 
 ° Partially recited in Hening, V, 204. 
 
 " The act of 1705 had given many details concerning the building of 
 houses ; requiring those on the main street of Williamsburg to measure 
 twenty by fifty feet, or if possessing two brick chimneys and bricked 
 cellar, then twenty by forty feet; and houses on other streets were to 
 cover four or five hundred square feet according as bricks did or did 
 not enter into their construction. (Hening, III, 425, 429, 430.) 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 43 
 
 city who had a visible estate of fifty pounds current money ; 
 (4) all persons who had served five years to any trade in 
 the city, and after the expiration of their service, were actual 
 housekeepers and inhabitants of the city. These provisions 
 were explained at large by an act of 1742,^ but no change 
 was made in them except that a residence of twelve months 
 was required of those voting as inhabitants, and unanimity 
 of joint tenants was required before a vote could be cast 
 for their lot. 
 
 The charter of Norfolk, of 1736, made the voting class ^!.' 
 almost identical with that of Williamsburg.^ As later ex- 
 plained by the assembly,^ the suffrage was vested in free- 
 holders owning at least one-half a lot of ground with a 
 house of the size required for a whole lot, or inhabitants 
 having resided twelve months in the town and owning fifty 
 pounds visible estate, or tradesmen who had served five 
 years to a trade in the town, had received a certificate from 
 the court of hustings and were actually inhabitants and 
 housekeepers. Indentured and covenanted servants were 
 especially excluded from voting as inhabitants. 
 
 The elaborate act of 1705 * for " establishing ports and 
 towns," so notably unsuccessful, also contained a clause per- 
 mitting each town, after receiving sixty families of inhabi- 
 tants and becoming fully organized as a borough, to send 
 one burgess to the assembly, who was to be elected by adult v> 
 male freeholders and housekeepers of the town.® This pro- 
 vision was not carried out within the next five years, and at 
 the end of that time the act was repealed by the governor in 
 accordance with the Queen's instructions. 
 
 An inspection of the suffrage features of the charters of 
 Williamsburg and Norfolk shows their close similarity to 
 the city or borough charters in the neighboring colonies 
 
 'Hening, V, 204-207. 
 
 ' See charter in Ingle, Local Institutions in Virginia, J. H. U. Studies, 
 III, No. 2, 121-126. It was later confirmed by act of assembly (Hen- 
 ing, IV, S4i)- 
 
 ' Act of 1753, Hening, VI, 261-265. 
 
 *Hening, III, 404-419; repealed by Governor Spotswood's proclama- 
 tion in 1710. 
 
 " Hening, III, 414. 
 
44 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 of North Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. 
 Indeed, wherever population was grouped in cities or towns 
 in the middle or southern colonies, the colonial custom fol- 
 lowed the English precedent of adapting the suffrage quali- 
 fications to the variant economic conditions of the towns- 
 people. The freehold requirement, which in the countryU- 
 districts excluded few honest and industrious men, woulat', 
 be almost prohibitive among the merchant and artisan classes 
 in the towns. The colonial legislators, undoubtedly ac- 
 quainted with the English borough charters, recognized this 
 economic difference when defining the voting class. 
 
 A third exception to the uniform election laws is to be 
 ^ found in the representation granted to the College of Wil- 
 liam and Mary according to the terms of its charter of 1693. 
 Following the privileges granted to Oxford and Cambridge, 
 the Virginia college received the right to send one burgess 
 to the assembly, who should be elected by the president and 
 six masters of the college from their own number, or from 
 the board of visitors or from among the citizens of the 
 colony.^ This right was respected by subsequent legislation, 
 and the elections of representatives for the college were made 
 by the seven persons authorized to do so by the charter.* 
 
 ' The charter provided : 
 
 " XVIII. and, also, of our special grace, certain knowledge 
 and mere motion we have given and granted, and by these pres- 
 ents, for us and our successors, do give and grant to the said 
 President and masters or professors of the said College, full 
 and absolute power, liberty, and authority to nominate, elect, 
 and constitute one discreet and able person of their own num- 
 ber, or of the number of the said visitors, or governors, or 
 lastly of the better sort of inhabitants of our colony of Vir- 
 ginia, to be present in the house of Burgesses of the General 
 Assembly of our colony of Virginia, and there to act and con- 
 sent to such things as by the common advice of our said colony 
 shall (God willing) happen to be enacted." 
 'At a meeting of the President and masters on January 8, 1729-30, 
 the following action was taken : 
 
 " Upon the Governor's writt to elect a Burgess according to the Char- 
 ter to serve in the Assembly, which is prorogued to the of feb- 
 
 ruary, the election fell unanimously on Dr. George Nicholas ;" William 
 and Mary College Quarterly, I, 134. See also Morrison, History of 
 William and Mary College, 48. 
 
The Suffrage in Virginia. 45 
 
 We have been noting heretofore the elections for the as- 
 sembly. The facts concerning local suffrage can be told in 
 a few words, since Virginia possessed very few local elec- 
 13^ tions, the most important of which were those for church 
 "^ officers. Church wardens were to be chosen annually under 
 the acts of 163 1-2, 1632, and 1642-3, but no description is 
 given of the method of election.^ In 1644-5, after vestries 
 had been in existence for some time, the assembly directed 
 that the vestrymen should be chosen by the " major part of 
 the parishioners, ... by pluralitie of voices." ^ The min- 
 ister was chosen by the vestry, but in an election in 1649 it 
 was stated that the vestry made choice of a minister, yfith. 
 the full and free consent of the freemen of the parish.^ The 
 early laws do not provide for any changes in the vestry, but 
 in 1 66 1-2 * they were empowered to fill vacancies in their 
 own number, and with the minister to elect the two church 
 wardens from among themselves. Bacon's Assembly in 
 1676 limited the term of vestries to three years, and provided 
 for their election by the " freeholders and freemen" of every 
 parish, thus granting manhood suffrage in their election ; ^ 
 but this, together with all the other legislation of this assem- 
 bly, was of short duration. In 1708 the governor and coun- 
 cil ordered that in an approaching vestry election, " for 
 avoiding all tumult and confusion, which usually happens on 
 such occasions," " every freeholder and Householder paying 
 Seott and Lett [scot and lot] in the parish and no other 
 have vote at the said election." ^ The rule here laid down 
 was followed by the assembly in the later acts, when for any 
 reason a new vestry must be elected. Thus, whenever a new 
 parish was erected, or the vestrymen of an old parish neg- 
 lected their duties or were proved to be dissenters, a new 
 vestry was chosen by the freeholders and householders of 
 the parish.'' Although not regularly chosen, yet when ves- 
 
 * Hening, I, 155, 180, 240. 
 ' Hening, I, 290. 
 
 • Lower Norfolk County Virginia Antiquary, II, 63. 
 •Hening, II, 44-5. 
 
 ' Hening, II, 3S6. 
 
 ° Calendar of Virginia State Papers, I, 122. 
 
 'See Hening, passim; e.g., IV, 304 305, 443, 467; V, 80, 96, 211, 
 
46 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 trytnen were elected the suffrage was on a broader basis 
 than in the assembly elections. 
 
 The abortive town act of 1705 contained a number of 
 provisions for popular elections, in which the suffrage was- 
 extended to all free adult inhabitants and freeholders of the 
 proposed towns, but these features were not put in force 
 under this act; and under the later town charters the local 
 government was of the close corporation type without elective 
 features.^ The same absence of elective officers is seen in 
 the county government, where the only exception is the tem- 
 porary provision for local county representatives, who were 
 joined with the county court in the levying of taxes. These, 
 under Bacon's laws, were to be elected in each parish by the 
 " freeholders, householders, and freemen," ^ but subsequently 
 the freemen were excluded and the election limited to free- 
 holders and householders.* Only one reference has been 
 found to elective militia officers, and this, too, was among- 
 the transitory work of Bacon's Assembly.* 
 
 In closing the subject of the suffrage in Virginia, refer- 
 ence must be made to some figures and conclusions given by 
 Professor J. F. Jameson and President L. G. Tyler concern- J 
 ing the numbers of the voting class in Virginia. Professor ^ 
 Jameson, in a comparison of the extent of the suffrage m 
 Virginia with that in Massachusetts, comes to the conclusion 
 that about six per cent, of the white^opulation of Virginia 
 took part in thirteen elections between 1744 and 1772, the 
 individual cases varying from four to nine per cent.^ Presi- 
 dent Tyler has developed the idea, an 1 in a series of election 
 returns ® has shown that the proportion of voters was even' 
 greater than that given by Professor j'ameson. These figures 
 
 254, 259. 274, 381; VI, 256, 276, 381; VII, 132, 144, IS3, 301, 303; VIII, 
 432. Returns of vestry elections in 1761 will be found in Lower Nor- 
 folk County Virginia Antiquary, I, 18-19. 
 
 " See charters of, Williamsburg and Norfolk already quoted. 
 
 ' Hening, II, 357.-' 
 
 'Hening, II, 441. 
 
 * Hening, II, 348. 
 
 ° N. Y. Nation, April 27, 1893, Vol. 56, 309-310. ^ 
 
 ' Virginians Voting in the Colonial Period, William and Mary Quar- ^ 
 terly, VI, 7-13. 
 
 ^ 
 
 v>^ 
 
« 
 
 The Suffrage in Virginia. 47 
 
 give eight per cent, of the white population voting in an 
 election in Elizabeth City County in T7gR. t^n p er cent, in 
 King George County in the same year, and ^even and on e- 
 half per cent, in Prince William County in 1 741"! In West- 
 moreland County for 1741, 1748, 1752 the proportions are 
 se ven and one- half, ten, and eight and one-hali-per-cent. 
 respectively ; ~while in"Eisex County in 1761 and 1765 the" 
 voters numbered aboutlen per cent, of the white inhabitants. 
 Taking the average of these poll-lists, it would appear that 
 almost min^^r cent, of the white population actually par- 
 ticipateam these elections; or that one white person in 
 eleven not only had a right to vote, but did perform that 
 duty. In this respect Virginia compares favorably with the 
 New England and the middle colonies. Taking the figures 
 of a somewhat later period in Massachusetts,^ or the poll- 
 lists given for New York City,^ it is apparent that the fran- 
 chise was more widely exercised, if not more widely con- 
 ferred, in Virginia than in the more northern colonies. 
 
 ' J. F. Jameson, New Eng. Magazine, Jan., 1890. 
 ' See p. 217. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Suffrage in Maryland. 
 
 The suffrage in Maryland furnishes a number of pecu- 
 liarities which mark off its political conditions from those 
 in other colonies. The presence of the Catholics in a con- 
 siderable number complicated the political question with the 
 religious one, and led through an alternation of toleration 
 and persecution to a policy of constant repression. The 
 early primary assemblies and universal suffrage, and their 
 development into a proxy system and a true representative 
 organization, are most interesting for the light they throw 
 upon the inevitable growth from pure democracy to repre- 
 sentation. And the successive processes of suffrage limita- 
 tion show the transition from an early economic and political 
 equality to a condition of diversity in wealth and privileges. 
 
 The royal charter to Baltimore^ enjoined upon the pro- 
 prietor the necessity of admitting the inhabitants of the 
 province to a share in the making of laws : 
 
 He had power " to ordain, make, and enact laws . . . with the advice 
 ... of the free men of the said province, or of the greater part of 
 them, or of their delegates or deputies, whom we will shall be called 
 together for the framing of laws, when and as often as need shall 
 require, by the aforesaid now baron of Baltimore. ... So nevertheless 
 that the laws aforesaid be consonant to reason, and be not repugnant 
 or contrary, but (so far as conveniently may be) agreeable to the laws, 
 statutes, customs, and rights of this our Kingdom of England. . . . '' 
 
 While there could be no doubt that the charter required 
 the association of the colonists with the proprietor in the 
 making of laws, yet it did not clearly state the class among 
 the colonists who should enjoy the suffrage. The document, 
 written in Latin, used the phrases liberi homines and Uberi 
 tenentes in speaking of the political people, and it was at one 
 
 ^ Bozman, History of Maryland, II, 9 f f ; Poore, Charters and Con- 
 stitutions, I, 811-817; Archives of Md., Proceedings of Council, 1637- 
 1667, 3-12. 
 48 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 49 
 
 time thought that the power thus granted devolved only on 
 freeholders. Later interpreters, noting the practice of the 
 assemblies, have taken the other view, that the charter 
 granted the suffrage to all free men} 
 
 No provision is made in the instructions to the first gov- 
 ernor, Leonard Calvert, for a popular assembly;^ but less 
 than a year after the colonists arrived in the province they 
 met in assembly and passed certain laws. The acts of this 
 first meeting, evidently a primary assembly of the colonists, 
 are shrouded in uncertainty.^ Some legislation must have 
 been passed, for the commission to Governor Calvert in 1637 
 directs him to express the proprietor's dissent to all laws 
 heretofore passed.* But leaving this early assembly, whose 
 work we know only by indirect reference, we may note the 
 more important second assembly, the records of which have 
 been quite fully preserved. 
 
 The governor's commission of April 15, 1637, directed 
 him to call an assembly of the freemen in the following 
 January and present to them certain laws drafted in Eng- 
 land; and empowered him to call future assemblies of the 
 freemen, whose acts must be submitted to the proprietor for 
 his approval.^ In accordance with this commission the gov- 
 ernor issued writs summoning an assembly for January 25, 
 1637-8, by which the respective commanders were instructed 
 " to endeavor to persuade fit freemen to attend in person," 
 and to permit the rest of the freemen to attend in person, or 
 elect their deputies.® 
 
 'See Bozman, II, 47, note; McMahon, History of Maryland, 443, 
 note i; G. W. Brown, The Origin and Growth of Civil Liberty in 
 Maryland,, 9. 
 
 'Instructions in Calvert Papers, Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Publications, 
 1889, 131-140; Hart, History by Contemporaries, I, 247-252. 
 
 *S. F. Streeter, Papers Relating to the Early History of Md., Md. 
 Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., 1876, 7; B. F. Johnson, The Founding of 
 Maryland and the Origin of the Act Concerning Religion, Hist. Soc. 
 Fund Pub., No. 18, 1883, 34-5. 
 
 * Archives of Maryland, Proceedings of Council, 1636-67, 49. 
 
 'Ibid. 
 
 ' " and to give free power & liberty to all the rest of the said freemen 
 either to be p'nt at the said assembly if they so please; or otherwise 
 to elect and nominate such and so many persons as they or the maior 
 
 4 
 
50 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 The assembly had as diverse a character as the writ per- 
 mitted. Some persons came in their own right, others were 
 represented by proxies given to attending freemen, while 
 Kent Island was represented by a regularly elected deputy.^ 
 In all perhaps ninety persons were either present or repre- 
 sented during the sessions of the assembly. An inspection 
 of the economic station of the attendants shows great differ- 
 ences existing among the freemen; mariners, carpenters, a 
 cooper, and a brick-mason were associated with the governor, 
 the sheriff, three priests, and many gentlemen and planters.^ 
 The suffrage appears to have been upon the broadest possible 
 basis. Two carpenters and two mariners who claimed a 
 voice in the affairs of assembly were admitted and allowed 
 to attend personally or appoint proxies ; ^ and two persons 
 from Kent Island, having previously voted for the repre- 
 sentative, were permitted to participate personally in the 
 meetings.* The freemen so met in assembly fined those who 
 did not attend or give proxies, and even directed that all 
 freemen present in the assembly, or who had given proxies, 
 were to be free from arrest during the sessions of the assem- 
 bly. The assembly by a decisive vote of 37 to 14 i-efused 
 
 part of them so assembled shall agree upon to be the deputies or bur- 
 gesses for the said freemen, in their name and steed to advise and con- 
 sult of such things as shalbe brought into deliberation in the said as- 
 sembly." Archives of Md., Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 1637- 
 64, 1. 
 
 '^ Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 2-6. The delegate was elected by 
 the people in the presence of Governor Calvert, who had gone to Kent 
 Island to enforce Baltimore's claims ; Calvert Papers in Md. Hist. Soc. 
 Fund Pub., 1889, 185. 
 
 ' Streeter, op. cit., 61, gives the occupations of members as follows : 
 
 Governor i Ship-carpenter i 
 
 Secretary I Brick-mason i 
 
 Sheriff i Cooper i 
 
 Marshal i Mariners 5 
 
 Priests 3 Planters 48 
 
 Gentlemen 10 Occupations not given 12 
 
 Councillors 3 
 
 Carpenters 2 Total qo 
 
 ° Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 4, 5, 6. 
 
 'Ibid., 5, 8. 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 51 
 
 to accept the laws sent over by the proprietor, and then pro- 
 ceeded to adopt laws of their own making.^ 
 
 For over ten years after 1638 no definite organization of 
 the assemblies was established ; on some occasions they were 
 pure democratic meetings, with the proxy privilege ; in other 
 cases they were truly representative bodies ; while sometimes, 
 as in the first gathering, there was a combination of these 
 two principles. Within this period, also, the separation of 
 the councillors from the freemen and burgesses was ac- 
 complished and a bicameral system originated.^ A few de- 
 tails of these early assemblies may not be out of place as 
 showing the development from a primary to a representative 
 assembly system. 
 
 The writs for the election of 1638-9 directed the election 
 of burgesses in the respective hundreds, and summoned cer- 
 tain named persons to appear individually,^ thus implying 
 a representative body; but when two persons from Saint 
 Maries claimed a voice because they did not assent to the 
 election of burgesses, they were admitted to the assembly.* 
 This indefinite organization was later permitted by a law 
 of the same assembly, which gave the right to a seat in the 
 legislature to councillors, to those summoned personally, or 
 who were chosen by the freemen as burgesses, or who, as 
 freemen, had not consented to the burgesses elected in any 
 hundred and wished personally to attend.' This assembly 
 further required all persons over eighteen years of age to 
 swear allegiance to the king, under pain of confiscation of 
 property and banishment from the province, thus limiting 
 the rights of freemen to those taking the oath.® Another 
 act guaranteed the liberties and free customs of English 
 
 '^ Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 11-22. 
 
 ' See Ibid., 130, 141, 209, 272, etc., for bicameral system. 
 
 'Ibid., 27-31. 
 
 'Ibid., 32. 
 
 'Ibid., 74, 81. The burgesses were to be "some one, two, or more 
 able and sufficient men for the hundred;" and those personally sum- 
 moned were to be " Gentlemen of able judgment and quality" or lords 
 of manors when such have been erected. 
 
 ° Ibid., 40. 
 
52 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 subjects to" all the Inhabitants of this Province being chris- 
 tians (Slaves excepted)." ^ 
 
 An assembly of October 12-24, 1640, apparently a repre- 
 sentative bociy,^ was continued until 1641, although the free- 
 men in the hundreds were permitted to substitute new bur- 
 gesses for the old ones if they desired.* Some changes were 
 accordingly made, and when one of the displaced deputies 
 claimed a seat in his own right he was refused.* 
 
 Another change to the primary assembly was made in 
 March, 164 1-2, when the writs for electing burgesses ^ were 
 subsequently changed by the governor for new writs sum- 
 moning all the freemen of the province to attend in person 
 or to appoint their proxies or deputies.® This assembly was 
 attended by the governor, five councillors, and thirty-nine 
 freemen personally, and proxies for twenty-two other free- 
 men were held by those present. In July of the same year a 
 representative assembly was held ; '^ and when two of the 
 members asked to vote for the proxies of Kent Island in- 
 habitants they were refused, being permitted only to cast 
 their votes as deputies.* It was at this assembly that we 
 notice the first tendency to distinguish between the burgesses 
 on one hand and the councillors and those summoned by 
 personal writ on the other.® 
 
 In September, 1642, the third assembly for that year met. 
 
 ' Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 41. 
 
 ^ Ihid,, 87-89, where the writs of election are given. 
 
 'Ibid., 103-5. 
 
 'Ibid., 105. 
 
 "Ibid., 113. 
 
 'Ibid., 115. "These are to publish and proclaim to all Persons In- 
 habitants within this Province that I have appointed to hold a General 
 Assembly of all the Freemen of this Province on monday being the 
 one and twentieth day of this instant month and therefore to require 
 all freemen whatsoever to take notice hereof and either to repair per- 
 sonally ... or else to appoint and depute some other for their Proxy 
 or deputy during the said Assembly there to consult and advise touchg 
 the enacting of new Laws and other important affairs of this Province." 
 
 ' See writs for election of burgesses, Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 
 127. 
 
 ' Ibid., 129. 
 
 "Ibid., 131, 141. 
 
The Suffrage in Maityland. 53 
 
 This was a primary gathering, the writ directing " all free- 
 men inhabiting within the Province to be at the said Assem- 
 bly at the time & place aforesaid either by themselves or 
 their Deputies or Delegates sufficiently Authorized." ^ In 
 accordance with this order there appeared the governor and 
 eighteen freemen personally, one hundred and five freemen 
 were represented by proxies, fifteen were excused, and sev- 
 enty-six were fined for not appearing, either by themselves 
 or proxy. It is interesting to note that Brent, an inhabitant 
 of Kent Island, held the proxies of seventy-three freemen of 
 that island. At this meeting clear evidence is given of the 
 extent of the suffrage and the application of the term free- 
 man. The records show us a certain Weston, without land 
 or certain dwelling, who claimed he was not a freeman, but 
 the assembly decided he was such and must give attendance.^ 
 Such an interpretation as this makes the word freeman mean, 
 not a formally admitted member of a distinct corporation, 
 but a man who is free, — that is, not bound to service or a 
 slave. 
 
 Proclamations for assemblies of all the freemen were again 
 issued in December, 1642, March, 1643, and November, 
 1644, but no record of these assemblies has been noticed.^ 
 In January, 1647-8, another pure democratic assembly was 
 held. According to the governor's writ, this was to be 
 composed of " All and Singular the Inhabts of this Prov- 
 ince either by their psonall appearances or by Proxey or 
 delegate;" and by way of caution the governor advised " all 
 such as shall not give their psonall attendance therein that 
 they make choyse of such psons for their Delegates whose 
 able iudgm't & ffortunes may render them more considerate 
 to the weale publique." * A petition, unique in colonial his- 
 tory, was made to this assembly by Mrs. Margaret Brent, 
 
 ^ Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 167. 
 
 ""Mr. Thomas Weston being called pleaded he was no freeman 
 because he had no land nor certain dwelling here, etc., but being put 
 to the question it was voted that he was a Freeman and as such bound 
 to his appearance by himself or proxie, whereupon he took his place 
 in the house." Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 170. 
 
 'Ibid., 201. 
 
 * Ibid., 213. 
 
54 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 who was executrix for the deceased governor, Leonard Cal- 
 vert. She demanded a voice and vote in the assembly, and 
 when this was denied she protested against all the proceed- 
 ings of the session.^ This is the only instance found in all 
 the colonial records of a demand for the suffrage upon the 
 part of a woman.^ It was in this assembly, also, that the 
 question of the freemenship of a certain person was decided 
 upon the basis of his not being bound to service.^ 
 
 The assembly further introduced another variation in the 
 representative system. We have noted that freemen might 
 appear in person, or by proxy, and in some cases by deputy. 
 On January 20, 1647-8, the freemen in assembly went even 
 a step farther and selected from themselves sixteen persons, 
 who with the governor and council were to constitute an 
 assembly. A quorum of this secondary assembly was to be 
 composed of the governor, the clerk, and ten freemen.* This 
 delegated body later refused to permit other freemen to join 
 them, stating that the sixteen chosen freemen alone had a 
 voice in the assembly.^ In this way a representative body 
 was erected which closely corresponds to the representative 
 boards chosen from the commonalty of New Amsterdam at 
 various occasions under the Dutch rule, and is somewhat 
 similar to the representative commissioners who were chosen 
 in Rhode Island at about this time. In 1649-50 the writs 
 permitted the election of delegates or the attendance of free- 
 men as the counties or hundreds should determine, but for- 
 bade any one bringing the proxies of more than two other 
 freemen.® 
 
 ' Jan. 21, 1647-8. " Came Mrs. Margaret Brent and requested to have 
 vote in the house for herselfe and voyce allso for that att the last Court 
 3rd Jan. : it was ordered that the said Mrs. Brent vvras to be looked 
 uppon and received as his Lps attorney. The Govr denyed that the sd 
 Mrs. Brent should have any vote in the house. And the sd Mrs. Brent 
 protested agst all Proceedings in this pnt Assembly, unlesse shee may 
 be pnt and have vote as aforesd." Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 215. 
 
 ^ An instance of woman suffrage has been noted in New York ; see 
 post, 192. 
 
 " Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 218-220. 
 
 * Ibid., 214. 
 
 " Ibid., 217. 
 
 " Ibid., 259. 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 53 
 
 The details given above include the more important refer- 
 ences to this interesting system of primary assemblies and 
 proxy voting. It will be noticed that the franchise was co- 
 extensive with free manhood; that there was absolutely no 
 property qualification, and evidently no religious or definite 
 residence restrictions. The demand for the suffrage by a 
 woman also shows how broad must have been the prevailing 
 ideas upon the subject. 
 
 During the years 1638-1650, the greater number of the 
 assemblies were supposed to be meetings of all the freemen, 
 but it must not be imagined that any complete gathering of 
 all the inhabitants ever took place. From the first the proxy 
 system gave the freeman an excuse to stay at home, of which 
 he was not slow to take adv&ntage. In one assembly the 
 eighteen freemen present held proxies for one hundred and 
 five others, while one person held seventy-three proxies; in 
 another case the thirty-nine present held proxies for twenty- 
 two others, and in still another assembly fifteen named per- 
 sons and " divers other inhabitants" held proxies for ninety- 
 three freemen.^ There can be no doubt that the evils of such 
 a system early became apparent. Immediately after the as- 
 sembly of 1638, protests were sent to the proprietor in Eng- 
 land against a system by which no man could be sure of what 
 he hath, " but he that canne git most proxis in every assembly 
 shall dispose of any mans estate that he pleaseth." ^ It was 
 said that the governor and his friends, by the many proxies 
 they had obtained, had been able to do whatever they wished 
 without any restraint ; ^ and the fear was expressed that 
 " any factious workingman," " if he would labor for it, 
 might quickly get an over-swaying voice and carry by 
 proxies what he will." * In spite of these objections to the 
 system, or perhaps on account of them, the governors retained 
 the proxy system for over ten years before the assembly was 
 based upon the equal representation of geographical or cor- 
 porate units. 
 
 ' Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 214. 
 " Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., 1889, Calvert Papers, 164. 
 'Ibid., 160. 
 
 'Ibid., 169. It must be noted that these objections all came from one 
 of the strong Catholic settlers. 
 
56 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Before 1648, however, there began another movement, 
 which was at length to limit the suffrage to Protestants and 
 to exclude altogether from political activity those who had 
 been instrumental in founding the colony. In 1642, when 
 at least a majority, or perhaps three-fourths, of the popula- 
 tion were Protestants,^ a feeling of discontent arose in the 
 province,^ which was not allayed by acting Governor Brent's 
 seizure of a parliamentary vessel in 1644. A year later the 
 extreme Protestants rose in rebellion with Richard Ingle as 
 their leader and drove out the Catholic priests and Governor 
 Leonard Calvert. In the same year the Protestants of the 
 colony wrote to England setting forth the tyrannical nature 
 of their government under the popish recusants, who were 
 seducing many to their religion ; and the English House of 
 Lords acted upon these petitions by suggesting the settling 
 of the province in Protestant hands.^ Petitions and counter- 
 petitions from Lord Baltimore and from merchants of Lon- 
 don were also sent to the Lords at this time.* Governor 
 Calvert returned to the province in 1646, drove out Ingle, 
 and restored the proprietary party. In the meantime the 
 proprietor attempted to secure his position in the colony. 
 This was done by commissioning Protestants to the principal 
 offices, by granting amnesty, by proposing religious tolera- 
 tion, and by requiring a stricter oath of allegiance to the 
 proprietor. As early as 1638-9 such an oath had been re- 
 quired of all inhabitants over eighteen years of age,^ and 
 now, in 1648 ® and 1650,'^ additional clauses were added to 
 
 ^ B. F. Johnson, Founding of Md., 32. 
 
 ' Ibid., 95. 
 
 'Archives, Council, 1636-67, 164, 173. 
 
 '■Ihid., 180. 181. 
 
 'Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 40. 
 
 'Archives, Council, 1636-67, 196. 
 
 ''Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 304. This oath provided that the 
 affiant be true and faithful to the proprietor; that he would protect 
 and maintain his lordship's interests and privileges; that he would 
 make known any plots or conspiracies to the proprietor; that he would 
 accept no lands in Maryland from the Indians but subject to the use 
 of the proprietor ; and would take no lands from any one by purchase 
 or otherwise, except where legal title came from the proprietor. 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 57 
 
 these oaths. During this period the famous act of toleration 
 of April 21, 1649, was passed.^ 
 
 But neither the act of toleration nor the stringent oaths 
 could keep the province in Baltimore's control. Interests in 
 England and the colony were working against him; and 
 when, in September, 1651, the English Council of State ap- 
 pointed a commission to reduce all the plantations on Chesa- 
 peake Bay, one of the four commissioners was the William 
 Claiborne who had already caused so much trouble to the 
 colony.2 After settling affairs in Virginia the commission- 
 ers turned their attention to Maryland, where on March 29, 
 1652, they issued a proclamation from St. Mary's calling 
 an assembly, but limiting the suffrage in the election for 
 burgesses to those who would promise to be faithful to the 
 commonwealth as established in England.* Governor Stone 
 and his council agreed to this declaration, but two years 
 later, under directions from Baltimore, Stone issued writs 
 in the proprietor's name, and, when the commissioners pro- 
 tested, he appealed to arms,* but was soon overcome by the 
 Puritan forces. The commissioners thereupon issued com- 
 missions to ten persons to care for the peace and administra- 
 tion of justice in place of the proprietors, the governor, and 
 council."* In this commission occurs the first formal exclu- 
 sion of Catholics from political activity. The ten commis- 
 sioners are instructed, 
 
 "Alsoe that they Sumon an Assembly to begin on the 20th day of 
 October Next. For which Assembly all Such Shall be disabled to give 
 
 ' For this act see " The Foundation of Maryland and the Origin of 
 the Act Concerning Religion of April zi, 1649," by B. F. Johnson, in 
 Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., 1883, No. 18; and Church and State in 
 Early Maryland, George Petrie, Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, loth 
 Series, No. 4. 
 
 'McMahon, Md., 204. 
 
 '^ Archives, Council, 1636-67, 271. The electors must subscribe the 
 following engagement : " We whose names are Subscribed do promise 
 and engage our selves to be true and faithful to the Commonwealth of 
 England as it is now established without King or House of Lords." 
 
 *Ibid., 300 ff. 
 
 'Ibid., 311. 
 
58 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 any Vote or to be Elected Members thereof as have borne arms in Warr 
 against the Parliament or doe profess the Roman Catholick Religion." ' 
 
 An assembly summoned in accordance with this provision 
 met in October, 1654, and in its first act gave recognition 
 to the Protector's power in Maryland, directed that no change 
 could be made in the government except by order from 
 the Protector, and required all persons in express terms 
 to own their subjection to the present government.^ Those 
 refusing, or speaking and acting against the government, 
 were to be considered offenders against the Protector. The 
 repressive measures were successful and the Catholics appear 
 to have refrained from voting.^ The assembly showed its 
 anti-Catholic feeling by repealing the religious liberty act 
 of 1649 ^"d passing another which declared Catholics with- 
 out the protection of the laws, while it permitted freedom 
 of religion to other Christians.* 
 
 ^Archives, Council, 1637-67, 313. 
 '^Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 339. 
 
 ° When two burgesses from St. Mary's refused to subscribe to the new 
 agreement, urging their former oath to Baltimore, they were refused 
 seats in the house. A new election resulted in the unanimous choice 
 of two delegates who were ready to take the oath (ibid.). The una- 
 nimity in the election shows how well the policy of repression was 
 working. 
 * " An act Concerning Religion." 
 
 " It is Enacted and declared in the Name of his Highness the 
 Lord Protector with the consent and by the authority of the 
 present General Assembly. That none who profess and Exer- 
 cise the Popish Religion Commonly known by the Name of 
 the Roman Catholick Religion can be protected in this Prov- 
 ince by the Lawes of England formerly established and yet 
 unrepealed nor by the Government of the Commonwealth of 
 England, Scotland, and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto 
 belonging Published by his Highness the Lord Protector, but 
 are to be restrained from the Exercise thereof, Therefore all 
 and Every person or persons concerned in the Law aforesaid 
 are required to take notice 
 
 " Such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ (although 
 differing in Judgment from the Doctrine worship & Discipline 
 publickly held forth shall not be restrained from but shall be 
 protected in the profession of the faith) & Exercise of their 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 59 
 
 Pending a decision by Cromwell upon the rights of Balti- 
 more, the latter commissioned a new governor for Mary- 
 land/ and drew up an agreement for the surrender of the 
 province to him,^ but instructed his governor to require an 
 oath of allegiance and submission from all taking out land 
 warrants.^ These promises and instructions were discussed 
 between Governor Fendall and the Cromwellian commis- 
 sioners,* and the latter insisted upon a number of changes in 
 them. As finally adopted ° the agreement bound Baltimore 
 to make no question concerning the acts of officials during 
 the late years ; fees and taxes arising during the period were 
 to be paid, and the old oath of fidelity was not to be pressed, 
 the people, however, engaging to submit to the proprietor's 
 authority. A special provision was inserted prohibiting any 
 political disqualifications on account of the late disorders. 
 It was agreed 
 
 " That no person whatsoever within this Province shall (by reason 
 of Any Act or Passage made or don in relation to the late Alteration 
 of the Government made in the yeare one thousand Six hundred 
 fifty-two) bee deemed or hereafter made vncapable of Electing, or to be 
 Elected to all future Assemblies." ° 
 
 By these provisions the Protestants and the anti-proprietary 
 party hoped to shield themselves against any return of per- 
 secution upon themselves. All were expected to assent to 
 
 Religion so as they abuse not this liberty to the injury of others 
 The disturbance of the publique peace on their part. Provided 
 that this Liberty be not Extended to popery or prelacy nor to 
 such as under the profession of Christ hold forth and practice 
 Licentiousness." 
 
 See Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., No. 7, 91-3, for treatment of Catholics. 
 
 'July 10, 1656. Archives, Council, 1636-67, 323. 
 
 ' Nov. 30, i6s7, ihid., 332. Baltimore promised that he would not 
 question any of the recent offences, never repeal the act for liberty of 
 conscience, but would permit those who had been in opposition to take 
 up land in accordance with earlier conditions, and would not interfere 
 with those desiring to leave the province within a year's time. 
 
 "Archives, Council, 1636-67, 335-39. 
 
 '■Ibid., 369. 
 
 ° On March 24, 1657-8, Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 369. ° Ibid. 
 
6o The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 the new settlement, and those who refused to agree were, 
 by the governor's proclamation, to be proceeded against as 
 " Rebbells & traitors." ^ 
 
 It is not necessary for our purpose to enter into the details 
 of the strange conspiracy of Baltimore's governor, Fendall, 
 which came shortly after this settlement, except to notice 
 that an incidental result was the disfranchisement of those 
 interested in it.^ This disfranchisement may have been the 
 cause for the explicit statement of the power of the sheriff 
 in elections, which was made in the spring of 1661. In 
 answer to a protest from the lower house, the governor and 
 council said that the sheriffs had the right to restrain those 
 not legally qualified from voting or from being elected to 
 office, and that no one having committed a crime could be 
 elected.^ 
 
 The period from 1649 to 1661 was one of great con- 
 fusion in Maryland. The proprietary dues were onerous to 
 the colonists, and his religion must have been obnoxious to 
 many of them. In the contests which arose in the colony, 
 the differences were not settled at the polls, but by physical 
 force. Hence, in order to maintain in the elections what 
 force had gained, it was often necessary to introduce politi- 
 cal disfranchisement, and this is the principal characteristic 
 of the period. The victorious party disfranchised its oppo- 
 nents, and then had the pleasure of witnessing unanimous 
 elections.* Before restoring the colony to Baltimore, the 
 Protestants exacted a promise that they should not be dis- 
 
 ^ Archives, Council, 1636-67, 352-3. Among those refusing to sign 
 the agreement were some Quakers. 
 
 " For the principal facts of this period, see Browne, Maryland, the 
 History of a Palatinate, 93-103. See Archives, Council, 1636^67, 
 404-418, for cases of disfranchisement. Three members of the assem- 
 bly who had joined Fendall were debarred from public office for seven 
 years, and rendered incapable of electing or being elected to any future 
 assembly unless the governor should pardon them. Fendall and Gerrard 
 were permitted to keep their property, but were forever disfranchised 
 (,ibid., 406, 407). A later attempt was made to elect Fendall to the 
 legislature (Archives, Council, 1671-81, 192). 
 
 ' Archives,, Assembly, 1637-64, 395-98. 
 
 * See the election of 1654, previously mentioned. 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 6i 
 
 franchised for their late conduct. The period closes with 
 the Fendall conspiracy and new political punishments. 
 
 The next change in the suffrage was upon a totally differ- 
 ent basis. The religious restrictions were not revived until 
 1688, but the new movement was for a property qualification 
 upon voters. It has been seen upon what a broad basis the 
 early suffrage rested; and during all the period of civil 
 strife no effort appears to have been made to restrict the 
 suffrage to freeholders or those holding a certain amount of 
 property. Writing in 1666, George Alsop could say re- 
 ' specting the assembly, 
 
 " These men that determine on these matters for the Republique are 
 called Burgesses, and they commonly sit in Junto about six weeks, 
 being for the most part good ordinary Householders of the several 
 Counties, which do more by a plain and honest Conscience than by 
 artificial Syllogisms drest up in gilded Orations." ' 
 
 A conflict of interests between the freeholders and the 
 landless freemen is first evident from the records in 1666, 
 when the project for a general cessation of tobacco planting 
 was under discussion. The price of tobacco had fallen so 
 low that it was proposed to unite Maryland, Virginia, and 
 North Carolina in a general agreement to restrict the pro- 
 duction of their great staple. The lower house opposed this 
 suggestion of the council upon the ground that it would have 
 a tendency to drive out the greater part of the population, 
 and thus deprive the province of the strong young f reemen.^ 
 The upper house rejoined that there was no place to which 
 the freemen could go, since Virginia also would cease tobacco 
 production; but even if they should leave, they might 
 thereby strengthen the position of the freeholders, and the 
 council protested they would not keep the freemen if they 
 must thereby ignore the welfare of the freeholders. The 
 freeholders, the upper house continued, " are the Strength 
 & only Strength of this Province, not the Freemen. It is 
 their persons, purses, & Stocks must bear the Burthen of the 
 Government, both in Peace & War & not Freemen, who can 
 
 ' A Character of the Province of Maryland, London, 1666 ; reprinted 
 in Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., 1880, No. 13, 47- 
 ^ Archives, Assembly, 1666-76, 44 ff. 
 
62 The Suifrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 easily abandon Us." ^ These reasons convinced the lower 
 house, and after " takeing them into their serious Considera- 
 tion & debateing thereupon" they replied that they " doe rest 
 sattisfyed." ^ The proprietor, however, disapproved of this 
 law, in spite of the assent of Virginia and North Carolina, 
 urging that it would hurt his majesty's customs and would 
 injure the poor settlers of the province who had so recently 
 been sacrificed by the assembly.* 
 
 The assembly of 1666 had ignored the economic rights of 
 the poor freemen, but shortly afterwards a further step 
 against them was taken by the refusal to permit them to 
 exercise the political privileges they had enjoyed since the 
 founding of the colony. The movement towards a restricted 
 suffrage was taken up by the governor, and on December 
 18, 1670, a proprietary writ directed the sheriffs to admit as 
 electors only those freemen of the counties who possessed a 
 visible seated plantation of at least fifty acres of land, or 
 owned a visible personal estate of forty pounds at the least. 
 The same qualifications were imposed upon deputies.* 
 
 ' Archives, Assembly, 1666-76, 47. 
 ' Ibid., 49. 
 
 ^Archives, Council, 1636-67, 561. 
 * Ibid., 77-8. 
 
 " These are to authorize and require you to call together this 
 prest month of december four or more of the Commissioners 
 of your County with the Clerk whom you are hereby required 
 to impower to sit as a Court and during their sitting by Virtue 
 of your Office to make or Cause to be made publick Proclama- 
 tion thereby giving notice to all the freemen of your said 
 County who [have] within the said County Visible seated Plan- 
 tations of fifty Acres of Land at the least or Visible personal 
 Estates to the Value of forty Pounds Sterling at the least re- 
 quiring them to appear at the next County Court to be holden 
 for the said County at a Certain day in the month next fol- 
 lowing after such Proclamation made for the election and 
 choosing of Deputies and Delegates to serve for your said 
 County in a General Assembly shortly after to be called by 
 special writ at which time and place according to the said 
 Proclamation the said freemen so required to appear or the 
 Major Part of such of them as shall thereupon appear shall 
 and may and are hereby Authorized and required to elect and 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 63 
 
 About the same time the settlement at St. Mary's was 
 given separate representation; the mayor, recorder, alder- 
 men, and common council having the right to elect the two 
 delegates from the city.^ This corporation franchise was 
 used in Maryland by the governors in the same way as the 
 kings used the borough elections in England. Charles Cal- 
 vert, writing to his father the proprietor, on April 26, 1672, 
 describes the manner in which the new city privileges could 
 be taken advantage of by the proprietary party. 
 
 "Mr- Nottly is now Speaker of or Assembly, hee and Mr- John 
 Moorecraft beinge Chossen Burgesses for the Citty of St. Maries, And 
 by that Meanes I gott him into the Assembly, Though Doctor Wharton 
 bee a good vnderstandinge Man yett D""- Morecraft is much more for 
 our purpose, being the best Lawyer in the Country, and has alwayes 
 been (vpon other Assemblyes) A great Asserter of yor LoPPs Charter 
 and the Rights & priviledges thereof, I durst not putt itt to an Election 
 in the Countyes Butt took this way which I Knew would Certainely doe 
 what I desired." ' 
 
 The limitation of political power was carried a step farther 
 in 1674, when the assembly passed a law requiring grand 
 jurors to be chosen from the freeholders of the respective 
 counties.^ 
 
 In 1675 th^ proprietor, Charles Calvert, came to the prov- 
 ince, and in the spring of the next year issued writs for the 
 election of four deputies from each county to the assembly,* 
 apparently retaining the property qualifications as laid down 
 in 1670. After the elections had been completed, the pro- 
 prietor summoned only two of the four elected delegates 
 from each county. The assembly thus constituted protested 
 against the action of the proprietor in refusing to summon 
 
 choose four several sufificient freemen of your said County 
 each of them having a visible seated Plantation of fifty Acres 
 of Land at the least or a Visible personal Estate of Forty 
 Pounds Sterling at the least within your said County." 
 
 * Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, 200. 
 
 ' Maryland Hist. Soc. Fund Pub., Calvert Papers, 264. 
 " Archives, Assembly, 1666^76, 392. 
 
 * Ibid., 507 ff . ; Council, 1671-81, 127-140 ; Council, 1687-93, 102-103. 
 
64 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 the other deputies, and petitioned him to admit to the assem- 
 bly as many deputies as the writs directed should be elected 
 in each county. The proprietor acceded to this request upon 
 the condition that the members of assemblies should take an 
 oath of allegiance to the proprietor before they elected their 
 speaker.^ 
 
 Baltimore left the province shortly after the meeting of 
 this assembly, and in the following fall the heavy taxes and 
 the limitations upon the sufifrage were criticised in a paper 
 which the proprietary party called a seditious document 
 issued " under the specious pretences of the preservation of 
 The Liberties of the ffreemen of this Province." ^ An at- 
 tempt at armed rebellion by some sixty inhabitants of Cal- 
 vert County on Sunday, September 3, 1676, failed, and on 
 the following day a general pardon was proclaimed.^ The 
 grievances of the rebels were the heavy taxes, the poll-tax 
 which required poor freemen to pay as much as the rich, and 
 the terms of the proprietary writs which excluded poor free- 
 men from the suffrage.* 
 
 The governor and council replied to the charges of the 
 rebels in " a Remonstrance of the true State of the Province 
 & of the causes & reasons of the publique Taxes." ^ They 
 placed the necessity for the heavy taxes upon the Indian 
 wars and the expenses for protection, and justified the equal 
 poll-taxes by the argument that poor freemen were compelled 
 to pay for themselves alone, while the rich were taxed for all 
 their servants and slaves. Their answer to the charge of 
 restricted suffrage was more elaborate, and as expressing 
 the seventeenth century theory of representation and suf- 
 frage is worth quoting entire : 
 
 ^Archives, Assembly, 1666-76, 507. 
 
 ' Archives, Council, 1671-81, 127. 
 
 'Ibid., 128. Four named persons were outlawed. This movement 
 should be compared to the Bacon Rebellion in Virginia. 
 
 * Ibid., 137. The ideas of the protest are not expressed in the clearest 
 words: "the debarring of some flfreemen who have nothing to entitle 
 them to a being in this Province, from voting in the Choice of Dele- 
 gates for makeing of the Laws." 
 
 ° Ibid., 137-140. 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 65 
 
 "As to the votes of ffreemen who have neither lands nor 
 visible personall Estate, in the Eleccon of Delegates for the 
 Assembly wee doe say, that as the Lord Proprietary can call 
 assemblys by his Patent whensoever & in what manner to him 
 shall seeme most fitt & convenient, Itt is no wonder that he 
 should chuse this as the fittest & most convenient manner, & 
 most agreeable to the Lawe and Custome of England For what 
 man in England can be admitted to the Election of Parliament 
 men that hath not a visible Estate in lands or Goods ? nay are 
 there not infinite numbers concluded [sic] in Parliament with- 
 out vote in the Elections, though they have great Estates both 
 in lands & Goods? As namely all unmarryed women be their 
 Estates in lands never so great, & all bothe men & woman 
 living out of Corporations, haveing no Estates in land be their 
 Personall Estates never so considerable This we say so to the 
 point of reason & law. But if itt be thought an unkinde way 
 of preceeding with the poore ffreeman, or that the ffreeman be 
 dearer To the ^freeholder then himselfe his Wife children & 
 fortune, & that they will needs Submitt themselves & all that 
 is deare to them to be disposed of by the votes of the ffreemen 
 that have nothing, & that can as easily carry themselves out of 
 the reach of Lawes by themselves made, to the prejudice of the 
 ffreeholder as change their Cloaths Wee doe promise to pro- 
 pound the case of the indigent ffreemen to his LordPP att his 
 returne & to offer him such reasons & motives as may incline 
 him to permitt the next Election to be made by the Votes of 
 all the ffreemen indifferently, this is all that lyes in our powers 
 to doe in this case, & this we doubt not but to Obtaine from his 
 Lordshipp, if the quiett demeanour of the ffreemen in the in- 
 terim doe but concurr with our Endeavours, to Oblige his Lord- 
 shipp to have a favorable regard of their Interests." 
 
 The view given in this proclamation is the one we have 
 seen advanced ten years earlier and gradually gaining 
 strength. Two years after the armed attempt to withstand 
 this restricting tendency, the suffrage limitation was estab- 
 lished by law. The assembly of October and November, 
 1678, after discussing elections and the suffrage at consid- 
 erable length, passed the first general election law of the 
 province.^ The act remained in force but a short time, being 
 
 ^Archives, Assembly, 1678-83, 24-37 passim. The records of this 
 session are badly mutilated, and it is difficult to discern the respective 
 
 S 
 
66 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 disapproved by the proprietor in 1681 ; ^ but its terms were 
 in part inserted into the proprietary writs and copied almost 
 verbatim in the election law of 1692.^ For these reasons 
 the provisions of the act of 1678 have a value not implied 
 by the short duration of the act itself. Although the act 
 followed closely the forms prescribed in the proprietary writ 
 of 1670, yet it met with Baltimore's disapproval, perhaps 
 because it was passed in an assembly not organized accord- 
 ing to his wishes, and because it placed the number of dele- 
 gates at four from each county.^ 
 
 In its preamble the act* reverts to the English custom, 
 and declares the " best rule for this Province to follow in 
 Electing such Delegates & representatives is the presidents 
 [precedents] of the Proceedings in Parliament in England 
 as neere as the Constitution of this Province will admitt." 
 The act provided for the election of four burgesses in each 
 county and two citizens from the city of St. Mary's. A 
 form of election writ is given in the act, and within the writ 
 occur the qualifications for the suffrage. The sheriff is 
 directed 
 
 "... by vertue of your office to make or Cause to be made Publick 
 Proclamacon thereby giveing notice to all the freemen of your said 
 County who have within your said County a freehold of fifty acres 
 of Land or a visible personall Estate of forty pounds starling att 
 least Requireing them to appeare att the next County Court ... at a 
 Certaine day . . for the electing and Chusing of Deputyes and dele- 
 gates to serve for your County in a Generall Assembly. ..." 
 
 The two representatives for the city of St. Mary's were to 
 be chosen by the mayor, recorder, aldermen, and common 
 
 views of the assembly and council. Apparently the council wished to 
 retain the qualification " seated" pertaining to the elector's freehold, 
 which had been included in the proprietary writ of 1670; while the 
 lower house opposed this. The upper house finally agreed to the 
 omission of the word {ibid., 31). 
 
 ' By proclamation of June 27, 1681, Archives, Council, 1671-81, 378. 
 
 ' See post. 
 
 'Archives, Council, 1671-81, 378; Assembly, 1684-92, 79. 
 
 * " An act directing the manner of Electing and Summoning Dele- 
 gates and Representatives to serve in succeeding Assemblyes." Ar- 
 chives, Assembly, 1678-83, 60 ff. 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 67 
 
 council of that city. Delegates were to possess within the 
 county represented the qualifications required of electors. 
 No sheriff or under-sheriff could sit in the lower house during 
 his term of office, and no ordinary keeper could be elected 
 or serve in the assembly while keeping an ordinary. The 
 property qualifications of this act were later adopted by the 
 proprietor and by subsequent legislatures, and in the form 
 of fifty acres of freehold or forty pounds personal estate 
 they continued with but slight change down to the Revolu- 
 tion. 
 
 Lord Baltimore expressed his disapproval of the election 
 act of 1678 in a public proclamation, by which he changed 
 the number of delegates for each county from four to two ; * 
 and shortly afterwards, on September 6, 1681, he fixed the 
 electoral process by means of a proprietary ordinance.^ In 
 the preamble to this ordinance it was stated that the method 
 of assembling the deputies of the freemen had, from the 
 foundation of the province, been uncertain, and that the 
 proprietor now desired to settle the minds of the freemen 
 and establish a sure foundation for the future peace of the 
 province. The ordinance gave the form of writ containing 
 the suffrage qualifications in exactly the words used by the 
 statute of 1678; it provided, however, for the election of 
 but two delegates in every county or any corporation having 
 the charter right to elect deputies, and fixed the same prop- 
 erty qualifications for voters in the cities or towns as for 
 those in the counties. The promulgation of this ordinance 
 led to a long contest in the following assembly, but the upper 
 house supported the legality and propriety of Baltimore's or- 
 dinance.^ The assembly of 1683 also took up the matter, and 
 three bills concerning the election of delegates were intro- 
 duced, but apparently they failed to receive the proprietor's 
 approval.* Thus during the period 1670- 1689 proprietary 
 ordinances or writs were the foundation, under the royal 
 charter, for the suffrage and the representative system. The 
 
 '■Archives, Council, 1671-81, 378. 
 
 " Ihid., 1681-86, 15-17 ; McMahon, History of Maryland, 443-S- 
 
 ^Archives, Assembly, 1678-83, 34S-360 ff. 
 
 * Ibid., 445-604 passim. 
 
68 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 terms of the original writ of 1670 were accepted by the leg- 
 islature in 1678 with but slight change, and these changes 
 incorporated into the ordinance of 1681. 
 
 After almost thirty years of religious quiet in the colony, 
 the spirit of faction and religious strife again appeared in 
 the train of similar conditions in England. As the Puritan 
 movement in England sent its waves of influence into the 
 province of Maryland, so the Revolution of 1688 was re- 
 acted in miniature in America. It was unfortunate for the 
 peace of Maryland that in 1688 the proprietor was not pres- 
 ent in person in the colony, and that the administration was 
 in the hands of the council acting under a president ^ as 
 deputy governors. The assembly meeting in the fall of 1688 
 began with factional disputes. The president asked both 
 houses to take the oath of allegiance to the proprietor, and 
 when the lower house refused to do so, he prorogued the 
 assembly and in the meantime exercised his legal right to 
 administer the oath to the deputies as individuals.^ Assem- 
 bling after the prorogation, the lower house drew up a list 
 of eight grievances against the proprietary government, 
 dealing largely with economic evils. Among these were the 
 proprietor's demand for quit-rents in money when he had 
 promised to receive them in tobacco ; the failure to establish 
 ports ; the collection of illegal fees ; the meeting of the pro- 
 vincial court in the inconvenient winter time; and the ar- 
 resting persons without stating the cause of the arrest.* 
 There is no mention in these grievances of any violation of 
 real religious or political rights; they are mainly adminis- 
 trative details which proved unpopular. 
 
 The following year a stronger opposition to the govern- 
 ment was shown. The proprietor's agents in Maryland took 
 no steps to proclaim the new monarchs of England, and this 
 delay, gave strength to rumors of Catholic plots and con- 
 spiracies with the Indians.* An association of the discon- 
 
 ' For the character of President William Joseff, see B. C. Steiner, 
 The Protestant Revolution in Maryland, Amer. Hist. Assn. Rept., 1897, 
 283-287. 
 
 ^Archives, Assembly, 1684-92, 148-63. 
 
 'Ibid., 170. 
 
 'Upon this period, see Browne, Maryland, the History of a Pala- 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 69 
 
 tented was formed called " An Association in arms for the 
 defense of the Protestant religion, and for asserting the right 
 of King William and queen Mary to the province of Mary- 
 land, and all the English dominions." ^ Coode, the leader 
 of the movement, and his men marched on St. Mary's, com- 
 pelled the president and council to surrender, and required 
 the exclusion of all Catholics from ofifice.^ The leader then 
 sent writs for an election by the Protestants of members to 
 a convention, the writs being issued in the name of " the 
 several commanders, officers, and gentlemen associated in 
 arms for the defense of the Protestant religion." ^ The 
 elections of deputies were carried through very irregularly; 
 in one county it was claimed that only twenty persons par- 
 ticipated in the election and one-half of these were not legally 
 qualified.* In other cases the " better sort of the people" 
 held aloof, those of mean and humble position alone sup- 
 porting Coode, while drunken soldiers helped the cause of 
 the revolutionists.^ One writer said, 
 
 " They have assumed the power of calling an Assembly the Election 
 of which was in most Countyes awed by their souldiers, one County 
 disowned their power and would chuse noe members but in fine they 
 have packed up an Assembly after the most irregular manner that 
 ever was knowne. . . ." ° 
 
 The convention thus elected held perhaps five sessions during 
 the next two years,'' at one of which they appointed a rep- 
 resentative committee composed of two persons from each 
 of ten counties to administer the government.* 
 
 tinate, 149-156; B. C. Steiner, The Protestant Revolution in Mary- 
 land, passim; F. E. Sparks, Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 
 1689, J. H. U. Studies, XIV. 
 
 ^McMahon, 237; Browne, 152; Steiner, 299-306. 
 
 ' Archives, Council, 1687-93, 107. 
 
 ' McMahon, 240. 
 
 * Archives, Council, 1687-93, IS4- 
 'Ibid., 114-118. 
 
 • Ibid., 124. 
 
 ' Steiner, op. cit., 34S. 35i- 
 " Ibid., 326, 333-4- 
 
70 The Suifrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 In many of these details the movement in Maryland closely 
 parallels that which took place at the same time in New 
 York. There is this difference, however, that in the royal 
 province of New York the revolution was unnecessary from 
 the Crown's point of view, while in Maryland the uprising 
 gave the new monarchs an opportunity to seize control of a 
 province whose proprietor might justly be suspected of 
 friendship for the Catholic cause of James II. William 
 informally recognized the revolution in Maryland,^ and later 
 took advantage of it to establish a royal government in the 
 colony. The overturning of the proprietor's government led 
 to the exclusion of Catholics from all political power; they 
 had no share in the election of the convention, which was 
 the nominal seat of authority for over two years, and they 
 were excluded from all military and civil offices. 
 
 It was but natural that Baltimore's political privileges 
 should be declared forfeited ^ and a royal government ap- 
 pointed for the colony. Governor Copley's commission ^ 
 directed him to call assemblies of the freemen of the province 
 according to the usage of the province, but required the 
 delegates to take the oaths and test enjoined by the acts of 
 Parliament, thereby excluding Catholics from the assembly. 
 Nothing was said, however, about restraining the Catholics 
 from voting. The instructions to Copley in plain terms 
 limited the suffrage to freeholders : 
 
 " You shall take care that the Members of the Assembly be elected 
 only by Freeholders as being most agreeable to the Custome of Eng- 
 land to which you are as near as may be to conform yourself." ' 
 
 The first assembly under the royal government met in 
 May and June, 1692, and at once the question of the oaths 
 arose.^ The election committee of the lower house had a 
 number of cases before it * arising out of election irregulari- 
 
 "^ Archives, Council, 1687-93, 167. 
 
 'Ibid., i8s. 
 
 ' June 27, 1691, Archives, Council, 1687-93, 263. 
 
 ^Archives, Council, 1687-93, 271. 
 
 ° Archives, Assembly, 1684-92, 254. 
 
 " Ibid., 352-366. 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 71 
 
 ties and refusals to take the oaths ; it reported Colonel Codd 
 disqualified because of seditious practices, and of John 
 Hewitt it said that, " being a man in sacred orders is 
 thought not fitt to sitt as a member of the Lower house." * 
 The assembly early took up the subject of elections, and an 
 act regulating them was sent from the lower house and 
 agreed to by the upper house apparently without debate.^ 
 This law, entitled " An Act directing the manner of Ellects 
 and summoning Delegates and Representatives to serve in 
 succeeding assemblyes," ^ gave definite statutory form to 
 elections and the representative system, both of which had 
 previously rested upon the writs and ordinances of the pro- 
 prietor. The legislature reverted to the old act of 1678 in 
 organizing the elective system; the new act was almost a 
 literal copy of the earlier law. The preamble was the same, 
 the property qualification was unchanged, and the number 
 of delegates from each county was restored to four, as it had 
 been before the proprietor's ordinance of 1681. The pro- 
 hibition upon the sheriffs or under-sheriffs serving in the 
 lower house was, however, removed, but that against ordi- 
 nary keepers was retained. In agreeing to this measure with 
 its personal property qualifications the governor acted con- 
 trary to his instructions, which we have noticed directed 
 him to see that freeholders only should vote for assembly 
 delegates; but he may have felt warranted in doing this 
 owing to the twenty years of colonial practice preceding his 
 administration. No restriction is placed upon Catholics by 
 the act, and it is likely that they were now or shortly after- 
 wards permitted to vote,* although the oaths required of 
 officeholders would exclude them from political positions. 
 Later acts, indeed, attempted to prevent the growth of 
 
 ' Archives, Assembly, 1684-92, 359- Hewitt, after being informed of 
 the action of the committee, was requested to give the house a sermon 
 on the following day, being Sunday (364)- 
 
 ' Ibid., 394. 
 
 'Ibid., S4I. _ , 
 
 * See terms of act of 1718, post. Mereness, Maryland, 200, says Catho- 
 lics were disfranchised from the beginning of the royal government, 
 but I have found no evidence of this exclusion. There can be no doubt 
 that they voted before 1718. 
 
^2 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Catholicism by imposing a fine of fifty pounds upon popish 
 priests who should baptize Protestant children or hold mass 
 in the province, and sentenced such priests to banishment if 
 they were found teaching school in the province; ^ but there 
 was no formal exclusion of Catholics from the suffrage until 
 a quarter of a century after the Protestant Revolution. 
 
 The act of 1692 continued in force about twelve years, 
 and in the fall of 1704 it was displaced by a new election 
 law. This new act made some slight changes in the electoral 
 machinery, but it retained the qualifications for voters as 
 they had previously existed ; again the sheriffs were directed 
 to admit to the suffrage " all the freemen of your said County 
 who have within your said County a freehold of fifty acres 
 of land or a visible estate of forty pounds sterl. at the least." ^ 
 An act of 1708 * apparently did not make any change in 
 the suffrage requirements. 
 
 Governor Nicholson, the second of the royal governors, 
 removed the seat of government to Annapolis, perhaps to 
 avoid the Catholic influence at St. Mary's; and later, in 
 1708, the new capital was incorporated as a city, taking the 
 place of St. Mary's.* The charter of Annapolis at first 
 limited the suffrage for assembly delegates to the mayor, 
 recorder, aldermen, and common councilmen, as had been 
 done in St. Mary's; but the lower house of assembly ob- 
 jected to this, and even questioned the power of the governor 
 to erect municipal corporations. When the lower house ex- 
 pelled the Annapolis members on these grounds, the governor 
 
 ' Chap. 59 of 1704, given by title only in Bacon's Laws, but in full 
 in Acts of Assembly Passed in the Province of Maryland From 1692 
 to 171S, London, 1723, 24. For the position of the Catholics from 
 i6go to 1718, see Shea, Catholic Church in Colonial Days, 344-373. 
 An act of 1715 (Ch. XXXVI, Bacon's Laws), for various purposes and 
 "to prevent the Importing too great a Number of Irish Papists into 
 this Province," laid a duty of twenty shillings on Irish servants coming 
 to Maryland. See also acts of 1717, Ch. 10, and 1732, Ch. 23. 
 
 ' Chap. 35 of 1704, given by title only in Bacon's Laws; but writ 
 given in Bishop, History of Elections in American Colonies, 251. 
 
 ° Chap, s of 1708. 
 
 * Browne, Maryland, 167 ; Mereness, Maryland, 200 ; McMahon, 251- 
 253- 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 73 
 
 replied by a dissolution of the assembly. But the corporation 
 officers and inhabitants petitioned the governor to change 
 the charter so as to extend the suffrage to the inhabitants 
 of the city, and this request was granted/ An act of assem- 
 bly subsequently confirmed and explained the charter granted 
 by the governor.^ The charter as amended gave the right 
 to vote for the two city delegates in assembly to freeholders 
 owning a whole lot of land with a house thereon, to all in- 
 habitants (householders?) having a visible estate of twenty 
 pounds, and to those who had served a five years' appren- 
 ticeship to a trade within the city, had held their freedom 
 for three months, and were actual housekeepers and inhabi- 
 tants of the city .3 In the same year, 1708, St. Mary's lost 
 its right to send deputies to the assembly.'* Thus in Mary- 
 land, as in many of the other colonies, the borough suffrage 
 was wider than that granted to inhabitants of the country 
 districts. In this case the freehold qualification was changed 
 from fifty acres to a town lot, the personal property test 
 became twenty in place of forty pounds, and householders 
 who had served an apprenticeship in the city could vote, no 
 matter how small an amount of property they held. 
 
 In 1 71 5 the election law was changed somewhat when 
 the whole body of laws of the colony was revised. The act 
 of June 3, 1715,^, retained the fifty acres and forty pounds 
 clauses, but required electors who voted under the personal 
 property clause to be residents of the county. Ordinary 
 keepers were again excluded from the assembly, and the 
 disqualification was extended to persons who by the laws of 
 England would not be qualified to sit in Parliament. The 
 most interesting of all the additions made by this law ^ to 
 the provisions of the earlier act of 1692 is one for the im- 
 posing of fines upon non-voters. All freeholders, freemen, 
 
 ' Mereness, Maryland, 200-1, 420-22. 
 
 ' Bacon's Laws, 1708, Ch. VII. 
 
 ' McMahon, Maryland, 255. 
 
 *Ihid. 
 
 ' Chap. 42, 1715. Acts of Assembly Passed in the Province of Mary- 
 land from 1693 to 1715,. London, 1723, 121. Given by title only in 
 Bacon's Laws. 
 
 'Not having access to the laws of 1704 and 1708, I cannot be sure 
 that these changes were first introduced in 1715. 
 
74 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 or other persons qualified to vote were subject to a fine of 
 one hundred pounds of tobacco if they neglected to attend 
 the elections, unless they gave a sufficient reason for absence 
 to the county court. The features of this law were adopted 
 in full in 1716/ when a new law directed that election writs 
 should run in the name of the proprietor instead of the 
 king's, and with this slight change the act of 171 5 continued 
 without alteration until after the Revolution.^ 
 
 The year 171 5 saw the restoration of the province to the 
 proprietor after his acceptance of Protestantism.^ The first 
 assembly under the proprietor, in 1716, passed " An Act 
 for the better Security of the Peace and Safety of his Lord- 
 ship's Government, and the Protestant Interest within this 
 province." * This act required all persons admitted to posi- 
 tions of trust in the province to take the oaths of allegiance, 
 of abhorrency, of abjuration, and the disavowal of the belief 
 in transubstantiation in the forms prescribed in the English 
 statutes.' The Maryland act on this subject was closely 
 similar to those passed in other colonies immediately follow- 
 ing the Jacobite uprising of 171 5, and hence was not pecu- 
 liar. But two years later a special act directed at the Catho- 
 lics was passed. This was in the form of a supplement to 
 the election act, and again revived the disfranchisement 
 policy which was first adopted in the days of the common- 
 wealth. Section III of this act provided for a disfranchise- 
 ment of the Catholics, which was unrepealed in 1776. 
 
 ' Bacon's Laws, 1716, Ch. XI. 
 
 ' With the exception of the act of 1718 concerning Catholic electors, 
 there is no further legislation upon the suffrage. An act of 1732 
 (Bacon's Laws, 1732, Ch. V) for preventing bribery in elections in 
 Annapolis was disapproved by the proprietor. Another act of 1769 
 (Hanson's Laws, 1769, Ch. X) shows how long the polls might remain 
 open. It provided that in Baltimore County the elections for delegates 
 should be open for not more than four days in Baltimore-town, and 
 then to be adjourned to Bush-town, where they might remain open 
 during four more days. 
 
 'Benedict Leonard, Lord Baltimore, 1714-15, had, before his suc- 
 cession to the title, publicly renounced Catholicism. 
 
 * Bacon's Laws, 1716, Ch. V. 
 
 ° I George I, Ch. 13. 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. 75 
 
 " III. And whereas notwithstanding all the Measures that have been 
 hitherto taken for preventing the Growth of Popery within this Prov- 
 ince, it is very obvious, that not only protest Papists still multiply and 
 increase in Number, but that there are also too great Numbers of 
 others that adhere to and espouse their Interest, in Opposition to the 
 Protestant Establishment : And being under just Apprehensions (from 
 what steps they have already taken) that if Papists should continue to 
 be allowed their vote in electing of Delegates, they, with their Ad- 
 herents, and those under their Influence, will make such a Party at the 
 Elections of many of the counties within this Province, as well as the 
 City of Annapolis, as to determine the Choice in some, of their great 
 Favorites and Adherents, which if they should accomplish, how much 
 it would tend to the Discouragement and Disturbance of his Lord- 
 ship's Protestant Gov't, is not easy to imagine . . . therefore ... be 
 it Enacted . . . That all prof est Papists whatsoever, be (and are 
 hereby Declared) uncapable of giving their Vote in any Election of a 
 Delegate or Delegates within this Province, either for Counties, Cities 
 or Boroughs, unless they first qualify themselves for so doing, by 
 taking the several Oaths appointed to be taken by an act of Assembly 
 of this Province [1716, Ch. V] . . . and subscribe the Oath of Abjura- 
 tion and Declaration therein mentioned." ' 
 
 In order that no Catholic might elude the terms of the act, 
 the election judges were authorized to administer the oath 
 to " any person suspected to be a Papist or popishly inclined" 
 whenever the judges saw fit, or when demanded by a quali- 
 fied voter. A saving clause protected Quakers from suffering 
 with the Catholics. 
 
 An act disfranchising the Catholics at as late a period as 
 1 718 could have but scanty justification. There had indeed 
 been some Jacobite sympathizers in Maryland who had com- 
 mitted indiscretions,^ but this was not sufficient warrant for 
 excluding all Catholics from voting. Neither were the num- 
 bers of the Catholics alarming, for in 1708 only 2974 Catho- 
 lics were found by the sheriffs in a total population exceeding 
 40,000.^ The words of the act itself justify its provisions 
 upon the grounds of the recent growth of Catholicism, and 
 the fear of discouragement and disturbance of Baltimore's 
 
 ' Bacon's Laws, 1718. 
 
 ' Browne, Maryland, 208. 
 
 "Johnson, Founding of Maryland, etc., Md. Hist. Sac. Fund Pub., 
 
 No. 18, 167. 
 
76 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Protestant government. But these phrases are so vague that 
 they throw little light upon the motives of the assembly. It 
 may be that the newly restored proprietary family desired 
 to show the strength of their fresh Protestantism by positive 
 acts against the Catholics,^ or that the inhabitants of the 
 province wished a guarantee against the return of the Catho- 
 lics to political power through a future conversion of Balti- 
 more to Catholicism. The members of the sect which was 
 responsible for the original settlement of the province were 
 now disfranchised, their religion was outlawed, while even 
 the proprietor was estranged from them and now gave his 
 assent to laws for their persecution. 
 
 There is little to be said concerning the suffrage in local 
 elections. By far the greater number of local officials were 
 appointed, either by the county court, by the governor, by 
 acts of the legislature, or by self-perpetuating boards. In 
 1649 and 1650 acts were passed for the election of local tax 
 assessors in the several hundreds of certain counties,^ but 
 this policy was not continued. In the cities of St. Mary's 
 and Annapolis and the towns the officers in all but two in- 
 stances were either self-perpetuating bodies or appointed by 
 other officials.* Practically the only elective local officials 
 were the officers of the parish, — ^the vestrymen and the 
 church wardens. By the church act of 1692 * the county 
 courts were to call to their assistance the " most principall 
 freeholders" of the counties and arrange the bounds of par- 
 ishes. In each parish the freeholders were to elect six vestry- 
 men, but after the first election the vestry could fill vacancies 
 in their own number from the freeholders of the parish. Ten 
 years later some changes were introduced. An act of 
 1701-2 ^ provided that two of the six vestrymen should be 
 elected annually by the inhabitants of the parish who were 
 
 'McMahon, 279-281. In note 3, p. 281, McMahon describes the 
 social ostracism which was added to the political disfranchisement of 
 the Catholics. 
 
 ' Archives, Assembly, 1637-64, 238, 298. 
 
 " Mereness, Maryland, 419, mentions two cases of elective town 
 officers. 
 
 ' Archives, Assembly, 1684-92, 425. 
 
 " Bacon's Laws, 1701-2, Ch. I. 
 
The Suffrage in Maryland. yj 
 
 freeholders within the parish and contributed to the public 
 taxes and charges of the parish. The act permitted the 
 electors to determine which vestrymen should be retired, 
 and provided for the election of the church wardens by the 
 vestry and freeholders. A later act ^ provided for a regular 
 rotation in the office of vestryman. Throughout the colonial 
 period the vestry elections were more limited than the suf- 
 frage for the assembly; in the former elections only tax- 
 paying freeholders could vote, while in the latter freeholders 
 of fifty acres or owners of forty pounds personal estate were 
 entitled to the franchise, and in Annapolis the suffrage in- 
 cluded many, if not all, householders. 
 
 The representative system and the suffrage in Maryland 
 are based in the first instance upon the royal charter to Bal- 
 timore. The terms of this charter were ambiguous, and in 
 practice in the colony for almost forty years a most liberal 
 interpretation was given to them. Manhood suffrage, with- 
 out regard to residence, the payment of taxes, the holding 
 of land, or any other qualifications, was exercised in the 
 early years of the colony. Those that were not free, i.e., 
 slaves and servants, were the only men excluded. In these 
 early years an interesting system of proxy voting arose, and 
 the assembly, somewhat like that of Rhode Island at almost 
 the same time, alternated from pure democracy to represen- 
 tation of local units. This early manhood suffrage gave way 
 in 1670 to the requirement that voters should possess fifty 
 acres of land or an estate worth at least forty pounds ster- 
 ling. This qualification, although based upon the proprietary 
 writs until 1692, was later adopted by the provincial legisla- 
 ture, and was the only property qualification which the prov- 
 ince of Maryland knew throughout its entire history. For 
 over one hundred years it was the test required of all voters 
 except those in Annapolis. The borough franchise was ex- 
 tended to St. Mary's and Annapolis; in the former it was 
 limited to the officers of the corporation, while in the latter 
 practically all householders were privileged to vote for as- 
 semblymen. An act of 1 71 5 imposed a fine of one hundred 
 pounds of tobacco upon qualified freemen who did not take 
 
 ^ Bacon's Laws, 1730, Ch. XXIII. 
 
78 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 part in elections, and this provision remained unchanged 
 until the Revolution. 
 
 The most marked feature of the suffrage in Maryland is 
 the attitude towards the sect which had founded the colony. 
 In 1654 they were excluded from the suffrage and office; 
 again in 1689 the revolution temporarily disfranchised 
 them, and after the restoration of the province to Balti- 
 more the Catholics were, in 1718, permanently excluded 
 from political rights. There were practically no local elec- 
 tions in the colony other than the vestry elections, and in 
 these the suffrage was more limited than in the assembly 
 elections, the franchise being restricted to inhabiting free- 
 holders who paid parish taxes. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 The Suffrage in North Carolina. 
 
 North Carolina, like her southern sister, passed through 
 the two stages of proprietary and royal control, exchanging 
 in 1728 the doubtful blessings of wide independence under 
 a weak government for the exasperating restraint of royal 
 instructions and peevish or incompetent governors. The 
 history of the colony varies from an absence of political 
 control which encouraged personal license to a measure of 
 arbitrary actions and attempted coercion which fostered 
 popular rebellion. Like a spoilt child the colony expressed 
 its satisfaction with the weak rule of its proprietor parents, 
 and, unlike South Carolina, the transfer of the government 
 from proprietary to royal control found its main initiative 
 in England rather than in the colony. When the southern 
 colony was overthrowing the proprietor's officials and pro- 
 testing against the inadequacy of their government, the in- 
 habitants of the northern country expressed their utter detes- 
 tation of such revolutionary proceedings, and wrote to the 
 proprietors that they were '.' intirely easy and satisfied under 
 their Lordships Government." ^ 
 
 The extremes of liberty on the one hand and of arbitrary 
 government on the other are noticeable not only in the quit- 
 rent and currency questions and other matters of an eco- 
 nomic nature, but also in the constitutional subjects of the 
 suffrage and representation. After a period of extensive 
 local control of these questions under the proprietors, the 
 colony found itself, during the time of the royal government, 
 at the mercy of the king's prerogative and the royal veto, 
 which on one occasion were so used that they would have 
 thrown the whole colony into the greatest confusion had not 
 the governor wisely, but in contradiction to his instructions, 
 
 * Colonial Records of North Carolina, II, 375- 
 
 79 
 
8o The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 withheld from the people the knowledge of the royal veto.^ 
 Perhaps in no other colony was the veto power used against 
 such important and popular measures as here in North Caro- 
 lina. While in South Carolina there is practically no break 
 in institutional development by the transfer of the govern- 
 ment to the Crown, in North Carolina the change was accom- 
 panied by many interferences with the established laws and 
 customs. Thus the story of the suffrage in this colony falls 
 distinctly into two parts, in the first of which the proprietors 
 place few restrictions upon their colonists, and in the second 
 the elective and representative systems are controlled by the 
 English government and its governors in North Carolina. 
 
 I. Under the Proprietary Government, 1 663-1 728. 
 
 The basis for popular suffrage in North Carolina, as in 
 the other proprietary colonies except New York, is to be 
 found in the royal charters to the lords proprietors, the first 
 of which is dated March 24, 1662-3. I* was, indeed, ante- 
 dated by the charters to Raleigh ^ and Sir Robert Heath,* 
 but only the latter possessed any provision for popular par- 
 ticipation in the government, and both were abrogated by 
 the Carolina charters of 1663 and 1665. So, too, a few 
 land grants had been made and a few settlers from Virginia 
 had come into the Albemarle country before the Carolina 
 patents were passed under the royal seals,* but among these 
 earliest settlers we have no record of political organization. 
 Thus the political clauses of the charters to the eight pro- 
 prietors may be quoted as the basis of the suffrage in Caro- 
 lina. The charter of 1663 ^ gave to the proprietors full and 
 absolute power 
 
 "to ordaine, make, enact, and under their seals to publish any laws 
 whatsoever, either appertaining to the publick state of the said province, 
 or to the private utility of particular persons, according to their best 
 
 ^See post^ for the repeal of the representation and suffrage acts in 
 1754, and Governor Dobbs' withholding this knowledge for a time. 
 " Poore, Charters and Constitutions,, II, 1379-1382. 
 °iV. C. Col. Rec, L 5-13. 
 '/6«U, 14-17. 
 ^ Ibid., 20-33; Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II, 1382-1390. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 8i 
 
 discretion, of and with the advice, assent and approbation of the free- 
 men of the said province, or of the greater part of them, or of their 
 delegates or deputies whom for enacting of the said laws, when and as 
 often as need shall require, we will that the said . . . [eight proprie- 
 tors] and their heirs shall from time to time assemble in such manner 
 and form as to them shall seem best, and the same laws duly to 
 execute. ..." 
 
 The second charter to the eight proprietors, dated June 30, 
 1665/ gave the patentees the right to erect and constitute 
 counties, baronies, and colonies within their province, having 
 distinct jurisdiction and privileges, and in each one to make 
 and enact laws in a manner similar to that established by the 
 first charter. Both charters used the word freeman in first 
 describing the voters, but both referred subsequently to as- 
 semblies of the freeholders, and thus here, as in Maryland, 
 led to a confusion in the political practice under the charters. 
 We shall see the later interpretation put upon the word. 
 
 The proprietors proceeded almost at once to promise to 
 intending settlers the various privileges in popular govern- 
 ment which the charter had directed should be granted to 
 colonists. In August, 1663, some New Englanders proposed 
 settling in Carolina, and asked that they be given the New 
 England privilege of levying taxes "upon themselves by 
 themselves." * In the same month the proprietors issued 
 proposals to settlers,* in which they promised the under- 
 takers in England that they might name thirteen persons 
 from whom the proprietors should select one for governor 
 of the colony and six for his council, and that a similar nomi- 
 nation and selection should be made every three years by 
 the freeholders of the colony or their representatives. To 
 this liberal method of choosing the higher officials the pro- 
 prietors joined a promise of a popular legislative body elected 
 by the freeholders.* 
 
 "We shall, as far as our charter permits us, empower the major part 
 of the freeholders, or their deputies or assembly-men, to be by them 
 
 ^N. C. Col. Rec.j I, 102-114; Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II, 
 
 1390-1397. 
 = Ibid., 38. 
 
 ' August 2S, 1663 ; ibid., 43-^- 
 *N. C. Col. Rec.,1, 45- 
 
 6 
 
82 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 chosen out of themselves, viz. : two out of every tribe, division, or 
 parish, in such manner as shall be agreed on, to make their own laws, 
 by and with the advice and consent of the Governor and council ;" 
 
 provided that such laws be not repugnant to the laws of 
 England, and that within one year they be presented to the 
 proprietors for their ratification. Religious liberty was also 
 promised to the settlers, and each man was given the privi- 
 lege of taking up one hundred acres of land for himself, fifty 
 acres for each fully armed man-servant, and thirty acres for 
 each woman-servant that he brought to the colony. 
 
 These proposals were sent to certain intending settlers 
 who had suggested that they be erected into a corporation ^ 
 with the privilege of choosing a mayor and other officers. 
 The proprietors speak in favor of their more democratic way 
 of government set down in the proposals, which, they say, 
 " we hold to be better for the people in Generall then the 
 Corporation way that you demand, in which the members 
 choasen to manage the Government doe continew for there 
 lives, and are not to be removed but by there owne fellowes 
 or the Major parte of them, whoe may be apter to wincke at 
 the misdemeanors of there fellow Governors then the people 
 that are to be governed by them will." ^ According to the 
 plan of the proposals, the lords continue, it will be in the 
 power of the people every three years " to leave out such as 
 have misbehaved themselves" in making their nominations 
 for new officers to the proprietors. The same readiness to 
 grant popular "government is to be seen in the paper sent 
 by the proprietors in England to the only one of their num- 
 ber resident in America, in which they empower proprietor 
 Sir William Berkeley, governor of Virginia, to appoint one 
 or two governors of Carolina and a council of six persons 
 for each governor.* These governors and councillors, " by 
 and with the advice and consent of the freeholders or free- 
 men or the Major parte of them, there deputyes or delli- 
 gates," were empowered to make good and wholesome laws 
 for the better government of the colony or colonies. Thus, 
 
 ^N. C. Col. Rec. 1,42. 
 'Ibid., 58. 
 'Ihid., 48-50. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 83 
 
 in the earliest history of their province, the lords proprietors 
 show no reluctance to fulfil the terms of their charter re- 
 quiring a representative legislature. 
 
 A considerably more pretentious scheme of government 
 was outlined in January, 1664-5, as part of an agreement 
 between the Carolina proprietors and some intending settlers 
 in England, Barbadoes, and New England, headed by Major 
 William Yeamans.^ With the many interesting details of 
 these " Concessions and Agreement" we are not here con- 
 cerned, although it may be noted that they are in many 
 particulars exactly the same as the concessions granted by 
 Berkeley and Carteret, two of the Carolina proprietors, to 
 settlers in their other province of New Jersey.^ The new 
 agreement again looked to the establishment of several dis- 
 tinct governments, or " countyes," as they are called in the 
 document, and provided for a representative assembly in 
 each, elected by " the inhabitants being freemen or chief 
 agents to others of ye countyes" aforesaid.^ Much more 
 liberal grants of land were made by this agreement of 1665 
 than by the earlier one of 1663, to the end " that the planting 
 of the Countyes afores^ may bee the more speedily pro- 
 moted." * 
 
 Throughout all this early period the terms freeman and 
 freeholder are used interchangeably, as has been noted in 
 some of the other colonies. The royal charter had used the 
 words synonymously, and the proprietors had merely re- 
 tained the ambiguity of the charter when they directed in 
 the concessions that elections should be by the freemen and, 
 in another place in the same document, by the freeholders. 
 There seems no question that the early suffrage was usually 
 limited to freeholders, but later the identity of the two classes 
 was lost, and in the period 171 5-1734 the class of freemen, 
 as in Maryland and South Carolina at an earlier date, was 
 held to be wider than the class of freeholders.^ 
 
 Another important feature of this early constitution- 
 
 "■ N. C. Col. Rec, I, 75-92. 
 
 " See New Jersey Colonial Archives, I, 28-43. 
 
 'N. C. Col. Rec, I, 81. 
 
 'Ibid., 86. 
 
 ' See post, act of 1734. 
 
84 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 making is seen in the attempt of the proprietors to divide 
 their province into distinct colonies. This policy was 
 strengthened by the difficulties of communication between 
 the northern and southern parts of the province, and by the 
 commercial association of the north with Virginia and the 
 economic independence of the south. These facts made the 
 ultimate division of the province a probability, but the pro- 
 prietors looked forward to several, perhaps eight, distinct 
 principalities within their grant. This is seen in their first 
 instructions to Governor Berkeley; it is frequently men- 
 tioned in their concessions of 1665; distinct governments 
 were formally permitted by the second royal charter of 1665, 
 and the early policy of the proprietors continually encour- 
 aged the settlement of distinct groups of emigrants under 
 independent governments.^ It was not the fault of the pro- 
 prietors that their province did not contain several rather 
 than only two governments; had the various proposed or 
 attempted settlements succeeded, there would have been more 
 than two Carolinas. As it was, the policy of the proprietors 
 accorded well with the geographical and economic separation 
 of the two successful colonies, and made a separation that 
 was almost inevitable come without acrimony on either side.* 
 Political organization in the Albemarle lands, already 
 populated by settlers from Virginia, begins shortly after the 
 granting of the royal charter. A general assembly, in a 
 letter written in June, 1665,* is referred to as having sent 
 a petition to the proprietors. William Drummond, the first 
 governor of the county, promises the commissioners of Mary- 
 land and Virginia that he will call a meeting of his council 
 and " committee" to consider the cessation of tobacco-plant- 
 ing;* and some time between July and October, 1666, this 
 ■" committee," or assembly, met and passed a law restricting 
 
 ^N. C. Col. Rec, I, 48-50; 75-92 passim; 102-114 passim; and 
 Prefatory Notes, xiv-xv; III, 574. Compare the division of New Jer- 
 sey into two sections. 
 
 ' Note the excitement attendant upon the separation of the Delaware 
 Counties from the province of Pennsylvania. 
 
 ' Ibid., loi. 
 
 *Ibid., 142. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 85 
 
 the planting of tobacco.^ In the same year in another colony 
 to the southward, on the Cape Fear River, an assembly of 
 fourteen persons sent a formal and elaborate petition to the 
 proprietors.^ But of these early assemblies in Albemarle 
 and Clarendon Counties we know little. Unfortunately, we 
 do not possess for North Carolina those personal details of 
 politics and elections which are so interesting in the early 
 history of South Carolina. Only by obscure references do 
 we know that these assemblies have met; they have left no 
 formal record either of their elections or of their acts as 
 representative bodies. 
 
 When the proprietors commissioned a new governor for 
 Albemarle County in October, 1667, ^^^Y appear to have 
 been contented with the outline of government and land 
 policy given in their concessions two years earlier, for the 
 principal features of the concessions are repeated in the in- 
 structions to the new governor, Samuel Stephens.^ But 
 this comparatively simple form of government w,as soon 
 displaced, at least in the minds of the proprietors, by the 
 aristocratic and elaborate features of the Fundamental Con- 
 stitutions. Setting aside the details of palatines, landgraves, 
 and cassiques, of seigniories, baronies, and colonies, and of 
 courts baron and leet, we notice in the Constitutions for the 
 first time a clear definition of the suffrage and office-holding 
 qualifications. The " First Set" of the Constitutions, con- 
 taining one hundred and eleven sections, dated July 21, i66g, 
 has been published only recently.* It begins with the well- 
 known statement that the Constitutions are established in 
 order that " ye governmt, of this province may be made most 
 agreable unto ye monarchy under wch. we live, & of wch. 
 this province is a part, & yt we may avoid erecting a numer- 
 ous democracy." Thus the provisions of the charters re- 
 quiring a popular representative body were to be carefully 
 
 ' N. C. Col. Rec, I, 152. 
 
 "Ibid., 145-149. The Cape Fear settlement was doomed to failure. 
 See N. C. Col. Rec, I, Prefatory Notes, x; 149-1S1, IS7-IS9, \n-^^; 
 McCrady, History of South Carolina under the Proprietary Govern- 
 ment, 79-93- 
 
 "Ibid., 165-175- 
 
 * Collections of South Carolina Historical Society, V, 93-II7- 
 
86 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 balanced by the establishment of hereditary landed aris- 
 tocracy. 
 
 The Constitutions contained, however, a number of 
 sections dealing with elections. A parliament was to be 
 formed out of the nobility and representatives of the free- 
 holders, elected biennially, and the qualifications of members 
 and electors were specified : 
 
 " There shall be a Parlia™* consisting of ye proprietors or their 
 deputyes ye landgraves and cassiques & one freeholder out of every 
 presinct to be chosen by ye freeholders of ye sd. presinct respectively. 
 They shall sit altogether in one roome, & have every member one 
 vote." 
 
 " No man shall be chosen a member of Parliamt. who hath lesse then 
 five hundred acres of freehold within ye presinct for wch. he is chosen, 
 nor shall any have a vote in choosing ye sd. member, yt hath lesse y" 
 fifty acres of freehold within the said presinct."' 
 
 Other officers also elected by the freeholders were registers, 
 constables and their assistants, and the common councilmen 
 of incorporated towns. The possession of fifty acres did not 
 have the same restrictive force in preventing a " numerous 
 democracy" which a similar qualification would have pos- 
 sessed in England with its large tenant population. Any 
 free man, in accordance with the concessions of the pro- 
 prietors, could easily obtain more than sufficient to qualify 
 him for the suffrage. There were three things required of 
 the intending occupant of land: (i) that he acknowledge 
 the existence of a God and that God is publicly and solemnly 
 to be worshipped; (2) that he promise allegiance to the 
 king, faithfulness to the proprietors, and obedience to the 
 Fundamental Constitutions; (3) that after 1689 he pay a 
 quit-rent of one penny an acre for all the land he occupied.* 
 In the " Second Set" of constitutions, of March i, 1669- 
 70, the suffrage and representative features were the same as 
 those in the first set.^ A still later frame called the " Fifth 
 
 ' Collections of South Carolina Historical Society, V, no. 
 'Ibid., 115-116; later changed to a half-penny an acre. 
 "N. C. Col. Rec. I, 187-20S; Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II, 
 1397-1408 ; Statutes at Large of South Carolina, I, 43-56. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 87 
 
 Set," in 1698 divided the parliament into distinct houses for 
 the nobility and the representatives of the freeholders re- 
 spectively, and changed somewhat the qualifications of 
 voters.^ The provisions were as follows : 
 
 " 6. There shall be a Parliam* consisting of the Proprietors or their 
 Deputyes by themselves the Landgraves & Cassiques in ye Upper House, 
 And the Freeholders out of every County to be chosen by ye freehold- 
 ers of ye said Countyes respectively together with ye Citizens and Bur- 
 gesses to be Elected by ye Cittys & Borroughs (which shall be here- 
 after Created), in ye lower House." 
 
 " 9. Noe person shall be capable of giving his voyce for the Election 
 of a Member to serve in Parliament that is not actually possest of 
 acres of land and is a Householder, & has a family and whose reall & 
 personall Estates does not amount to pounds." 
 
 A qualification such as the latter, it will be seen, would be 
 equivalent to a decided limitation upon voting. Under it 
 no bachelors could vote unless they were heads of families, 
 and no freeholder unless his freehold was of a stated size 
 and his whole estate of a certain value. In New Nether- 
 lands it was the custom for the governor to call together the 
 heads of families, and in some cases in the Middle or New 
 England Colonies the town suffrage was practically limited 
 to such; but the usual borough requirement that the voter 
 be an inhabitant or householder was not a direct exclusion 
 of unmarried men. The proposition of the Carolina pro- 
 prietors is an unusual one in its formal limitation of the 
 suffrage for the colonial assembly to men who were heads of 
 families. 
 
 Considerable uncertainty exists as to the exact legal 
 position of the Fundamental Constitutions in North Caro-*^' 
 lina. There can be no doubt that they never were in force 
 in South Carolina, but proof is not lacking that they were 
 established in the northern colony. In a most interest- 
 ing paper delivered by the assembly to Governor Burrington 
 in 1732, it is stated that " in the Province of North Carolina 
 (tho' not in South) the People received" the constitutions 
 of 1669,2 and it is intimated that the set of 169S was also 
 
 ^N. C. Col. Rec, II, Appendix, 853-854- 
 'Ibid., Ill, 452- 
 
88 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 accepted.^ It is highly probable that certain features of the 
 constitutions, particularly those relating to popular elections 
 and concerning land matters, were accepted by the settlers, 
 while the more elaborate provisions for a landed nobility, a 
 house of lords, and feudal serfdom were simply ignored. 
 We have, indeed, an explicit statement of the assembly in a 
 law of 1699 that the sections relating to biennial parliaments 
 were received by the community,^ and in 1725 the governor 
 writes that an assembly must " be chosen and meet according 
 to the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina as you well 
 know." ^ Thus the truth about these much disputed con- 
 stitutions seems to be that they were in toto formally ac- 
 cepted by the people of North Carolina, but that in reahty 
 only the sections which fitted the economic and political 
 needs of the settlement were put into execution.* In North 
 Carolina the important question respecting the constitutions 
 is not whether they were adopted by the people or not, but 
 the extent to which their clauses were actually enforced. It 
 would be an interesting task to determine, by a careful in- 
 spection of the later laws, how far the colonial constitution 
 and legislation were influenced by the proprietors' constitu- 
 tions. It seems to the writer that the result would show a 
 surprisingly large portion of the constitutions incorporated 
 into the provincial customs and laws.® 
 
 During a period of fifty years following the first assembly 
 of 1665 we have no record of the actual restrictions imposed 
 upon the sufifrage; and one cannot be sure that the simple 
 freehold qualification of the constitutions of 1669 or the 
 more elaborate provisions of the set of 1698 were ever en- 
 forced. It has been found impossible to determine whether 
 these suffrage clauses of the constitution were among the 
 chosen subjects or among those ignored by the assembly 
 and people. From Governor Carteret's commission in 1670 
 down to that of Governor Johnson in 1702, the proprietors 
 
 \N. C. Col. Rec, III, 453. 
 "Ibid.; also III, 574. 
 'Ihid., 526. 
 
 'Ibid., I, Prefatory Notes, xvii. 
 
 " See Governor Burrington's remarks on all the laws of 1715, N. C. 
 Col. Rec, III, 180-189. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 89 
 
 seem bent on establishing their constitutions ; but they admit 
 the lack of the requisite nobility, and they can only urge 
 the governors " to come as nigh" as possible to the frame, or 
 to select its " most expedient" parts for execution.^ Unfor- 
 tunately, no law respecting the suffrage previous to 171 5 
 has been found, so that we cannot tell how near the colonial 
 legislation approached to the terms of the constitutions. 
 
 In reality the suffrage during these fifty years must have 
 been upon a very precarious basis. In this period five or six 
 governors or presidents acting under proprietary authority 
 were driven out of the country by force; ^ two formidable 
 insurrections took place ; and for years at a time it could be 
 said that no lawful government existed in the colony. Under 
 such circumstances it is in vain to look for regular election 
 methods. It is not to be supposed that agitators like Cul- 
 pepper or Gary looked carefully to see that their adherents 
 possessed exactly the number of acres requisite to admit 
 them to the franchise; and, on the other hand, the records 
 show that the established authorities did not scruple to ignore 
 formal qualifications for the suffrage. For instance, in 1677 
 we find President Miller charged with "making strange 
 limitations for ye choyce of ye Parliam*," ^ and denying a 
 " free election of an assembly." * And his opponents, meet- 
 ing in a riotous manner, cursed king, proprietors, and land- 
 graves, and proceeded to elect an assembly out of their 
 number, making their drummer one of its members.^ 
 
 From 16^1 to 1708 the colony had comparative quiet. 
 In the former year the proprietors attempted to establish a 
 general legislature for the entire province of Carolina,® made 
 up of representatives from both the northern and southern 
 counties; but the governor exercised the discretion vested 
 
 ^See Governor Carteret's commission, N. C. Col. Rec, I, 181-183; 
 President Harvey's instructions, ibid., 235-239; Governor Wilkinson's, 
 333-338; Governor Archdale's, 389-390; Governor Johnson's, SS4-SS5- 
 
 "JV. C. Col. Rec, II, Prefatory Notes, x-xi. 
 
 • Ibid., I, 287. 
 
 * Carroll, Historical Collections of South Carolina, II, 336. 
 'N. C. Col. Rec, I, 272, 297, 299, etc. 
 
 ' Instructions to Governor Ludwell, ibid., 373-380. 
 
go The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 in him^ to continue the legislative separation of the two 
 sections of the province. A court record for December 9, 
 1696, shows that Governor Archdale used no more exact 
 word than " inhabitants" when he described the electors in 
 the county of Bath.^ Shortly after this, laws for biennial 
 assemblies were passed by the assembly,* but I have found 
 no reference to any suffrage provisions they may have con- 
 tained.* A later governor said the terms of the election law 
 of 1 71 5 were drawn from earlier proprietary constitutions," 
 but Burrington's word is too scanty evidence to warrant 
 our projecting the qualifications of 171 5 back to 1697. On 
 the other hand, an election writ issued by Governor Daniel 
 about 1703 grants the suffrage to all the freeholders of the 
 precinct,® but this, too, cannot be taken as conclusive evi- 
 dence of the restriction of the suffrage to landholders. 
 
 ' Additional Instructions, N. C. Col. Rec, I, 380-381. 
 'Ibid., 472. 
 
 " Ordered that writs be issued out to the several precincts 
 of the County of Albemarle, for electing five Burgesses for 
 each Precinct to meet at the House of Thomas Nicolo, the 
 eighteenth Day of January next." 
 
 " Ordered that a writt be issued out to the Inhabitants of the 
 County of Bath to make choice of two Burgesses to sit in the 
 Grand Assembly to be holden at the House of Thomas Nicolo 
 the eighteenth Day of January next." 
 ^Acts of 1697 and 1699. These acts are only indirectly referred to 
 at a much later date (JV. C. Col. Rec, III, 453). 
 
 * Acts with similar titles were passed in South Carolina in the years 
 1692 and 1696-7, of whose provisions we have some idea. See post 
 " N. C. Col. Rec, III, 180. 
 
 'North Carolina Historical and Genealogical Register, III, 136. 
 " By the Honble Landgrave Robt Daniell Esqr Lieutent Gen- 
 erall Vice Admirall & Deputy Governor and the rest of the 
 Lords Proprietors Deputies. 
 
 " Whereas Caleb Bundy Jeremiah Symonds Augustine Scar- 
 borough & John Hawkins Chosen Burgesses for this present 
 Assembly for yor Precinct of Pascotank have refused to take 
 the Oaths appointed by Law These are in the Name of his 
 Excellency the Palatine & the rest of the true & absolute 
 Lords & Proprietors to will & require you to Sumons all the 
 Freeholders in yor precinct to meet at the usuall place for 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 91 
 
 The civil dissensions aroused by Colonel Gary in 1708, 
 and lasting almost five years, brought the inevitable inter- 
 ference in elections. Again we are told that " boys and 
 otherwise unqualified" persons voted in elections, that the 
 candidates receiving a majority of votes were not recog- 
 nized,^ and that the rabble was treated to " good liquor, 
 rum, and brandy." ^ In January, 1716-17, a missionary, 
 himself not in the best repute,^ wrote to England that " the 
 fundamental constitutions were intended to be unalterable, 
 but now as little regarded as Magna Charta in England, this 
 Lawless people will allow of no power or authority in either 
 Church or State save what is derived from them. A pro- 
 prietor were he here would be looked on no better than a 
 ballad singer." * 
 
 A few years after the Cary Rebellion had been suppressed 
 the assembly provided for a general revisal of the laws of 
 the province, and in this manuscript revision of 1715 is to 
 be found the earliest extant election law. It is entitled " An 
 Act relating to the Bienniall and Other Assemblies and Reg- 
 ulating Elections and Members." ® The preamble states that 
 the proprietors have considered the customs of England, and 
 have sought to apply to their province those immunities 
 which will encourage its settlement, among which " the fre- 
 quent sitting of Assemblies is a principal safeguard of their 
 peoples Priviledges." The act proceeds to empower " the 
 freemen of the respective precincts" of the County of Albe- 
 
 Electing Burgesses on or before the day of next 
 
 Ensuing then and there to Elect & Chuse four prudent & Sub- 
 stantial! men Freeholders of yor precinct to be Burgessses in 
 theire Roome for yor precinct to meet at the House of Capt. 
 
 John Hecklefield in Little River next ensuing to 
 
 advise & assent to such matters as for the weal Publick shall 
 be most necessary. ..." 
 
 ^N. C. Col. Rec, I, 696. 
 
 'Ibid., 915. For short sketch of these troubles, see S. B. Weeks, 
 Religious Development in the Province of North Carolina, Johns Hop- 
 kins Univ. Stud., X, 290-302. 
 
 ' He was indicted for drunkenness, N. C. Col. Rec, II, 401. 
 
 *Ibid., 271. 
 
 'Ibid., 213-216. 
 
92 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 marie to meet every two years and elect five freeholders to 
 represent each precinct, and the " inhabitants and freemen" 
 of each precinct in any other county to choose two repre- 
 sentatives. The act then limits the words " freemen and 
 inhabitants" by imposing an age, a racial, and a tax-paying 
 qualification, in the following words: 
 
 " And it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid that no 
 person whatsoever Inhabitant of this Government born out of the 
 Allegiance of his Majesty and not made free no Negro Mulatto or 
 Indians shall be capable of voting for Members of Assembly and that 
 no other person or persons shall be allowed to vote for members of 
 Assembly in the Government unless he be of the Age of one and 
 Twenty years and has been one full year resident in the Government 
 and has paid one years Levy proceeding the election." 
 
 Further provisions required each voter to bring a ballot 
 called a " List," containing the names of those he voted for, 
 and to subscribe his own name, or cause it to be done before 
 the election marshal, and the latter officer was empowered to 
 administer an oath respecting their qualifications to all per- 
 sons who, by the marshal or any candidate, were thought to 
 be unqualified. The method of returning the results of the 
 election was fixed; penalties were to be imposed upon offi- 
 cers neglecting their duty or members refusing to serve ; and 
 the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, abjuration, and any 
 others taken by members of the English Parliament, were 
 to be administered to all members. A quorum was to consist 
 of not " less than one full half of the House." 
 
 The act of 171 5 certainly meant to distinguish between 
 'freemen and freeholders; and while the royal charter had 
 apparently used the two words synonymously, the legislature 
 under the term " freemen" now admitted all those tax-payers 
 to vote who were white male subjects of Great Britain and 
 resident at least one year in the province. And the tax-payer 
 in North Carolina need not be either a land-holder or a slave- 
 owner, as was the case in South Carolina. While in the 
 latter colony land and slaves were almost the sole objects of 
 taxation, in North Carolina the poll-tax was practically the 
 only form of taxation. Thus every white male over sixteen 
 years was tithable, and consequently, if he had paid his taxes 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 93 
 
 and was of age, was eligible to vote.^ In this respect the 
 laws of North Carolina were more liberal than those of any- 
 other colony in 171 5. 
 
 Since 1670 the only unit of representation in the province 
 had been the precinct, but in 171 5 provision was made for 
 the representation of towns, a feature which was to be de- 
 veloped until North Carolina had a larger number of towns 
 represented in her assembly than any other colony outside 
 of New England. Chapter LII of the laws of 171 5 gave 
 to the town of Bath the right to elect a representative when 
 it should have a population of sixty or more families,'' and 
 also extended the same privilege to any other town when it 
 should attain the required population.* In time several 
 towns obtained the right to send representatives, and it was 
 thought best to define the franchise in these towns by formal 
 act of the legislature. Accordingly, in 1723, a supplement * 
 was passed to the election law of 171 5. This act provided 
 that the suffrage franchise in any town in the government 
 was to be limited, first, to freeholders of " saved" lots in the 
 towns who kept constantly in repair a house or houses ; and 
 secondly, to tenants of any houses in the towns who had paid 
 poll-tax for the preceding year; but freeholders were ex- 
 pressly forbidden to vote in virtue of any house tenanted by 
 a tax-paying voter. The burgess from such a town must be 
 an owner of a " saved" lot therein, which he had held for 
 eighteen months preceding and on which he maintained a 
 habitable house. By a " saved" lot was meant one for which 
 the owner had performed all the duties necessary for him 
 to preserve its ownership ; duties which usually included the 
 erecting of a house of a prescribed size and height, with 
 
 'iV. C. Col. Rec, II, Appendix, 889. By this act of 171S, taxables 
 were free males over sixteen years of age, or slaves, male and female, 
 over twelve years. Subsequent laws provided that taxables should be 
 white males over sixteen years of age, and all blacks (free or slave) 
 over twelve years. (Davis, Laws, ed. of 1764, p. 202.) 
 
 'Ibid., v., 150-151- 
 
 '/6Jrf., VI, 228. 
 
 •Chapter II of 1723; given only by title in Davis, Laws (17S1). S3, 
 but in full in Bishop, History of Elections in the American Colonies, 
 275- 
 
94 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 certain form of roof and chimneys, and maintaining of the 
 house in habitable repair.^ 
 
 So far as the writer knows, there was but one elective 
 officer in North Carolina, other than the representatives in 
 assembly, during the proprietary period. This officer was 
 the public register of land transfers, births, burials, and 
 marriages, who, under the Fundamental Constitutions, was 
 to be appointed by the chief justice's court from triple nomi- 
 nations made by the freeholders of the precinct ; ^ and this, 
 elective feature was enforced during the whole colonial 
 period.^ Apparently all the other officers in the colony were 
 appointive. The vestries, under the law of 171 5 and earlier 
 acts, were close corporations, filling vacancies in their num- 
 ber and appointing the chuixh-wardens ; * the precinct courts 
 were appointed by the governor and council,^ and themselves, 
 in turn appointed constables,® overseers of highways,^ pack- 
 ers of tobacco,® and other officers ; while the towns were in 
 the control of self-perpetuating commissioners.® Still other 
 officers were appointed by the proprietors directly, by the 
 governor and council, or by the corporations named above. 
 Thus, excepting the local registers, the suffrage during this, 
 period was limited to the popular representatives in the 
 assembly. 
 
 In conclusion, it may be said that the suffrage during the- 
 
 ' For these saving provisions, see Davis, Laws (17S1), 62-65, 92 — 
 94, 99-101, 103-108, 210; N. C. Col. Rec, II, 386; IV, 43. The usual 
 size of house was sixteen or fifteen feet by twenty, and occasionally a 
 height of eight feet, and one or two brick or stone chimneys were alsO' 
 required. Cf. Porritt, Unreformed House of Commons, I, 35. 
 
 ° Statutes at Large of S. C. Col. Rec, III, 185. 
 
 " As late as October 8, 1773, Governor Morton, writing to the Board 
 of Trade, said the registers were annually elected by the freeholders 
 under an old law of 1715 (N. C. Col. Rec, IX, 691). 
 
 'N. C. Col. Rec, I, 678, 680; II, II, 207-217. 
 
 " Ibid., II, 525-526, 540, 565, 572, etc. 
 
 "Ibid., I, 523-5, 533, 548, 652, etc. 
 
 ^Ibid., 494-495, 523-525, 53i, 550, 576, 611-612, etc. 
 
 ' Ibid., 652-65:}, 656. 
 
 'For an illustration of these commissions, see Davis, Laws (1751),- 
 62-65. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 95 
 
 proprietary period was not placed upon a firm basis until 
 the i-estoration of internal quiet and the passage of the elec- 
 tion act in 1715. The franchise begins with the confusion 
 of words in the royal charter; it is given a more definite 
 basis by the constitutions, but we are in doubt whether these 
 provisions ever were actually enforced or not. It has been 
 noted that proprietors and governors used on different occa- 
 sions the words inhabitants, or freeholders, or freemen, as 
 descriptive of the electing citizens; and a confusion thus 
 existing in the royal charter and the governors' writs was 
 not to be avoided among the; common people. Particularly 
 was this true in the troublous times, of which the colony 
 had not a few, when private and property rights, as well as 
 political privileges, were invaded by the conflicting parties. 
 The quelling of the riots made possible the regular enforce- 
 ment of such an election law as that of 1715. This act, 
 perhaps, as Governor Burrington later remarked, drawn 
 from earlier precedents, was remarkably liberal in its pro- 
 visions, in that it made the voting privilege co-extensive 
 with the poll-tax upon white male citizens. After 171 5 
 elections were not yet freed from indirect control by the 
 governor,^ but without doubt they were more honestly man- 
 aged than heretofore. The town suffrage introduced a slight 
 variation in the laws, and the period closes with an election 
 law in 1727 of which we have only the title.^ 
 
 II. Under the Royal Government, 1728-1775. 
 
 The basis of the representative and elective systems in the 
 royal colonies is generally said to be the commission and in- 
 
 ^See some interesting letters of Burrington written in 1725, and 
 coming to light in 1733, concerning the management of elections (JV. C. 
 Col. Rec, III, 526). The journal of the lower house in 1726, perhaps 
 as a result of the governor's management, shows a number of disputed 
 elections {ibid., II, oil). 
 
 " " An Act, for Regulating Towns, and Elections of Burgesses," 1727. 
 Ch. II. Title only given in Davis, Laws (i7Si), 67. Governor Bur- 
 rington said, " This Act was made for regulating the Town Elections 
 of Burgesses there being three Towns in this Government that hath 
 the priviledge of sending Burgesses and this Act was to adjust the 
 manner of chuseing them ;" N. C. Col. Rec, III, i93- 
 
96 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 structions of the royal governor for the colony. This was 
 the view held by the English government and the one acted 
 upon in most of the royal colonies. We shall see that ifi 
 North Carolina the royal instructions and vetoes almost over- 
 turned the constitution as it had grown up under the pro- 
 prietary government, and that the people or their representa- 
 tives time and again turn away from these instructions back 
 to the original charters and the Fundamental Constitutions, 
 which they claimed were the true basis for the provincial 
 government. The contest between the two began almost 
 immediately after Governor Burrington, the first royal gov- 
 ernor, entered upon his duties. 
 
 According to Burrington's commission, which is similar 
 to those granted in other colonies at this time, the governor 
 was authorized to call general assemblies of the freeholders 
 and planters in a manner agreeable to the laws and customs 
 of the province of North Carolina.^ By his instructions, 
 dated almost a year after the commission, he was directed 
 to " take care that the Members of the Assembly be elected 
 only by freeholders as being more agreeable to the custom 
 of this Kingdom to which you are as near as may be to con- 
 form yourself in all particulars." ^ It is clear that this is 
 far different from the tax-paying basis for the suffrage 
 established by the act of 171 5, and it did not take Burrington 
 long to see the divergence. 
 
 Immediately after his arrival he issued writs for the elec- 
 tion of representatives, and, ignoring the old law, he fol- 
 lowed the terms of his instructions by requiring the elections 
 'to be by the freeholders in the respective towns and pre- 
 cincts.^ Such a change in the election customs without any 
 warning naturally led to popular opposition; the assembly 
 journals show a number of disputed election cases,* and Bur- 
 rington wrote to the Board of Trade that the new writs had 
 " occasioned a great deal of heat among the people," which 
 was " much heightened by those who love to raise a clamour 
 against me." ^ 
 
 'iV. C. Col. Rec, III, 68; January 15, 1729-30. 
 
 " Ibid., 93 ; dated December 14, 1730. 
 
 ' Ibid., 212. 
 
 'Ibid., 289, 301, SS8, 584. 'Ibid., 207. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 97 
 
 Burrington's relations with the people were from the first 
 unhappy, and in his quarrel with their representatives he 
 tried in two ways to change the constitution of the assembly 
 and have a house elected favorable to himself; first, by re- 
 stricting the suffrage, and, secondly, by reapportioning the 
 representatives, or, when this failed, by erecting new pre- 
 cincts. Some time before September, 1731, he sent to Eng- 
 land his opinions upon all the legislation between 1715 and 
 1729,^ and said of the election act of 1715 that it " was an , 
 old Law taken from one of the Lords Proprietors Original i 
 Constitutions and hath undergone little alteration." ^ He * 
 pointed out that " all Freemen are qualifyed to vote as well ' 
 as Freeholders which is contrary to my Instructions on that / 
 Head." Objection was also made to the holding of elections 
 by virtue of the law without any writs, since it " occasions 
 a great deal of Mobbing and tumults;" and the governor 
 therefore advised the repeal of the law and the holding of 
 elections by the freeholders according to writs issued by the 
 governor. 
 
 From this time down to the close of his administration in 
 1734, Burrington is insistent in his letters to England that 
 the law should be repealed. He later found other objections 
 to it. The short term of the biennial assemblies made well- 
 meaning ( !) members timorous in their actions, through the 
 fear that they might not be re-elected. The apportionment 
 of representatives was unjust, for, said the governor, "a 
 Small part of the Province have Twenty Six Representa- 
 tives, all the Remainder but ten ;" and he recommended that 
 four precincts which together, under the act of 171 5, had 
 nineteen representatives, should be formed into only two dis- 
 tricts, and each of these send two delegates. His reasons 
 for such a radical change were that two precincts have 
 "neither Persons fit for Magistrates nor Burgesses;" and 
 that he is of the opinion that two representatives are just as 
 sufficient for precincts in North Carolina as for counties in 
 Virginia.^ He closes with the sentence, " I cant help think- 
 ing we shall have more orderly Elections and more substan- 
 
 ' N. C. Col. Rec, III, 180-194- 
 '76zU, 180. 
 • Ibid., 207. 
 
 7 
 
98 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 tial men chosen if none but Freeholders vote." In Feb- 
 ruary, 1731-2,* he writes again to urge the repeal of the 
 Biennial Act, again looking forward to more orderly elec- 
 tions and expecting that the members will "behave more 
 decently" if the law were not in force. In August, 1732, the 
 Board of Trade replied to his repeated suggestions that until 
 the law officers report upon the Biennial Act no change 
 should be made in the constitution of the assembly.^ 
 
 But before this letter was written, Burrington had tried 
 another plan by which the assembly might be made more 
 subservient to his interests. In May, 1732, a new precinct 
 with the right of representation was erected by the governor 
 and council; in October a second one was established, and 
 this was followed shortly by a third.^ It was claimed by 
 Burrington's opponents that he had personally " earnestly 
 promoted such Petitions (even forming and writing some of 
 them himself)," for the erecting of the new precincts.* 
 " Where is the necessity," these leaders of the assembly ask, 
 "of these divisions? these new appointments?"® They 
 pointed to the fact that one of the precincts had not over 
 thirty families of inhabitants, and " can scarce make out 
 a sufficient number of People for Justices and Jury;" ® while 
 among these thirty families there were only three freeholders, 
 or voters. In another precinct the number of freeholders 
 was but slightly larger. The protestants picture ironically 
 an election in which, since the writs permit only freeholders 
 to elect, the three freeholders would control the elections, — 
 " two are to stand candidates and the third to elect them." ^ 
 
 In addition to the argument that there was no necessity 
 for the erection of new precincts, the petitioners protested 
 that the governor had no right to create new representative 
 districts, arguing that this would make the whole legislature 
 subservient to a part — to the governor and council- that it 
 
 ^N. C. Col.Rec, 111,325. 
 ^ Ibid., 25$. 
 "Ibid., 417, 425,442. 
 */6td., 381. 
 
 "Ibid., 452- 
 •Ibid., 381. 
 ' Ibid., 450. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 99 
 
 was contrary to the customs of the neighboring colonies, and 
 even repugnant to the king's instructions.^ But Burrington 
 could quote colonial history as well as the assemblymen. 
 He pointed out that only one instance * was known where 
 a precinct was erected by law and not by the governor and 
 council,* and he claimed that the opposition to the new 
 precincts arose from two councillors who desired popularity 
 with the assembly and people. 
 
 The governor continued sending election writs for elec- 
 tions by the freeholders only,* and in the spring of 1733 
 writs were issued to the new precincts. But in neither in- 
 stance did the governor gain his point; the elections were 
 not confined to freeholders, in spite of instructions and 
 writs,^ and the representatives from the new precincts were 
 not permitted to take seats in the assembly.* The assembly 
 of July, 1733, had a stormy meeting. The governor told 
 them that assemblies would soon become the greatest griev- 
 ance in the province if the " heat and partiality" continued. 
 " Burgessing," he said, " has been for some years a source 
 of lyes and occasion of disturbances, which has deterred 
 good men from being Candidates or entering the lists of 
 noise and Faction ;" '' " bodys of men cannot blush, and 
 that's your advantage." For some reason, Burrington's next 
 and last assembly showed a disposition to compromise with 
 the governor, and bills were introduced to establish his new 
 precincts by law * and to limit the suffrage to freeholders.® 
 But in the midst of the session a new governor, Gabriel John- 
 
 ' N. C. Col. Rec, III, 383-385, 574-576. 
 
 ' The governor was in error here, as three precincts had been erected 
 by act of the legislature, in addition to the act of 1715, which had recog- 
 nized the existence of all the early precincts {ibid., 453-454, 575)- 
 
 ' Ibid.. 443-444- 
 
 */6«U, 536. 
 
 ■Burrington said to the assembly, "Neither doth the King's In- 
 structions that only Freeholders should vote find any weight in your 
 Elections tho' always inserted in the Writts" {ibid., 560). 
 
 * Ibid., 611. 
 
 ''Ibid., 560. 
 
 *Ihid., 640. 
 
 'Ihid.,627. 
 
lOO The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 ston, arrived in the province and the work of the asserribly 
 ceased.^ 
 
 Governor Johnston almost immediately issued writs for 
 an election of assemblymen by the freeholders of the re- 
 spective precincts and towns.^ Although the election was 
 not without irregularities,* yet the new assembly took up the 
 work of the old one, and considered a bill for repealing the 
 clause of the act of 171 5 which permitted freemen to vote.* 
 r-The result was a restriction of the suffrage to freeholders.^ 
 The preamble of the act of 1734-5 says that " it hath been 
 found inconvenient for the Freemen" to vote, and that the 
 royal instructions had directed that only freeholders should 
 vote for members of assembly. The qualifications of voters 
 and assemblymen were then given as follows : 
 
 " no person hereafter shall be admitted to give his vote in any Election 
 for Members of Assembly for the precincts in this Province, unless 
 such person has been an Inhabitant in the precinct where he votes at 
 least six months and has bona fide a Freehold in his own Right of at 
 least fifty Acres of Land in the said precinct, which he shall have been 
 possest of Three Months before he offers to give his vote. 
 
 " And be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid. That hereafter no 
 person shall be deemed qualified or admitted to sit in the Assembly, 
 unless he has been one full year an Inhabitant of this Province, and is 
 possessed in his own Right of at least one hundred acres of Freehold 
 Land in the precinct where he is Elected or Chosen." 
 
 Thus through the persistence of the royal governors and 
 the force of the English instructions the suffrage was at last 
 limited to freeholders; the ambiguity of the charters and 
 proprietary writs which had permitted landless freemen to 
 vote was cleared away, and their evident purpose finally 
 accomplished. In this case, as in practically all the royal 
 colonies except South Carolina, the English government 
 
 ^N. C. Col. Rec, III, 643. 
 
 'Ibid., IV, 3. 
 
 ' Among the charges is one that some person " had stifled the writt 
 of Election so that due notice was not given," N. C. Col. Rec, IV, 117, 
 118, 119. 
 
 '■Ibid., 88, 89, 97, 98, 108, 125, 126. 
 
 "Chapter II of 1734-S; title only in Davis, Laws (1751), 79, but in 
 full in Bishop, History of Elections in the American Colonies, 277-279. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. loi 
 
 rather than colonial opinion led to the restriction of the suf- 
 frage to freeholders. It must be remembered, however, that 
 the terms of this act, requiring six months' residence and 
 fifty acres of freehold, did not extend to the three towns, 
 where, under the terms of the act of 1723, tenants or the 
 owners of untenanted houses could vote. It is remarkable, 
 too, that the formal exclusion of negroes was laid aside, not 
 again to be taken up until far into the nineteenth century. 
 
 An act of the same assembly established two of the three 
 precincts which Burrington and his council had tried to 
 erect.^ But Johnston was not satisfied with the suffrage 
 limitations and the legal establishment of precincts. Like 
 Burrington, he wrote repeatedly against the act of 1715^ 
 urging many objections, but emphasizing particularly the 
 inequalities in representation which it established. At last, 
 on July 21, 1737, the King in Council, acting upon the 
 advice of the Board of Trade, " was graciously pleased to '^' 
 declare his disallowance of the said act." ^ Yet the repeal 
 of the act of 1715 led to no immediate change in the method 
 of apportionment of representatives or the manner of holding 
 elections, for Johnston now issued writs calling upon the 
 freeholders " to choose Representatives" without stating any 
 number, and the counties continued to send the numbers 
 formerly apportioned to them.* Fifteen years after Burring- 
 ton began his attack on the law of 171 5, the precincts were 
 still represented in the way which to him appeared so unjust.^ 
 
 In 1743 ® a comprehensive election law was passed which 
 contained many new features relating to the taking of the /,- 
 ballot, but it did not change the qualifications of the suffrage. 
 The act provided that election inspectors to assist the sheriff 
 should be appointed either by the candidates or the sheriff; 
 it required the sheriff to come to the county election place 
 
 •JV. C. Col. Rec, IV, iSS- 
 
 ' Ihid., 25, 204. 
 
 ^ Ibid., 251. 
 
 *Ihid., 1 185; V, 87. , 
 
 'The northern counties kept their unequal representation until 1740 
 (^ibid., IV, 493, 814-815), and it was restored to them by the royal in- 
 structions to Governor Dobbs in 1754 {Records, V, liio). 
 
 •Davis, Laws (1751). 177-180. 
 
I02 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 "provided with a small Box, with a Lid or Cover, having 
 a Hole in it, not exceeding Half an Inch in Diameter." The 
 voter must bring a " Scroll of Paper, rolled up," on which 
 were the names of the candidates for whom he voted; the 
 sheriff was to take the ballot, and in the presence of the in- 
 spectors put it into the box ; and he and the inspectors were 
 each to keep a separate list of the voters' names. The per- 
 sons having the greatest number of votes were to be declared 
 elected, and in case of a tie the sheriff was authorized to cast 
 a deciding vote. The polls were to be open from ten o'clock 
 in the morning until one, and from half-past two until sun- 
 set. Upon the request of a candidate or any other freeholder, 
 the voter might be required to take oath that he was properly- 
 qualified. 
 
 The fifty acres of freehold and six months' residence were 
 still required of electors, who now, as in the act of 1715, 
 were to be twenty-one years of age. A freeholder was now 
 defined to be a person " who hath an Estate, Real, for his 
 own Life, or the Life of another, or any Estate of greater 
 Dignity." Fines were to be imposed upon unqualified per- 
 sons voting, or upon qualified persons who voted twice ; and 
 candidates who had offered bribes or favors to electors were 
 rendered incapable to sit in the assembly for which they were 
 elected. The ballot features were also extended to elections 
 in towns. 
 
 We now come to the time when the apportionment contest 
 reached its culmination. It is impossible to enter into all 
 the details of this interesting period, but a summary of the 
 events may be given. Since the days of the proprietary 
 government the precincts of the north-eastern section of the 
 colony called Albemarle County had each sent five members 
 to the assembly ; while those of Bath County, in the south, 
 sent only two each.^ The political distinction between the 
 two parts of the province in time came to be an economic 
 one. We are told that imports came almost exclusively from 
 
 'The documents relating to the election and apportionment contro- 
 versy take up a large part of Vols. IV and V of the Colonial Records. 
 A good short summary is given in a representation of the Board of 
 Trade to the king, March 14, 1754 (Col. Rec, V, 84-91). 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 103 
 
 Virginia into the northern counties/ and by the merchants 
 there were sent to the southern counties; and that the north-^ 
 ern merchants were forbidden by contract to pay debts in"^ 
 Virginia in any bills of exchange.* The southern merchants, 
 on the other hand, wanted a cheap paper currency, which 
 would be an advantage to them in the settlement of debts 
 within the province. Hence the northern members opposed, 
 and the southern members favored, a colonial currency. 
 The maintenance of the existing representation in the assem- 
 bly was thus a vital necessity to the north, while the attain- 
 ment of equality was the political ideal of the south. The 
 twenty-nine representatives from the six northern counties 
 voted solidly under strong leaders, and by their number 
 could break a quorum or prevent the passage of any acts 
 objectionable to their constituents.^ 
 
 As early as 1741 Governor Johnston had taken the side 
 of the southern counties, and by calling an assembly at Wil- 
 mington in the south he had hoped to keep away the northern 
 members and have an assembly to his own taste,* but at this 
 time he failed. He tried the same plan with somewhat better 
 success in 1746. An intractable assembly meeting at New- 
 bern in June, 1746, was prorogued to the following Novem- 
 ber, with Wilmington as a meeting place. Here, two 
 
 ' The title precinct was changed to that of county in an act of 1738, 
 Chap. Ill (Davis, Laws (1751), p. 90). 
 
 ^N. C. Col. Rec, IV, 1217. 
 
 'Ibid., 863, 870, 1152-1153, 1164. 
 
 * Ibid., 584. In writing to the Board of Trade, December 21, 1741, 
 respecting a much desired quit-rent law, he says, 
 
 " All imaginable precautions were taken to secure the success 
 of this Affair. 
 
 " The Assembly was called in the most Southern part of 
 the Province on purpose to keep at home the Northern Mem- 
 bers who are most numerous and from whom the greatest oppo- 
 sition was expected And some of the most troublesome leading 
 men were prevailed upon to be absent. 
 
 " By this management there were present but two Members 
 more than was necessary to make a house, which then con- 
 sisted of the most moderate and mo.st sensible men of the 
 Colony. ..." 
 
I04 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 hundred miles away from the usual place of assembly meet- 
 ings and of court sessions, at an inclement season of the 
 year, which made it dangerous to cross ferriages from seven 
 to ten miles broad,^ the governor met, as he himself admitted, 
 " not much above a fourth part of the Members." ^ Eight 
 members out of fifty-four met, admitted six or seven newly 
 elected members,* and then proceeded to shear the northern 
 counties of their political power. 
 
 The most important act was one " for the better ascer- 
 taining the Number of Members to be chosen for the several 
 Counties within this Province to sit and vote in General 
 Assembly; and for Establishing a more equal Representa- 
 tive of all his Majesty's Subjects in the House of Bur- 
 gesses." * The journals of the assembly show that the act 
 was rushed through both houses in three days.* The pre- 
 amble of the act stated that several of the northern counties 
 had " assumed to themselves the Privilege of choosing Five 
 Persons respectively to represent them in the General Assem- 
 bly, without any Law, or Pretence of Law, to support such 
 Claim ;" ® while the southern counties, which were more 
 populous and contributed much more largely to the public 
 taxes than the north, were given only two representatives; 
 " from which Inequality great Mischiefs and Disorders have 
 arisen, and the best Schemes for the Good and Welfare of 
 the Province, by this Means, have been utterly defeated." 
 It was then enacted that the inhabitants of each county 
 already erected, or which should be erected, should send two 
 persons, " and no more," to be their representatives, and the 
 freeholders of the four towns of Edenton, Bath-town, New- 
 bern, and Wilmington should each send one representative 
 as formerly. 
 
 This act was followed by another for fixing the seat of 
 government at Newbern, passed with the same " manage- 
 ment, precipitation & surprise when very few Members 
 
 ^N. C. Col. Rec, IV, 1158. 
 
 ^Ibid., 870. 
 
 'Ibid., 2,70, 1 157, 1158. 
 
 * Davis, Laws (1751). 223; N. C. Col. Rec, IV, 11S4-11SS. 
 
 •/fcid., 83s, 840. 
 
 "Davis, Laws (1751), 223. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 105 
 
 were present," as the Board of Trade wrote to the king; 
 and containing such features that the governor ought not 
 to have assented to it if it had been passed by a full house.^ 
 
 Johnston made use of the new representation act at once, 
 issuing writs in December, 1746, for the election of two 
 members in each county.^ The northern counties refused to 
 recognize the law on which the new writs were founded, 
 and insisted upon electing their old number of representa- 
 tives.* But the assembly denied them admission, and or- 
 dered new elections for two members in each coupty.* After 
 this the northern counties refused to elect members, they 
 denied the authority of the legislature elected under the new 
 act, they paid no taxes, and for seven years were in a state 
 of practical rebellion against the governor.® 
 
 The contest was then taken to England, both sides using 
 agents to represent them before the Board of Trade and the 
 other English authorities.® There the decision was not 
 reached until 1754, almost eight years after the contest had 
 begun. In the meantime Governor Johnston had erected 
 new counties by law and by proclamation in the southern 
 district, and thus strengthened the position of that section.'' 
 Acts for emitting a paper currency and regulating quit- 
 rents were also passed,* and Johnston thought " that more 
 had been done for the Settlement and Prosperity of this 
 Country within this three years. . . . [1746- 1749] than 
 ever has been done before since the foundation of the Col- 
 ony." ^ Governor Johnston died in July, 1752,^° and for 
 two more years the anarchy which he had done so much to 
 bring about continued its evil influence in the colony. 
 
 The Lords of Trade sent a long representation to the 
 
 ^N. C. ColRecV, 108. 
 
 'Copies of writs are given, N. C. Col. Rec, IV, 1 180-1 183. 
 
 ^Ibid., 856-857, 1180-1183. 
 
 'Ibid., 857. 
 
 ^Ibid., 1153; Prefatory Notes to Vol. IV, xix. 
 
 'Ibid., 879-883, 1020, 1158. 
 
 '/6«rf., 887-889; V, 88. 
 
 ' Ibid., IV, 1217. 
 
 • Ibid., 919. 
 
 ^"Ibid., 1314- 
 
io6 The Suifrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 king in March, 1754, reviewing the history of elections in 
 the colony of North Carolina, advising the repeal of a num- 
 ber of the colonial acts, and proposing certain instructions 
 for Arthur Dobbs, who had already been appointed gov- 
 ernor.^ About a month later, the King in Council acted 
 upon this advice by repealing twenty-six of the most im- 
 portant laws of the colony.^ This remarkable action was 
 taken, first, to set aside the acts of the Wilmington Assembly 
 of November, 1746; and secondly, in order to clear away 
 the legal basis upon which the representative system had 
 rested since the proprietary period and found it solely upon 
 the royal instructions to the governor.^ Among the re- 
 pealed acts were five laws relating principally to land 
 matters passed forty years earlier, in 1715; twelve passed 
 between 1722 and 1749, erecting counties or towns and con- 
 ferring the right of representation upon them; still others 
 were the elaborate election law of 1743, the vestry act of 
 1 74 1, the reapportionment act of 1746, the seat of govern- 
 ment act of the same year, and others of less importance. 
 It is safe to say that no colony in the eighteenth century 
 suffered such a complete demolition of the legal basis of its 
 representative system, election customs, church organization 
 and land laws as was here accomplished in North Carolina. 
 For six years after this wholesale repeal there was no gen- 
 eral election law ; for ten years the vestry acts met with suc- 
 cessive repeals in England; while the royal veto came into 
 very frequent use from this time down to the Revolution in 
 connection with quit-rent and court laws.* 
 
 It was the intention of the English authorities that the 
 representative system and election custom should rest upon 
 the royal prerogative as expressed in the instructions to the 
 governors, but they wisely adopted the advice of the Crown's 
 law officers that it was not " advisable for the Crown to im- 
 
 'N. C. Col. Rec, V, 81-108. 
 
 ^Ibid., 115-118. 
 
 " Ihid., 92. 
 
 'For repealed acts, see N. C. Col. Rec, V, 115-118; VI, 29, 139, 327- 
 328, 707, 723, 900; VIII, 266, 616; IX, 284, 287, 665. In the nineteen 
 years between 1754 and 1773 the royal disallowance was signified to at 
 least fifty-one North Carolina laws. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 107 
 
 peach rights heretofore granted & enjoyed." ^ Thus it 
 happened that the new governor, Arthur Dobbs, received 
 directions to restore the unequal apportionment of represen- 
 tatives existing before the act of 1746, and in his instruc- 
 tions ^ an assembly of sixty members was provided for, com- 
 posed of five members from each of five counties, three from 
 one county, two from each of fourteen counties, and one each 
 from four towns. The members were to be elected by the 
 freeholders of the respective counties and towns, and a 
 quorum — a vital point with the northern members — was 
 fixed at only fifteen, one-quarter of the whole. The gov- 
 ernor was empowered to grant these rights in representation 
 by charters to the respective counties or towns, and in the 
 southern district he could erect new towns or counties and 
 confer upon them the right of electing representatives.* The 
 subsequent control of the elective system, the qualifications 
 of electors and elected, and the apportionment of representa- 
 tives was denied to the legislature in the following words : 
 
 "And it is Our further Will and Pleasure that you do not for the 
 future upon any pretence whatsoever give your assent to any law or 
 laws to be passed in our said Province by which the number of the 
 Assembly shall be enlarged or diminished the duration of it ascertained 
 the qualifications of the electors or elected fixed or altered or by which 
 any regulations shall be establish'd with respect thereto inconsistent 
 with these our Instructions to you or prejudicial to that right and 
 authority which you derive from us in virtue of our Commission and 
 Instruction." * 
 
 As soon as Dobbs reached the colony he saw how con- 
 fusing the repeal of the fundamental laws would be, and 
 despite his instructions he delayed to announce the repeal 
 until after an assembly election had been held. He feared 
 it would " put the Electors into confusion . . . and in the 
 unsettled State of the province & their present Divisions 
 wou'd have had a very bad Effect." ^ Soon both assembly 
 
 'iV. C. Col. Rec.V.gi. 
 'Ibid., mo; June 17, I7S4- 
 'Ibid., iiii. 
 'Ibid. 
 'Ibid., 326. 
 
io8 The Suifrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 and governor were asking for a modification of the instruc- 
 tions/ and in June, 1755, the King in Council sent addi- 
 tional instructions to Dobbs, permitting the legislature to re- 
 establish by law the respective towns and counties, provided 
 no grant of the right of representation was made to them.^ 
 The privilege thus given was soon exercised by the assembly, 
 and in 1756 acts were passed restoring the boundaries and 
 internal organization of the counties and towns, without 
 granting the right of representation, which the assembly ex- 
 pressly stated was the king's prerogative.* This right was 
 conferred in special charters granted by the governor to the 
 several towns and counties.* 
 
 The absence of a general election law after the repeal 
 in 1754 of the act of 1743 soon led to the introduction of 
 election bills into the assembly, although the need might not 
 seem great when only one election was held between the 
 years 1746 and 1760.^ In 1757 a bill passed both houses 
 containing a provision that voters should be given an oath 
 " that you will not vote for no representative, but such as 
 you think best qualified and most inclined to promote his 
 Ma j ties Interest and that of this County." * This act the 
 governor imagined was introduced by a certain Murray 
 " and his Junto," " that they might make me unpopular with 
 the Assembly in rejecting their favourite Bill." ^ He re- 
 fused to agree to it because contrary to his instructions.* 
 In the following year the lower house appointed a committee 
 of eleven members to bring in a bill for regulating elections,* 
 but apparently this committee never reported. 
 
 ^ N. C. Col Rec, V, 297, 301-303, 326. 
 
 ^Ibid., 341, 352, 405-407. 41s; XI, 124. 
 
 ' Davis, Laws (1764), 86; N. C. Col. Rec, V, 645. 
 
 'N. C. Col. Rec, V, 767-768, 812; VI, 331-333, etc. 
 
 " The assembly elected under the new apportionment act of 1746 con 
 tinued in session until Governor Dobbs's arrival in 1754; then an 
 election was held in accordance with the law of 1743, although the act 
 had been repealed. This assembly of 1754 was not dissolved until 1760. 
 
 ' N. C. Col. Rec, V, 879, 881, 889, 900, 903, 905-906, 913-914. 
 
 ' Ibid., 947. 
 
 'Ibid., 889, 913-914. 
 
 'Ibid., 1046. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 109 
 
 Before any election law had been passed Governor Dobbs, 
 in January, 1760, dissolved the assembly, in order, as he 
 said, "to give the Constituents an opportunity of a new 
 Election to pass proper Bills before new Cabals or Parties 
 are formed to mislead the Assembly and carry Jobs for 
 themselves." ^ The result of a dissolution under such cir- 
 cumstances might have been foreseen, but the confusion 
 could have been lessened, if not altogether avoided, by the 
 governor taking a clear and firm position on the subject of 
 the suffrage, in accordance with the provision of his instruc- 
 tions for the restriction of the suffrage to freeholders.^ In- 
 stead of doing this, his policy was careless and vacillating 
 in the extreme.^ He had, indeed, before this time granted 
 charters to most of the counties giving them the privilege 
 of sending representatives to the assembly. Only one of 
 the charters has been printed in the Records, but in this to 
 Orange County, Dobbs took it upon himself to expressly de- 
 fine the qualifications of voters and representatives, by limit- 
 ing the suffrage to freeholders of one hundred acres or more, 
 and the right of being elected to freeholders of two hundred 
 acres or over.* No evidence has been found to show that 
 this high qualification was incorporated into the charters of 
 all the counties. 
 
 Instead of adhering to the terms of these charters, what- 
 ever they were, Dobbs, in drawing up the writs of election, 
 went back to the original charters of the province, which 
 placed the elections in the control of the freemen. He di- 
 rected that writs should be issued for the free inhabitants of 
 the counties to elect their delegates, but through an error 
 
 ' N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 216. 
 
 'Ibid., V, iiio-iiii. 
 
 °It must be remembered that in 1760 Dobbs was about seventy-six 
 years of age (JV. C. Col. Rec, V, Prefatory Notes, v, and p. 737) . 
 
 *N. C. Col. Rec, V, 767-7(&, July 19. I7S7- A little before this date 
 the lower house of assembly had ordered " That no person that is or 
 shall be exempt from paying Taxes shall vote for a Representative or 
 Representatives in Assembly for any County or Town in this Province" 
 {ibid., 855). The subject arose, perhaps, over the poll-tax levy which 
 was then under discussion. I do not know whether it was incorporated 
 into the act or not. 
 
no The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 of some clerk the writs came out empowering the inhabitants 
 to take part in the elections.^ In at least one case as Dobbs 
 admitted,* and perhaps in others, as the assembly claimed,* 
 writs were even issued for elections by the freeholders in- 
 stead of by the inhabitants. Some changes were also made 
 in the apportionment of representatives, which the assembly 
 later said " is a manifest infringement on the rights of the 
 subject, and tenders to endanger the Constitution." * 
 
 With such confusion in the governor's mind, and such 
 looseness in his writs, it was but natural that the elections 
 should be irregular and riotous. The journals of the suc- 
 ceeding assembly give abundant evidence of this. There 
 were contested elections in four counties ; ^ and under the 
 governor's writs it was claimed that servants and criminals 
 might vote,® while the governor himself admitted that sailors 
 and non-freeholders had succeeded in electing a set of men 
 different from those who would have been chosen by free- 
 holder suffrage.'^ The assembly so elected stood for the old 
 constitutional rights of the assembly and people. They 
 seated a member from the town of Halifax, who had been 
 elected without a writ from the governor, on the ground that 
 under a clause in the act of 171 5 incorporating the town of 
 Bath, any town had the right to send a representative to the 
 assembly when it numbered sixty families of inhabitants.® 
 They refused to act until a majority was present, in spite of 
 the governor's instructions which had made fifteen members 
 a quorum ; ® and they drew up a protest against the recent 
 acts of the governor in elections, in money matters, and in 
 
 ^N. C. Col. Rec.,Vl, 303. 
 
 'Ibid. 
 
 ^Ibid.; and p. 413. 
 
 * Ibid., 301, 412. 
 
 'Granville, Anson, Bertie, and Perquimans; ibid., 364, 365, 366, 374. 
 
 •/fitrf., 303, 413. 
 
 ' Ibid., 303. 
 
 'For the action of the assembly, the governor, and the English 
 authorities upon this Halifax case, see N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 24s, 36s, 
 538-541, 598, 752-3, 983-989, 1006. The question arose again in 1773, 
 see ibid., IX, 594-596, 600. 
 
 'Ibid., VI., 470. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 
 
 Ill 
 
 relation to fees.^ To them it seemed " no longer a secret 
 that the Governor Intended to modell the Assembly for his 
 own particular Purposes," ^ while the governor felt com- 
 pelled to ask that his hands be strengthened to oppose " a 
 republican spirit of Independency rising in this Colony." » 
 
 Yet there was common sense enough on both sides to per- 
 mit the passage of a general election law. A bill for this 
 purpose was introduced into the lower house in November, 
 1760, during the second session of the assembly, and in two 
 weeks had passed both houses and received the governor's 
 approval.* The act of December 3, 1760,^ restored the 
 qualifications for assemblymen and voters as they had been 
 adopted in 1743; the voter again must be twenty-one years 
 of age, six months a resident of the province, and a free- 
 holder of fifty acres of land ; while the representative must 
 be of the same age, be an inhabitant for one year and own 
 one hundred acres of land in the county for which he was 
 elected. The only important change made by the act was 
 the abolition of the ballot-box, and the substitution therefor 
 of voting " openly," or viva voce. A fine was to be imposed 
 upon sheriffs who refused to take the poll in this manner, 
 thus making the new method compulsory. 
 
 The last four years of Dobbs's administration were spent 
 in a vain effort to protect the king's prerogative against the 
 encroachments of the assembly, in which he gained the ill- 
 will of the province and did not win support from home.* 
 His successor, William Tryon,'' had the far greater diffi- 
 
 'AT. C. Col. Rec, VI, 410-415. 
 
 ' Ibid., 415. 
 
 "Ibid., 279. 
 
 '■Ibid., 453, 463, 464, 469, 480, 501, 511. 
 
 'Davis, Laws (1764), 198-201. 
 
 'The principal subject of dispute was the old one of a quorum, the 
 assembly refusing to transact business without a majority, while the 
 governor tried to gain recognition for the quorum of fifteen mentioned 
 in his instructions (iV. C. Col. Rec, VI, 470, 538-541, 596, 983-989, 1006, 
 1024). See ihid., 538, for severe rebuke sent to Dobbs by Board of 
 Trade because of " ill timed disputes amongst the different branches 
 of the Legislature in North Carolina, upon Questions of meer specu- 
 lative Polity, too trivial in almost any times to deserve consideration." 
 
 ' Commissioned as lieutenant-governor April 26, 1764 (TV. C. Col. 
 Rec, VI, 1043). 
 
112 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 culty of the Regulator movement to contend with. In the 
 meantime although scarcely an election was held that did 
 not lead to contested seats in the house,^ yet a new election 
 law of 1764 failed in the upper house.^ In 1768 a move- 
 ment was started for the election of assemblies triennially, 
 and in spite of rejections in the upper house, four bills for 
 this purpose were introduced and passed in the lower house 
 between 1768 and 1774.^ The assent of the upper house 
 was gained in 177 1 to a supplementary election act, but this 
 was so " replete with objections," and " repugnant to the 
 British Statutes," * that Governor Tryon would not sign 
 it ; ^ and a second attempt in the fall of the same year was 
 thwarted in the upper house.® The journals, unfortunately, 
 are silent upon those features of the acts which led to their 
 popularity in the lower house, and which made them repug- 
 nant to the council and governor. 
 
 The Regulator movement furnishes few facts bearing 
 upon the suffrage, for although the Regulators developed 
 some form of representative organization, yet very slight 
 reference is made to the election of the representatives. As 
 early as 1766 Orange County took steps towards a perma- 
 nent representative organization ; '^ and somewhat later an 
 agreement is entered into by the Regulators to " choose more 
 suitable men than we have heretofore done for Burgesses 
 and Vestry men," and to settle differences among them- 
 selves by submission to " the Majority of our Body." ® A 
 regular organization of companies, chiefs, and representa- 
 tives appears to have been in existence by April 4, 1768, for, 
 by an agreement of that date, a Regulators' meeting decided 
 to inspect the sheriffs' and vestries' lists of taxables and ac- 
 
 'See N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 897, 902, 904, 919, 961, liS4b, 1259, 1278; 
 VII, 350, 352, 357, 366, 722-725. 
 
 'Ibid., 1 1 12, 1 122, 1 174, 1 186. 
 
 'Ihid., VII, 903, 938; IX, 412, 457, 529, 530, 540, 713, 714, 744, 752, 
 798-799, 8S5, 899. 
 
 *Ibid., VIII, 523. 
 
 " Ibid., 362, 370, 376, 426, 428, 459, 479. 
 
 'Ibid., IX, no, 156, 168. 
 
 ''Ibid., VII, 249-252. 
 
 'Ibid., 671. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 113 
 
 counts of expenditures, and to meet on the first Monday of 
 July, October, January, and April. These meetings were to 
 continue until the " business be completed to satisfaction at 
 the Meeting House near Moses Teague's to which each chief 
 is to send one or more representatives from a private meet- 
 ing of his own company." ^ Similar " conventions" were 
 held at other times,^ and one of the principal features in Gov- 
 ernor Tryon's proclamation to the Orange County men was 
 that they should desist from further meetings " either by 
 Verbal agreement or advertisement," and cease using the 
 titles of Regulators and Associators.^ 
 
 Apart from these elections among themselves the Regu- 
 lators were interested in the Assembly elections, and among 
 the various reforms they requested, this was placed first — 
 " That at all elections each suffrage be given by Ticket & 
 Ballot." * They naturally influenced the elections in the 
 western counties,^ and to counteract their influence Tryon 
 erected the borough of Hillsborough and gave it the privi- 
 lege of sending a representative to the assembly.® It was 
 the inhabitants of this western county of Orange which in 
 1773 gave the following interesting instruction'' to their 
 delegates in assembly : 
 
 "We have chosen you our Representatives at the next General As- 
 sembly and when v^e. did so we expected and do still expect that you 
 will speak our Sense in every case when we shall expressly declare it, 
 or when you can by any other means discover it. In all other cases we 
 suppose you left to your own discretion which is ever to be directed 
 by the Good of our Country in general and of this County in particular. 
 This is our notion of the Duty of Representatives, and the Rights of 
 Electors." 
 
 ^N. C. Col. Rec, VII, 702-703- 
 
 ' For the Regulators in general, see J. S. Bassett, The Regulators of 
 North Carolina, Report of American Historical Association for 1894 
 (140-212), 161-170, 172, 183-184. 
 
 "M- C. Col. Rec, VII, 731-732, 793- 
 
 ♦/fcjrf., VIII, 77- 
 
 'Ibid., VII, 671, 722-726. 
 
 'Ibid., VII, Prefatory Notes, xxiv; VIII, 216. 
 
 ' Ibid., IX, 699. 
 
 8 
 
114 ^^^ Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Turning from the county elections and representation, we 
 must glance at the elections in the boroughs. In discussing 
 the suffrage under the proprietors, a law of 1715 was men- 
 tioned, according to which any town was declared entitled 
 to elect a representative to the assembly when its population 
 reached sixty families. This was the famous " Bath-town 
 Act," which occupies a large place in the colonial corre- 
 spondence from 1760. It has also been noted that a subse- 
 quent act of 1723 extended the suffrage in towns to the 
 tenants of houses of a legal size, who paid taxes or to the 
 owners when the houses were untenanted. Under the pro- 
 visions of these acts, three towns, Edenton, Bath Town and 
 Newbern, sent representatives to the first assembly under 
 the royal government.^ In 1734-35 a new town was erected 
 by order of the governor and council,^ and in 1739 this town 
 of Wilmington was by act of the legislature impowered to 
 send a burgess to the assembly, who was to be elected by the 
 tenants of houses in the town or by the owners of untenanted 
 houses.^ 
 
 Yet a year later, in an act relating to Edenton, and con- 
 firming its right to send a representative, the assembly stated 
 that no person should be allowed to vote for representative 
 unless he was the owner of a saved lot in the town, and had 
 held it for six months before the election.* 
 
 The wholesale disallowance of laws in 1754 and the fol- 
 
 ^N. C. Col.Rec.,Y,87. 
 
 ' Ibid., IV, 43. 
 
 'Davis, Laws (17S1), 99-101. The suffrage provision is as follows: 
 " Every Tenant of any Brick, Stone or framed habitable House of the 
 Length of Twenty Feet, and Sixteen Feet wide, within the Bounds of 
 the said Town, who, at the Day of Election, and for Three Months next 
 before, inhabited such House, shall be entitled to vote in the Election 
 for the Representative of the said Town to be sent to the Generall 
 Assembly: And in Case there shall be no Tenant of such House in the 
 said Town on the Day of Election, qualified to vote as aforesaid, that 
 then and in such Case the Person seized of such House, either in Fee- 
 Simple or Fee-Tail, or for Term of Life, shall be entitled to vote for 
 the Representative aforesaid." 
 
 'Ibid., 103-108. To save a lot the purchaser must, within two years 
 after purchasing, erect "a good substantial, Brick, Stone or framed 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 115 
 
 lowing years resulted in the repeal of the acts of 1739 and 
 1740 respecting Wilmington and Edenton, but they left un- 
 touched the more important laws of 1715 and 1723, which 
 granted representation to towns when they obtained a popu- 
 lation of sixty families and regulated the elections in such 
 towns. Wilmington, Newbern, Edenton, and Brunswick 
 later received charters from the governor granting them the 
 right to elect a representative,^ but Bath never took out a 
 new charter, as the act establishing it had not been repealed. 
 Under the provisions of the Bath-town act of 171 5 other 
 towns claimed the right to send a representative when they 
 obtained the necessary population; and in 1760 Halifax did 
 not even wait for the governor's writ, but elected a burgess, 
 who, after investigation of the claims of Halifax by the 
 assembly, was admitted to a seat.^ Dobbs later confirmed 
 this right by charter,^ and six towns thus had the right to 
 elect burgesses. Later, three more towns, Campbelton, Hills- 
 borough, and Salisbury, received the same right; Tar- 
 borough attempted to exercise the privilege, and the Board 
 of Trade recommended that Beaufort be given a representa- 
 tive. 
 
 In spite of the frequent requests of the governors, the 
 Board of Trade appears loath to advise the repeal of the 
 Bath-town act of 1715. In 1762 they merely threaten to so 
 advise the king if the assembly persist in the " undutiful & 
 unreasonable claims" in cases like that of Halifax.* Later 
 in 1773, they upheld the assembly in refusing a seat to a 
 person elected from the lately chartered town of Tarr 
 borough, because the town did not possess the number of 
 inhabitants required by the act of 1715; ® and, on the other 
 
 habitable House, not of less Dimensions than Twenty Feet long, Fifteen 
 Feet in Wedth, and Eight Feet in Height, between the first Floor and 
 the Joists." 
 
 ^N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 228-^29, 331, 333- 
 
 ' Ihid., 245, 365. The Board of Trade resolved that the claim of 
 Halifax was "unconstitutional and not warranted by any authority 
 ■whatever" {ibid., 752). 
 
 '/&tU, 24s, 333. 
 
 *Ihid.,VI, 752. 
 
 ' Ibid., IX, 348, 7A(r-7A7, 989. 
 
11,6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 hand, despite the expressed opinion of Governor Martin 
 that the "present Bulk" of the assembly made it embar- 
 rassing, the lords directed him to grant a charter to Beau- 
 fort, which had petitioned for a burgess because its popula- 
 tion consisted of over sixty families.^ The action of the 
 English authorities appears much more reasonable than that 
 of the governors ; for the latter, forced by the necessities of 
 colonial politics, granted charters to insignificant villages,^ 
 while refusing it to larger places.^ 
 
 There appears to have been no general suffrage qualifi- 
 cation applicable to all these towns. The laws of 171 5 and 
 1723 had given the franchise to householders either by lease 
 or by freehold tenure, but this was not uniformly retained. 
 It was extended to Brunswick by the general election law of 
 1760; * and yet a few months later the elections in another 
 town, Newbern, were said to be by the freeholders alone,* 
 and in Hillsborough, by the charter of 1770, the same re- 
 striction was made.® Yet in Campbelton '^ and in Tar- 
 borough the electors are merely " the inhabitants." * In 
 Campbelton especially, certain freeholders charged that their 
 charter of 1765 gave " power to all persons whom accident 
 or design shall bring within two miles of the Court-house of 
 Campbelton, on the day appointed for the Election of a Mem- 
 ber to give their suffrages ; altho' their proper place of resi- 
 dence be far out of the limits of the said Town, and although 
 they have no property in that or any other place to become 
 
 ' N. C. Col. Rec, IX, 636, 640-641, 682. 
 
 ^ Both Hillsborough and Tarborough were smaller in size than the 
 population fixed by the act of 1715. The first retained while the latter 
 lost its representative. 
 
 ' Governor Tryon, in 1767, wrote, " The several towns in this province 
 are created by act of Assembly but have no right upon their creation 
 to send members to the Assembly, nor doth that right by law com- 
 mence until there be sixty families residing in the town, at which time 
 they may apply [to the governor], and are entitled to a writ for electing 
 a representative in the Assembly" (N. C. Col. Rec, VII, 473). 
 
 'Davis, Laws (1764), 201. 
 
 'N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 672. 
 
 •Ibid., VIII, 216. 
 
 '/6iU, IX, 80. 
 
 'Ibid., 746. Cf. varying suffrage in English boroughs, ante, Ch. I. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 117 
 
 the subject of representation." ^ Thus the elections were 
 thrown into "the Hands of transient persons, Boatmen 
 Waggoners and other Laborers," and taken " from their 
 Employers, who are principally interested in securing or 
 improvmg from their right of Representation, the property 
 of the Town." Upon this representation the governor and 
 council granted the town a new charter limiting the suffrage 
 to freeholders.^ There was no more uniformity in the elec- 
 tion provisions of these charters than there was method in 
 erectingthe towns or reason for the granting of borough rep- 
 resentation.3 Apparently the ignorance or fancy, or political 
 environment of the governors determined the town suffrage. 
 The town elections, perhaps on account of the absence of 
 uniformity in the suffrage provisions, were more turbulent 
 than those in the counties, and the number of contested cases 
 is proportionally greater than those arising from county elec- 
 tions.* 
 
 North Carolina had few local officers of an elective nature. 
 Mention has already been made of the popular triple nomi- 
 nation of candidates for the office of county register, which, 
 beginning in 171 5 or before that year, lasted down to the 
 Revolution.^ Another group of elective officials were the 
 commissioners of some of the towns. The early laws organ- 
 izing towns placed the control of town matters in the hands 
 of a board of commissioners, whose numbers were kept up 
 either by appointments of the governor ® or of the neighbor- 
 ing county court,'' or elections by themselves.^ Many of the 
 
 ^N.C. Col.Rec.,IX,7g. 
 
 "Ibid., 79-81, 274. 
 
 'A number of other towns were erected from time to time, but none 
 of these ever obtained a population sufficient to give it a representative. 
 See Davis, Laws (17S1). 62-65, 92-94; (1764), 7, n. 28, 32; (i773), S06, 
 530, SS6. 
 
 * Out of thirty-six contested election cases noticed in the records 
 between the years 1731-1774, fifteen arose in the towns and twenty-one 
 in the counties. Throughout the whole period there were three or four 
 times as many counties as towns (e.g., 1767, eight towns and twenty- 
 nine counties. Col. Rec, VII, 473). 
 
 ° See ante, p. 94. 
 
 'E.g., Davis, Laws (1751), 100. 
 
 ^ E.g., ibid., 62-65, 92-94. 'E.g., ibid., 210. 
 
ii8 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 later acts erected similar self-perpetuating bodies/ but in at 
 least two cases provision was made for the election of the 
 commissioners by popular vote. The first town to receive 
 this privilege, apparently, was Wilmington, where, by an 
 act of 1740, the electors qualified to vote for an assembly- 
 man were empowered to elect annually five persons from 
 whom the governor would choose three to serve as town 
 commissioners for the ensuing year.^ In 1745 all the five 
 elected were to serve; * and the same privilege was extended 
 to Newbern in 1748,* where previously a close corporation 
 had existed. These rights were restored by the assembly 
 in 1756, after the wholesale repeal of town and county acts 
 two years earlier ; ^ but no evidence has been found to show 
 that any other towns were granted like privileges. 
 
 The North Carolina vestry from 171 5 to 1741 was a close 
 corporation usually appointed in the act erecting the parish,® 
 and subsequently filling vacancies in their own number. But 
 in the latter year an act was passed for the election of vestry- 
 men every two years by the inhabiting freeholders of every 
 parish.'' This act was later amended to restrict the parish 
 suffrage to those qualified to vote for representatives and to 
 require the use of the ballot in such elections.* The Crown 
 disallowed the vestry act in 1754,® and thereafter, until 1764 
 there was no permanent basis for the parish system. In 
 1758 an attempt was made to erect " select" vestries, or close 
 corporations, but this was rejected by the lower house.-''' An 
 act of 1760 was disallowed by the English government, and 
 the church thrown into the greatest confusion.^^ At last a 
 
 ^E.g., Davis, Laws (i773), 47°. 5o6, S30, SS6. 
 
 ° Davis, Laws (1751), 115. 
 
 'Ibid., 204-208. *Ibid., 279. 
 
 ° Davis, Laws (1764), 93-98, 98-105. Edenton had a close corporation 
 of trustees {ihid., 105-111). For later change in • Wilmington, see 
 Davis, Laws (1773), 507. 
 
 ■Davis, Laws (1751), 50, 65, 67. 
 
 'Ibid., 157. 
 
 'In 1751; Davis, Laws (1751), 352. 
 
 'N. C. Col. Rec.,y, 116. 
 
 ^'Ibid.,V, 1063, 1080. 
 
 " See letters of the ministers, ibid., VI, 978,. 990, 994, 999. 
 
The Suffrage in North Carolina. 119 
 
 law was passed in 1764 which appears to have been satisfac- 
 tory to the Bishop of London and the British government. 
 This act ^ provided for a triennial election of vestrymen by 
 those who had within the parish fifty acres of land or a 
 town lot saved according to law. Votes were to " be given 
 openly," not by ballot, and the suffrage was compulsory : 
 
 "Every Person qualified to vote for Vestrymen in their respective 
 Parishes (the People called Quakers excepted) is hereby required to 
 attend, and give his Vote at the Election of Vestrymen, in Manner 
 herein before directed, unless prevented by some bodily Infirmity or 
 legal Disability, under the Penalty of Twenty Shillings, Proclamation 
 Money." ' 
 
 A fine was also to be imposed upon dissenters who refused 
 to take the oath of vestrymen after they had been elected.^ 
 
 Parish elections in North Carolina differed from those in 
 South Carolina in the fact that the first colony required all 
 freeholders possessing the requisite fifty acres both to vote 
 and to take office if elected, or to pay relatively heavy penal- 
 ties for neglect; while her southern neighbor restricted the 
 suffrage in such elections to members of the Church of Eng- 
 land. They differed from those in Maryland and Virginia 
 in that the dissenting class was large in numbers, strong in 
 influence, and was aided by a large portion of the community 
 who did not care to pay taxes for any church. Under such 
 circumstances we need not wonder that great irregularities 
 took place at the parish elections. The absence of a vestry 
 act for several years made the weak established church still 
 weaker, and under the new law of 1764 the conditions be- 
 came worse rather than better. On some occasions dissent- 
 ers were purposely elected to prevent the organization of a 
 vestry and the collection of tithes,* and in 1771 an act was 
 
 ^ Davis, Laws (1773), 304. 
 
 ° For comment upon this act, see S. B. Weeks, Church and State in 
 North Carolina, J. H. U. Studies, XI, 36-38. 
 
 ' It is interesting to notice that the compulsory voting clause was in- 
 sisted upon by the lower house after the upper house had voted to 
 expunge it (N. C. Col. Rec, VI, 1107-1109). 
 
 *JV. C. Col. Rec, VIII, 180, 202-210, S03. 
 
120 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 passed which provided for the collection of parish taxes even 
 if there was no vestry in the parish.^ 
 
 The suffrage provisions in North Carolina may now be 
 summarized. During the first fifty years no definite pro- 
 vision for the suffrage has been found, and owing to the '^ 
 unsettled political conditions the elections must often have 
 been farcical if not actually riotous. Formal and regular 
 elections may have been held after 1715, in which year the 
 suffrage was granted to all white tax-paying free men 
 over twenty-one years of age. This provision was retained 
 during the remainder of the proprietary period. The instruc- 
 tions to the royal governors conflicted with this wide fran- 
 chise, and the governors attempted to make the colonial 
 practice square with their orders. Under Burrington the 
 contest was closely associated with the effort on the part of 
 the governor to erect new precincts; and under Johnston 
 the assembly passed a law limiting the suffrage to freehold- 
 ers of fifty acres who had resided six months in the province, 
 but no longer excluded negroes. With the addition of an 
 age requirement of twenty-one years, this qualification re- 
 mained unchanged until the Revolution. In the meantime yj, 
 a wider suffrage was granted in some towns, where tenants ^ 
 of houses could vote. But the whole suffrage and represen- 
 tative system was overthrown by the repeal of such acts in 
 1754. The right of representation was thereafter restored 
 by the charters of the governors, who in some cases also de- 
 fined the suffrage qualifications. The act of 1760 restored 
 the old qualifications for voters in the counties, but abolished 
 the previous ballot voting and substituted the viva voce 
 method. In the towns there appear to have been some 
 variations in the qualifications for voters, and the borough 
 franchise was, without doubt, used by the governors to fur- 
 ther their own political plans. Of local elections there were 
 those for registers, town commissioners, and vestrymen, 
 none of which appears to have varied materially from the 
 assembly elections. The most curious feature of the suffrage 
 is that compelling qualified freeholders, even dissenters, to 
 take part in the parish elections. Another remarkable pro- 
 vision is the early exclusion of negroes, and the subsequent 
 
 ' Davis, Laws (1771), 498. 
 
4 
 
 The Suffrage in North Carolina. 121 
 
 granting of the franchise to them. North CaroHna is the 
 only colony south of Maryland which did not forbid their 
 voting at the time of the Revolution. Throughout the royal 
 period the suffrage question is most intimately connected 
 with the attempt of the governors to win control of the rep- 
 resentative system and direct the legislation of the assembly. 
 This connection is seen in 1731 in the contest over the erec- 
 tion of new precincts, in 1746 over the subject of the 
 quorum, in 1754-1756 in the repeal of election acts, in 1760 
 in the question of a quorum and the right of town represen- 
 tation, and during the later years in the arbitrary erection 
 of Hillsborough and Tarborough into towns with right of 
 representation. The whole force of the English government 
 is usually exerted in favor of the governors in these strug- 
 gles. Until the days of the repressive and retaliatory meas- 
 ures just preceding the Revolution, no colony felt so heavily 
 the hand of British authority, or saw more of its popular 
 legislation mutilated by the English veto-power, than did the 
 province of North Carolina. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Suffrage in South Carolina. 
 
 The Carolina proprietors under the royal grants of 1663 
 and 1665 did not intend keeping their vast domain under one 
 government. The struggling Albermarle settlement in the 
 North was placed under the tutelage of Governor Berkeley, 
 of Virginia, one of the eight proprietors who was empowered 
 to appoint one or two governors for Carolina ; ^ later the un- 
 successful Cape Fear settlement was erected into an inde- 
 pendent colony ; ^ and the proprietors apparently entertained 
 the idea of establishing eight distinct counties, one for each 
 proprietor, possessing separate and almost independent gov- 
 ernments.^ This early policy later gave way to an attempt 
 to organize a general provincial government under the elab- 
 orate provisions of the Fundamental Constitutions; but in 
 the same month, July, 1669, that this frame was ^adopted 
 by the proprietors, the same men were afifixing their seals to 
 documents which would create still another colony within 
 their territory, and make a united province almost an im- 
 possibility. Thus at first as a result of conscious policy and 
 later as the outcome of practical conditions, the Carolina 
 lands tended to divide into distinct settlements. Several 
 abortive attempts at independent colonies were made, and at 
 last only two distinct parts of the province were recognized, 
 — ^the Albermarle settlement, usually spoken of as " Alber- 
 marle County;" and "that parte of the Province of Caro- 
 lina that lyeth southward and westward of Cape Feare." * 
 
 In July, 1669, when instructions were drawn up for the 
 governor and council of the proposed colony at Port Royal 
 (South Carolina), it was admitted that the number of peo- 
 
 '■N. C. Col. Records, I, 48. 
 
 ' Ibid., 75-92. 
 
 'Ibid., Prefatory Notes, pp. xiv-xv. 
 
 * This was for many years the only legal name of South Carolina, and 
 was continually used in the enacting clauses of the laws ; see Statutes 
 at Large of South Carolina, II, 13, etc. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 123 
 
 pie in Carolina was too small to put in force the " Grand 
 Model, ' 1 and accordingly a modified and temporary form of 
 government was ordained by the proprietors. The governor 
 and five deputies had been appohited in England, and upon 
 arrivmg m the colony these were to be joined by five more 
 elected by the people. 
 
 " As soone as you arrive at Port Royall you are to summon all ye 
 freemen that are in ye Collony, and require them to elect five persons, 
 who being joyned to ye five deputed by ye respective Proprietrs, are to 
 be ye Counsell wti» vi^hose advice & consent, or at least sixe of them, 
 all being summoned, you are to governe according to the Limitations 
 & Instruccons foUoviring, observeing what cann at present be putt in 
 practice of our fundamental! Constitutions & forme of Governmt." ' 
 
 The ten councillors and the governor were to be assisted in 
 the making of laws by deputies also elected by popular 
 choice : 
 
 " you are to sumon ye freehoulders of ye Collony & require ym in our 
 names to elect twenty persons, wch. together wth or [our] Deputys for 
 ye present are to be yr Parliament, by & wth whose consent, or ye 
 maior parte of them, you are to make such laws as you shall from time 
 to time finde necessary." ' 
 
 The instructions promised one hundred and fifty acres of 
 land to every freeman who settled before March 25, 1670, 
 and the same amount to the freemen for each male servant 
 they brought out to the colony ; one hundred acres for each 
 woman-servant or male-servant under sixteen years of age; 
 and promised one hundred acres to every servant upon the 
 expiration of his term of service. Smaller amounts were 
 to be given to those coming later, but all persons receiving 
 land must take an oath of allegiance to the king, and of 
 fidelity and submission to the proprietors and to their Fun- 
 damental Constitutions. A quit-rent of one penny an acre 
 
 ^The suffrage provisions of the royal charters and the fundamental 
 constitutions have been discussed under the heading of North Carolina, 
 and will be mentioned here only incidentally. 
 
 ' Rivers, A Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the Close of 
 the Proprietary Government by the Revolution of 1719, Appendix, 347. 
 
 ■ Ibid., 348. 
 
124 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 was reserved upon all lands thus granted, to be paid annu- 
 ally after September 29, 1689. 
 
 The party of emigrants left England in August, 1669,^ 
 and at the Bermudas a blank commission for governor was 
 filled in with the name of William Sayle, and this person 
 took charge of the expedition during the days of settlement.^ 
 When the colonists arrived at Port Royal, the first election, 
 in accordance with the instructions, was held for the selection 
 of five councillors. According to the records, the governor 
 " Sum'oned all the ffreemen, & there to Elect & choose five 
 men to bee of the Councill ;" and after five had been chosen, 
 a certain William Owen " alwaies itching to be in Author- 
 ity," questioned the legality of the election, but " where- 
 vpon the s'd ffreeholdrs or the major p'te of them, mett a 
 second tyme, & confirmed their former Election, by sub- 
 scribeing of their sev'rall names." * 
 
 This election, the first held in South Carolina, is of in- 
 terest because it was held so early in the history of the 
 settlement; indeed, before the ships had reached Charleston 
 harbor, and while temporarily lying in Port Royal, the men 
 of the fleet were called together. It is to be noted also that 
 here, as in the instructions, the words freeman and free- 
 holder are used interchangeably. Section i of the instruc- 
 tions above quoted makes the election of councillors by the 
 freemen; while Section 8 names freeholders as electors of 
 members of the parliament. So in the account of this first 
 election the voters are spoken of as " ffreemen" and as 
 " fifreeholders." There can be no doubt that the electors, 
 who did not number many over a score,* were simply the 
 free men of the expedition, since of freeholders there were as 
 yet none, as the place of settlement was not yet reached, and 
 no definite assignments of land had been made. The free- 
 men under the instructions were potential freeholders, but 
 
 ' McCrady, History of South Carolina under the Proprietary Govern- 
 ment, 120 (quoted hereafter as McCrady, I). 
 
 ' Ibid., I, 124. 
 
 * The Council writing to the Proprietors, March 21, 1670-71 ; Shaftes- 
 bury Papers, Collections of South Carolina Historical Society, V, 291 ; 
 Charleston Year-Book, 1883, 371. 
 
 ' Collections S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 203, 292. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 125 
 
 they were not actual landholders before the land was reached 
 or apportioned. 
 
 After reaching Charleston and beginning the settlement, 
 the colonists were apparently too much engrossed in their 
 own affairs to think of political organization, and it was 
 not until three months had passed that the governor and 
 council determined to issue certain ordinances restraining 
 the profane violation of the Sabbath and " other grand 
 abuses." ^ 
 
 This determination was reached on July 4, 1670, and on 
 that day, or shortly afterwards, the first assembly, although 
 an irregular one, was elected. After seriously considering 
 the abuses and the manner of redressing them, " and finding 
 that the Number of ffreehouldrs in the CoUony nott neere 
 sufficient to Electe a Parliamt ; and the s'd late Gov' nor, by & 
 wth the advice & consent of vs his Councell, did make such 
 orders as wee did think convenient to suppress the same, 
 vpon wch the s'd Gov'nor did Sum'ons all the People to 
 heare the said Orders, all the s'd ffreemen consenting there- 
 vnto the s'd Gov'nor & Councell caused the s'd orderes to bee 
 published." ^ But this method of promulgating laws was 
 opposed by that William Owen who had objected to the elec- 
 tion of councillors at Port Royal, and who was " willing to 
 doe anything, though ever soe ill in itt selfe, rather then not 
 to apeare, to bee a man of acc'on." Owen argued that no 
 such orders could be made without the consent of a parlia- 
 ment elected according to the instructions. He appears at 
 first to have impressed this opinion upon the governor, for 
 the latter evidently permitted an election to take place.^ 
 Owen directed the election, and wrote with his own hand 
 the list of twenty members of parliament, and so controlled 
 the choice that it was said he moved " all the rest of the 
 ffreemen," " in another spheere then their owne." * Owen's 
 influence was of short duration; the council prevented the 
 governor from recognizing the parliament, and the repre- 
 sentatives " without any farthere notice takinge of the s'd 
 
 * Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 291. 
 ' Ibid., 292. 
 
 "Ibid., 176-177, 203. 
 
 * Ibid., 292 ; Charleston Year-Book, 1883, 375- 
 
126 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 will'm Owen, or their Elec'on into dignity (as the s'd Owen 
 p'waded them itt would bee) lefte the s'd Owen & his Paper, 
 & followed their own Labours, wch indeed neerely concerned 
 them & vs to." ^ 
 
 Owen's factious opposition to the ordinances of the gov- 
 ernor had a legal basis in the fact that no ordinance power 
 was delegated to the governor and council by their instruc- 
 tions; and consequently the responsibility for the quarrels 
 in the colony must be laid not solely at the door of William 
 Owen, but also upon the neglect of the proprietors, and their 
 anxiety to establish the parliament, council, and other forms 
 of the Fundamental Constitutions.^ The most practical 
 method of legislation was that which the governor and coun- 
 cil had adopted, — the submission of their ordinances to the 
 approval of a general meeting of the freemen. 
 
 Upon the death of Governor Sayle in March, 1670-71, 
 Joseph West was chosen governor by the council, after 
 Sayle had designated him as successor.* During the year 
 that the colonists had been in the colony their numbers had 
 been considerably increased, and newcomers were frequently 
 arriving. Accordingly, a few days after the election of Gov- 
 ernor West, he called together the " Antient fifreehoulders" 
 and " the New ffree men," and in a general meeting at the 
 storehouse proposed certain ordinances to them.* Owen 
 again demanded an election of a parliament, although he 
 himself admits that there were only between forty and fifty 
 freeholders.^ According to his account, the people unani- 
 mously stood by the lords' instructions, that laws " were to- 
 be framed by 20 persons freehould^s in the nature of a par- 
 lemt." But the governor replied that the time was " some 
 what unseasonable," and that he intended calling a parlia- 
 ment when opportunity served, or the necessity for the mak- 
 ing of laws required it. Ten days later, however, in writ- 
 ing to the proprietors, the governor and council say there is 
 
 *The Council to the Proprietors, ibid.; also West to Lord Ashley^ 
 Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 203. 
 'McCrady, I, 133. 
 'Ibid., 138. 
 
 ' Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 293. 
 ' Ibid., 302. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 127 
 
 " noe great necessity att prsent of a Parliamt our tyme being 
 well imployed, if wee cann imploy it well, in Planting & 
 other necessary works that lyeth vpon vs." ^ Sir John Yea- 
 mans claimed also that West feared a parliament would 
 question too closely his actions or the manner of his elec- 
 tion.^ The desired representative body was not granted, 
 and the ordinances of the governor and council were en- 
 forced. 
 
 But the proprietors in England were desirous of getting 
 a parliament as soon as possible, even while the numbers of 
 the colonists were so insignificant. In May, 1671, the pro- 
 prietors sent instructions to the " Governor and Council of 
 Ashley River" directing them " within thirty days after re- 
 ceit hereof to summon ye Freeholders of ye Plantation, & 
 require them in our names to elect 20 persons who, togeather 
 with our Deputys as our Representatives, for ye present are 
 to be your Parliamt." * The governor was required to call 
 a parliament in this manner every two years, and as much 
 oftener as the state of affairs in the plantation should re- 
 quire. The parliament in each case was to choose five of its 
 members to act as councillors with the five deputies of the 
 proprietors. These mandatory instructions could not have 
 reached the colony before July 8, and so we must give Gov- 
 ernor West the credit of calling for an election of parlia- 
 ment members upon his own volition. In March the gov- 
 ernor had said there was no necessity for a parliament, but 
 by July " more people being now arrived," he summoned 
 " all the ffreemen" and required them to elect twenty per- 
 sons to be members of the parliament. The election, com- 
 pleted three days later, was not managed altogether peace- 
 ably, and Sir John Yeamans, who soon was to become gov- 
 ernor himself, advised the voters " in all elections to choose 
 such as will stand at the greatest distance from the 
 Gou'nor." * 
 
 The parliament so elected on July 1 1 was the first legal 
 representative body in South Carolina. It proved to be 
 
 * Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc. V, 29s. 
 
 'Ibid., 349- 
 
 *Ibid., 322; Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 366. 
 
 'Ibid., 337-338, 354- 
 
128 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 greatly in sympathy with Yeamans, and at once began to 
 cast doubts upon the powers of the council and the legality 
 of the governor's election. The details of this contest do 
 not concern us here, but it is remarkable that the proprietors 
 in England decided upon Yeamans for governor at almost 
 the same time that he was strenuously opposing Gfovernor 
 West in Charleston.^ Yeamans's commission and instruc- 
 tions did not reach him until the spring of 1672, and only 
 on April 19 was he proclaimed governor.^ On that day, 
 " regard being had to the conveniency of the Freemen now 
 assembled together in this Towne," a proclamation was 
 issued " to dissolve all Parliaments & Parliamentary Con- 
 ventions heretofore had or made in this Province" and re- 
 quiring " all the freeholders in this Province to come before 
 the Grand Councill at Charles Towne" on the following day 
 to elect a parliament. Accordingly, on April 20, " came the 
 Freemen &c at Charles Towne, and having then made their 
 election," they presented the names of the twenty members 
 of the parliament to the governor and the proprietary depu- 
 ties. Immediately " the said Parliament &c then and there 
 out of themselves did elect five persons" to be joined with 
 the proprietors' deputies as a " Grand Councill." * 
 
 Thus did the proprietors, " fond of their new form of 
 government," * lay the foundations for republican govern- 
 ment, while they had in mind only the final establishment of 
 their aristocratic constitutions. All of these provisions for 
 government were accounted temporary, and they should 
 soon give place to the elaborate requirements of the " Grand 
 Model." As early as June 21, 1672, steps were taken for 
 the incorporation of the " nobillity" into the legislature, and 
 the temporary laws of that date provided that " the Parlia- 
 ment shall consist of ye Governor, ye Deputys of the Lords 
 Proprietors, the Nobillity and twenty chosen by the Free- 
 houlders." ^ In spite of the efforts of the proprietors, their 
 
 ' McCrady, I, 158. 
 ' Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 390. 
 ° Ibid., 390 ; Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 378. 
 
 * An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the Colonies of 
 South Carolina and Georgia (Alexander Hewatt), London, 1729, I, 60. 
 ° Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 40s ; Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 355. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 129 
 
 aristocracy of landgraves and caciques never occupied any- 
 place in the government, although the form was kept up of 
 making the governor a landgrave before his appointment.^ 
 
 One more of the early elections that may be mentioned is 
 that which took place upon the death of Governor Yeamans 
 and the succession of West to the vacant position. On 
 August 16, 1674, the council " Resolved that the fifreehold- 
 ers of this Settlem* be sumoned to appear at Charles-towne 
 upon Thursday next in the morning then and there to elect 
 a Parliamt." After the election of the parliament members, 
 the latter proceeded to elect six from themselves to sit with 
 the deputies as a council.^ 
 
 In looking back now over the elections of these first four 
 years of South Carolina's history, we are met with the fact 
 that popular elections and a representative system are es- 
 tablished from the first days of the settlement. Had there 
 been no desire on the part of the proprietors to set their 
 " Model" in motion, it is quite likely that occasional meet- 
 ings of all the inhabitants would have served' the political 
 needs of the colony. In Maryland the pure democracy was 
 retained for about twenty years, and in the New England 
 colonies it was the usual type of early colonial organization. 
 Its evident efficiency is seen in the way in which the two 
 popular gatherings in South Carolina, of July, 1670, and 
 March, 1671, accepted the ordinances of the governor and 
 council. The demagogue William Owen would have had 
 no power had he not based his arguments upon the proprie- 
 tary instructions for a parliament. But the lords proprie- 
 tors must needs approach as near as possible to their im- 
 practicable form of government; and thus in 1671, when 
 the population did not greatly exceed 200, and there may 
 have been somewhat over fifty freeholders,* — these free- 
 holders were required to select twenty for a parliament in 
 addition to the five deputies of the proprietors ; thus making 
 
 ^ McCrady, I, IS7, 218, 232, 266, etc. 
 
 ' Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, 452 ; Hewatt, I, 74- 
 
 ' In March, 1670-71, Owen said there were two hundred and odd in- 
 habitants, of whom between forty and fifty were freeholders. By July 
 " more people" arrived, but how many is not stated. Coll. S. C. Hist. 
 Soc, V, 302, 337- 
 
 9 
 
130 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 nearly one-half of the freemen members of the parliament. 
 If all those so elected actually attended the parliament meet- 
 ings, it is probable that this assembly contained a larger pro- 
 portion of the voters than the democratic meetings of Mary- 
 land or Massachusetts, in which the proxy system and the 
 reluctance of freemen to travel kept the real attendance far 
 belowr the number of those actually empowered to partici- 
 pate. 
 
 Another fact of significance in these early elections is to 
 be found in the synonymous character of the words free- 
 man and freeholder. The first term has here little semblance 
 of the New England meaning, but if ever used apart from 
 the freeholder sense, it meant free man. There is, however, 
 no distinction in the current records between the two words. 
 The same election, as an inspection of the preceding excerpts 
 will show, is frequently said to have been performed by the 
 freemen and by the freeholders ; and from the point of view 
 of the suffrage the two may be taken as absolutely synony- 
 mous. The very nature of the land grants, giving 1 50 acres 
 or some smaller amount later to every free man, would 
 necessarily make the terms equivalent in fact, as they are in 
 the grammatical usage of the time. The Fundamental Con- 
 stitutions had provided that electors should possess at least 
 fifty acres of land,^ and although the constitutions did not 
 become effective, yet the smallest amount of land promised 
 to freemen was seventy acres ; ^ thus ensuring to any free 
 man who could reach the colony, and to every servant after 
 his time expired,- an amount of land more than sufficient to 
 qualify him as an elector. The ease with which land was 
 acquired must be borne continually in mind when we con- 
 sider the colonial real estate qualifications for the suffrage. 
 
 After 1674 the suffrage question does not become promi- 
 nent until the French Huguenots had come into the colony 
 in large numbers. A system of proxy voting, so natural in 
 its development in all the colonies owing to the difficulties of 
 transportation and the impelling necessity of the struggle 
 for existence, arose in South Carolina. The proprietors in 
 
 • Section 66 of " First Set," Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, V, no. 
 'Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 348. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 131 
 
 September, 1683, wrote to the governor that they were in- 
 formed 
 
 ", that men are admitted to bring papers for others, and to put in their 
 votes for them which is utterly illegal and contrary to the custom of 
 parliament, and will in time, if suffered, be very mischievous. You are 
 therefore to take care that such practices be not suffered for the future ; 
 but every man must deliver his own vote and no man be suffered to 
 bring the vote of another." ' 
 
 No further facts concerning this early proxy method have 
 been found, but it illustrates again the reluctance of the early 
 settlers to forsake their plantation work and take part in 
 elections. In the intervening years there was dissatisfaction 
 with the apportionment of representatives, as when in 1683 
 the governor was directed to have ten representatives for each 
 of the counties of Berkeley and Colleton elected, in spite of 
 the fact that the former was far more populous than the lat- 
 ter.^ During this period the assembly refused to take the 
 oath to the new Fundamental Constitutions of 1682; ^ and 
 later, in the quarrel which arose inevitably over the payment 
 of quit-rents, the people became turbulent, the assembly 
 would not recognize Governor Colleton, and the province 
 was in a condition of anarchy.* 
 
 Upon the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 the 
 proprietors of Carolina encouraged the settlement of the Hu- 
 guenot exiles in the province, and within two years 50,000 
 acres of land were granted to Frenchmen.® In all about 
 400 of these persons settled in Carolina at this time.* They, 
 of course, continued to use their own language, and while 
 some used a French translation of the English Prayer-Book, 
 others maintained a non-conformist service. The French- 
 men were not at once admitted to the rights of citizens. 
 Governor Southwell, who had practically gained his office 
 by popular choice, caused an act to be passed in May, 1691, 
 
 * Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 407. 
 
 ■ Ibid., 406-7. 
 
 " McCrady, I, 210. 
 
 •Hewatt, I, loo-ioi; McCrady, I, 224-231. 
 
 'HiyeTS, Sketch, 174. 
 
 ' Ibid., 447 ; McCrady, I, 324- 
 
132 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 for the naturalization of all French and Swiss Protestants ; ^ 
 but this act, with all the other laws of this parliament, was 
 disallowed by the proprietors. Had the act been ratified, it 
 might have prevented subsequent trouble, for in 1691 Gov- 
 ernor Ludwell was instructed to grant five or six representa- 
 tives to Craven County, which was populated almost ex- 
 clusively by the French.^ To refuse naturalization to the 
 French, and then to give these aliens the right to elect almost 
 one-third of the assembly, was more than the English in- 
 habitants of Berkeley County could stand. This county, 
 having a majority of the population, was given only one- 
 third of the representation. It was but natural that the 
 English should ask " Shall the Frenchmen, who cannot 
 speak our language, make our laws ?" * 
 
 At an assembly election in 1692, according to Ludwell's 
 instructions, six Frenchmen represented Craven County.* 
 This assembly passed the first South Carolina act " to Regu- 
 late the Elections of Members of Assembly." The act is 
 not given in either Trott's Laws or the Statutes at Large, 
 but an idea of its contents can be gained from a letter of the 
 proprietors to Governor Ludwell." From this it appears that 
 the law permitted any person to vote for representatives who 
 was willing to take oath that he was worth ten pounds, but 
 it did not specify any term of residence for an elector. The 
 act was in contravention to the provision of the constitutions 
 of 1669 and 1682, which required a voter to possess a free- 
 hold of fifty acres, and yet the ten pounds qualification ap- 
 pears again in an accepted law of 1704.® The same assem- 
 bly, in drawing up a list of grievances against Governor 
 Southwell, protested that the number of representatives of 
 the people was too small, and that the people did not, as the 
 King's charter directed, fix the number of their delegates.'' 
 
 Only three weeks after the assembly had passed its elec- 
 
 ' Rivers, Sketch, 17s. 
 
 "N. C. Col. Rec, I, 373; Rivers, Sketch. 176. 
 
 'Rivers, Sketch, 176. 
 
 * McCrady, I, 239. 
 
 ° Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 437. 
 
 ' Statutes at Large of S. C, II, 249. 
 
 ' Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 434. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 133 
 
 tion law, and of course without knowledge of it, the pro- 
 prietors ordered, in November, 1692, that certain laws, 
 among which were any relating to the election of representa- 
 tives to the assembly, should not go into force until the pro- 
 prietary confirmation had been given.^ When the election 
 act reached England, the proprietors hastened to disallow it. 
 Since all the representatives were for the present elected in 
 counties, the proprietors were of opinion that they should be 
 chosen only by freeholders, thus by inference conforming tO' 
 the English distinction between the borough and the county 
 suffrage. And this act 
 
 " not mentioning how long any person worth tenn pounds must have 
 been an Inhabitant of the County before he be admitted to vote for 
 members of the Assembly, it is so loose that by this Act all the Pyrates 
 that were in the Shipp that had been plundering in the Red Sea had 
 been qualified to vote for Representatives in Carolina, which being 
 of dangerous consequence to the Inhabitants, we have thought fitt to 
 dissent to that act alsoe." ^ 
 
 Whether the personal property qualification of this law 
 was a means to open the suffrage to non-freeholding citizens 
 of Berkeley County — where Charleston was situated — in or- 
 der to counterbalance the power of the French is not clear ; 
 but there can be no doubt that the opposition to the Hugue- 
 nots was rapidly growing stronger. Their land titles were 
 now questioned, their marriages were popularly held to be 
 void, and interference was made with their religious ser- 
 vices.3 The EngUsh colonists attempted, moreover, to ex- 
 clude them altogether from political privileges. They pre- 
 pared an address to Joseph Blake, whom the council had 
 chosen governor in 1694, " praying that the refugees might 
 not only be denied the privilege of sitting as members of the 
 legislative body, but also of a vote at their election, and that 
 the assembly might be composed only of English members, 
 
 'Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 435. 
 
 'Ibid., 437. The " Red Sea Pyrates" is a reference to a vessel manned 
 by seventy pirates, who ran away from Jamaica to Charles Towne, 
 bringing with them a " vast" quantity of gold from the Red Sea (Coll. 
 S. C. Hist. Soc, I, 20s). 
 
 'Ibid. 
 
134 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 chosen by Englishmen." ^ Blake did not grant the request, 
 and this petition appears to have been the last serious opposi- 
 tion to the French. Under Governor Archdale's adminis- 
 tration, the attitude of the English towards the refugees 
 changed rapidly within the next two years, — a change which 
 the records do not adequately explain.^ As early as Sep- 
 tember, 1696, the proprietors had received word from the 
 colony that the assembly was inclined to grant naturaliza- 
 tion to the French, and they express their satisfaction at the 
 news.^ The change in sentiment must have been noticed in 
 the preceding spring, and this was not more than a year and 
 a half after the petition praying for the total exclusion of 
 the French from political rights had been presented. 
 
 But the naturalization act did not pass during Archdale's 
 administration. It was Joseph Blake, again acting as gov- 
 ernor, who advised the French to take advantage of the 
 change in popular sentiment and petition the assembly for 
 admission to the rights of English citizenship.* The assem- 
 bly could now say, in the preamble to the act of March 10, 
 1696-97, in strong contrast to the feeling two years earlier, 
 
 " Prosecution for Religion hath forced some Aliens and Trade and 
 the Fertility of this colony has encouraged others to resort to this 
 Colony, all which have given Testimony of their humble Duty and Loy- 
 alty to his Majesty and the Crown of England, and of their Fidelity to 
 the true and absolute Lords and proprietors of this Province, and of 
 their Obedience to their Laws, and their good Aflfections to the In- 
 habitants thereof, and by their Industry, Diligence and Trade have 
 ■very much enriched and advanced this Colony and Settlement thereof." " 
 
 The act then provided " that all Aliens, Male and Female, 
 of what Nation soever, which now are Inhabitants of South- 
 
 "Hewatt, I, 128-9. 
 
 ^ Ibid., 139-140, simply transcribes the preamble of the naturaliza- 
 tion act of 1696-7 in assigning causes for the change in feeling; and 
 McCrady, I, 289, does not throw much light on the reasons for the 
 more kindly spirit of the English colonists. 
 
 ^ Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc, I, 141 ; Proprietors to Archdale, September 10, 
 1696. 
 
 * Hewatt, I, 140 ; McCrady, I, 289. 
 
 'Statutes at Large of S. C, II, 131 ; Trott's Laws, I, 61. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 135 
 
 Carolina, their Wives and Children," might be admitted to 
 all the rights and privileges of English subjects, and be ad- 
 judged as free as if they were born of English parents within 
 the province. The petitioners were at once admitted to citi- 
 zenship, and any others might be given the same privileges 
 by petitioning the governor within the next three months. 
 In all cases the petitioner must take an oath of allegiance to 
 King William. " Full, free and undisturbed Liberty of 
 their Consciences" was granted to all Christians, " Papists 
 only excepted." 
 
 Although no provision was made for future alien settlers, 
 and only three months were granted to the French to hand 
 in their petitions and take the oaths,^ yet the act was tem- 
 porarily successful,^ and the political position of aliens does 
 not again appear upon the records for almost five years. A 
 permanent naturalization act was not passed until 1704.* 
 The political contest here between native-born English and 
 aliens is almost unique in colonial history. It was brought 
 on first by the absence of any general naturalization law; 
 and, secondly, by the aim of the proprietors to admit the 
 aliens to the suffrage, and grant the county inhabited by 
 them a representation almost equal to the populous Berkeley 
 County, in spite of the fact that the French were still aliens 
 and could legally exercise no English political rights. We 
 find popular opposition to alien voters again in the election 
 troubles of the years 1701-1706, but little antagonism to the 
 French as such. The earlier jealousy of the French settlers 
 apparently arose from the unwise attempt of the proprietors 
 to give such great political influence to unnaturalized for- 
 eigners. 
 
 The assembly which naturalized the French also passed 
 an act for the regulating of elections of members of the 
 assembly; but, unfortunately, the act is not given in the 
 printed collections of laws.* From a private letter of 1703, 
 it appears that this act contained the ten pounds qualifica- 
 
 '■ McCrady, I, 323, says 154 aliens in all sought naturalization under 
 the act. 
 'Hewatt, I, 140. 
 
 'Statutes at Large of S. C, II, 251 ; Trott's Laws, I. 107. 
 * Ibid., 130 ; Ibid., 60. 
 
136 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 tion for voters to which the proprietors had objected in 1693, 
 and which was now joined to a three-months' residence in 
 the colony. The assembly in 1703, by a "noble vote," de- 
 clared foreigners who possessed these qualifications entitled 
 to vote; which caused Landgrave Smith in disgust to re- 
 mark that he could not see how they could be happy in the 
 colony unless election laws and some others were to be 
 passed in England.^ The terms of the act of 1696-97 were 
 not strong enough, however, to prevent great abuses at elec- 
 tions within a few years.^ 
 
 The years 1 700-1 706 comprised a period of contest for 
 power between the dissenters and the Church party, in which 
 the French took the side of the proprietors and Anglicans. 
 During this time, as previously, all elections were held in 
 Charleston, and election quarrels and frauds were frequent. 
 The relative merits of the two parties are difficult to de- 
 termine at the present time. Oldmixon and the earlier his- 
 torians generally accepted the story of the dissenters, while 
 Mr. Edward McCrady, in his scholarly work on South Caro- 
 lina under the proprietors, partly exonerates the Churchmen 
 from the criticism formerly heaped upon them. Our interest 
 lies mainly with the influence of these quarrels upon the suf- 
 frage; but for the whole period the reader may be referred 
 to McCrady, Carroll, Hewatt, Rivers, and the documents 
 in the appendix to Rivers. 
 
 After Governor Blake's death in 1700, the council, in 
 some confusion, elected James Moore as governor.* Moore 
 
 ^ McCrady, I, 413, quoting Dalcho, Church History, 56. 
 ' An interesting election writ — the only one noticed in South Carolina 
 — ^belongs to about this time. (Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 439.) It is 
 directed to the high sheriff of Berkeley County, and says : 
 
 " We . . . Command you to Summon all the King's Leidge 
 subjects, the freemen Inhabitants of Berkly County to be and 
 appear together with all the rest of the freemen as aforesaid of 
 this part of our Province, at Charlestowne, on the 19th day of 
 December next, then and there by a majority of their voices to 
 agree to and ascertaine the number of their Representatives for 
 this part of the Province, to consult and advise with us about 
 making such laws as shall be necessary for the safety and de- 
 fence of this Province." 
 ' Hewatt, I, 145. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 137 
 
 was a churchman whose not over-sensitive conscience was 
 rendered more flexible by the financial difficulties in which 
 he had become involved.^ In the election of 1701 he de- 
 termined to have an assembly of his " own complexion" 
 elected, and in this he was greatly aided by the custom of 
 electing members for all counties in the city of Charleston. 
 The election was a " scene of riot, intemperance, and con- 
 fusion," 2 according to one writer. A later protest by the 
 members from Colleton County premising how elections 
 should be free and indifferent, and how no alien not specially 
 qualified may elect or be elected to serve in the assembly, 
 proceeds to describe how the rights of Englishmen had been 
 violated, the ancient usages and customs of the province 
 broken, and the act for regulating elections ignored. 
 
 " For so it was, may it please your Lordships, that at the said Elec- 
 tion, much threat'nings, many intreaties & other unjustifiable actions 
 were made use of, & illegal and unqualify'd votes given in to the Sheriff, 
 & by him receiv'd & returned; particularly the votes of very many un- 
 qualify'd Aliens were taken & enter'd, the votes of several Members of 
 the Council were fil'd & receiv'd, a great number of Servants & poor & 
 indigent persons voted promiscuously with their Masters & Creditors, 
 as also several free Negroes were receiv'd, & taken for as good Electors 
 as the best Freeholders in the Province. So that we leave it with 
 Your Lordships to judge whether admitting Aliens, Strangers, Ser- 
 vants, Negroes, &c., as good and qualified Voters, can be thought any 
 ways agreeable to King Charles' Patent to Your Lordships, or the Eng- 
 lish Constitution of Government." ' 
 
 The assembly which met after these election frauds was 
 naturally not a peaceable one. The governor, by proroga- 
 tions, prevented an investigation of the last election, and 
 then turned popular attention to an expedition to attack the 
 Spaniards at St. Augustine.* At the next meeting of the 
 assembly, the lower house took steps to prevent trouble at 
 the next election. Accordingly, a bill was twice passed in 
 the lower house " for the settling of Elections for the future, 
 
 * McCrady, I, 374. 
 ' Hewatt, I, 150. 
 
 • Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 455. 
 *Ibid., 455-456. 
 
138 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 and for granting as much freedom to the French and other 
 AHens as could be granted by the Assembly, or the French 
 reasonably expect." ^ These bills, the contents of which are 
 not known, were rejected by the governor and council with- 
 out granting a conference. Perhaps it was with design that 
 a more stringent election law was not passed, and aliens and 
 unpropertied persons excluded from the suffrage. The dis- 
 senters claimed that the election of 1703 was accompanied 
 with greater irregularities than occurred at the former one. 
 Now, it was said " Jews, Strangers, Sailors, Servants, Ne- 
 groes and almost every French Man in Craven & Berkly 
 County came down to elect, & their Votes were taken, & 
 the Persons by them voted for were returned by the Sheriff, 
 to the manifest wrong & prejudice of other Candidates." ^ 
 
 The assembly so elected is one of the memorable legis- 
 latures of South Carolina. Whether truly representative of 
 the population or not, — and the historians differ as to the 
 proportions of churchmen and dissenters at this time, — it 
 was strongly in favor of the English church, and in sym- 
 pathy with the plans of the proprietors and the governor for 
 a church establishment.* The coalition of High Church- 
 men and French Huguenots had given the former control of 
 the assembly, and they now proceeded to turn the tables upon 
 the dissenters who had attempted to cut out the French 
 from political privileges, by presently passing an act which 
 would exclude the dissenters themselves from the assembly. 
 The act of May 6, 1704, in a lengthy title and preamble, 
 stated its purpose to be the " more effectual preservation of 
 the government," by requiring the members of the commons 
 house of assembly to take certain oaths, conform to the 
 
 'Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 457; Oldmixon, in Carroll, Collections, 
 II, 425- 
 
 'Ibid., 459. The authors of the Colleton County Representation say 
 that the French, owing to their ignorance of the English language, were 
 often made tools of and imposed upon. They advised legislation by an 
 English assembly, for, they say, " we can't imagine that we do them any 
 hurt, by making good and wholesome Laws for us & them, since we 
 oblige them by no Laws whatsoever, or upon any account, then what we 
 ourselves are obliged by, & live under.'' 
 
 "Hewatt, I, 149-153. 163-170; Oldmixon, in Carroll, Collections, II, 
 418, 436 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 139 
 
 Church of England, and take the Lord's Supper according 
 to the service of that church.^ Disavowing a desire to perse- 
 cute for the sake of religion, the act stated that many con- 
 tentions and animosities had been created by admitting per- 
 sons of differing religious sentiments into the assembly, and 
 that a policy of restricting membership to Churchmen had 
 been adopted by the English House of Commons.^ The act 
 required all persons elected to the assembly to present evi- 
 dence that they had partaken of the Lord's Supper accord- 
 ing to the rites of the Church of England; or that, feeling 
 themselves unworthy to partake, they regularly attended 
 divine services according to the English form.* 
 
 Under the new act even a Churchman might be incon- 
 venienced, for there were only two Anglican churches in the 
 colony,* and to either of these the member must journey and 
 receive the sacrament ; and, indeed, it was claimed that most 
 of the members who voted for the measure had been con- 
 stant abstainers from the sacrament.® A most unjust clause 
 provided for the seating of the candidate having the next 
 highest number of votes, when a dissenter refused to qualify 
 according to the act. Thus were the dissenters to taste the 
 pains of political disqualification which they had recently 
 been anxious to impose upon the Huguenots. In Colleton 
 County, out of 200 electors, only fourteen were qualified to 
 serve in the assembly; and at the election of 1705 only ten 
 voters from this county came to the election in Charleston, 
 where they voted for fourteen candidates and the sheriff 
 returned the ten having the highest number of votes.^ 
 " Craven and Berkley Counties were so streightned by 
 the qualifying act, that they had not 20 men to represent 
 
 " Statutes at Large, II, 232 ; Trott's Laws, 1, 105. 
 
 ' This was not true. 
 
 " The proprietors ratified this act, sometimes called the " Occasiona' 
 Act," and the church act passed at the same time. The English House 
 of Lords petitioned the Queen against the acts, but nothing came of 
 this opposition. For full account of these events, see McCrady, I, 
 
 406-445. 
 
 * McCrady, I, 408. 
 
 " Oldmixon, in Carroll, Collections, II, 434- 
 
 • Carroll, Collections, II, 41- 
 
140 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 them, unless they would choose a dissenter, or a man not fit 
 to sit in the assembly." ^ 
 
 In 1704, while the Church party was in power, they passed' 
 two other important acts in addition to the church acts ; one- 
 for the regulation of elections, and the other for the natu- 
 ralization of aliens. The reason for passing the election act 
 was said to be the many and troublesome complaints which, 
 lately had been presented to the assembly, and their con- 
 sideration which consumed too much time, and interfered 
 with " more necessary and publick business." ^ The voters' 
 qualifications were apparently not changed from those re- 
 quired by the act of 1696-97, but we have the full text of 
 the law for the first time. It is provided 
 
 " That no person whatsoever, under the age of one and twenty years, 
 shall have right to vote for any member of Assembly in any county or 
 precinct whatsoever, and that no person whatsoever, which hath less 
 than fifty acres of land in possession, or value of ten pounds, in money, 
 goods, chattels or rents, and which doth not personally reside and' 
 dwell in the county or precinct for which he doth vote for, or pretend" 
 to choose members of Assembly, by the space of three months before- 
 the dates of the writts for election shall have right to vote for members 
 as aforesaid." 
 
 The fifty acres and the ten pounds provision had probably 
 been a part of the disallowed act of 1692, and of that of 
 1696-97; while the three months' residence had already 
 been adopted in the latter act.* 
 
 Persons not residing in any county were to be permitted 
 to vote with the next adjoining county or precinct ; sheriffs- 
 were authorized to administer an oath to persons whose- 
 qualification was in doubt; and all county or precinct 
 officers were forbidden to serve in the assembly. A posi- 
 tive prohibition of proxy voting, similar to such provisions- 
 in other colonies, was a part of this measure : 
 
 " That every election for members of Assembly shall be in some open 
 and publick place, and that no person whatsoever, here qualified to vote,. 
 
 * Carroll, Collections, II, 441. 
 'Statutes at Large, II, 249-251. 
 
 • See p. 13s. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 141 
 
 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." ' 
 
 The polls were to be open from 8 to 12 in the forenoon and 
 from 2 to 6 in the afternoon on not more than two days. 
 After the adjournment on the first day, the sheriff was di- 
 rected to " 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 contending party;" which is presumptive evi- 
 dence that voting was performed by ballot. It is remark- 
 able, indeed, that throughout the history of South Carolina, 
 voting was uniformly by ballot ; we have seen a subscribing 
 of hands in the first election of councillors at Port Royal in 
 1670; some form of subscription or ballot was also probably 
 used in the other early elections; and from 1683 onward 
 to 1904 the ballot has been invariably used.^ 
 
 Aliens were not formally excluded from the suffrage by 
 this act, and only a year earlier the assembly by vote had held 
 that aliens, if otherwise properly qualified, could vote under 
 the law of 1696-97. But now, either to reward their late 
 friends, or to place their right to vote beyond question, an 
 act for the naturalization of foreigners was passed.^ This 
 law permitted aliens to be naturalized and admitted to all 
 the rights of English citizens upon taking the oath of alle- 
 giance to the Queen, and the oath of abhorrency against the 
 Pope's pretended power of deposition. But no alien could 
 sit in the assembly; and none could vote for assembly 
 members unless he was qualified according to the terms of 
 the act of 1704. This was the first general naturalization 
 
 ^ Proxy voting had already been forbidden by the proprietors as early 
 as 1683. In Barbadoes, by acts of 1709 and 1713, sheriffs, election 
 officers, and candidates, not being able to visit several polling places 
 when properly qualified in each, were permitted to send "Letters" to 
 the election officers of other parishes, giving their votes therein. Acts 
 of Assembly Passed in the Island of Barbadoes, From 1648 to 171S 
 (London, 1721), pp. 271, 280. 
 
 'McCrady, I, 199, note, says, "There never has been an election in 
 South Carolina except by ballot, as far as is known." 
 
 'Act of November 4, 1704, Statutes at Large, II, 251; Trott's Laws, 
 I, 107. 
 
142 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 act which was enacted, since that of 1696-97 applied only 
 to aliens then resident in the province, and gave them only- 
 three months to accept its terms. The act, although perhaps 
 a party measure dictated by party policy, served, neverthe- 
 less, as nothing else could do, to incorporate the foreigners 
 into the life of the community. An occasional reference is 
 made to Frenchmen in the accounts of the succeeding elec- 
 tion, but from that time they disappear as a distinct party 
 from the colonial political life, and the alien question, which 
 had troubled the country for twenty years, was now set at 
 rest. 
 
 Even after the act regulating elections had been passed in 
 1704, we still hear of election evils. " Masters of ships" 
 were sought after as voters; and "violence" still accom- 
 panied the elections.^ In order to protect their work, the 
 assembly went so far as to extend their own terms of office f 
 but the governor failed to respect this act and dissolved the 
 legislature shortly afterwards. The objectionable religious 
 acts of 1704 were repealed in November, 1706, and there- 
 after the factional animosities and election contests grew 
 less virulent. A great excitement was, indeed, aroused at 
 the time of the election of Robert Gibbes as governor upon 
 the death of Governor Tynte in 1710;^ but Gibbes was 
 shortly after superseded by Charles Craven, who assumed 
 control in 1712.* Under Governor Craven the popular ex- 
 citement ceased, and we are told that " The assembly in his 
 time was not elected, as formerly, in a riotous and tumultary 
 manner, but with the utmost harmony and regularity, and 
 proceeded to their deliberations with great temper and mu- 
 tual friendship." ^ 
 
 The following four years, apparently so peaceful for the 
 colony, were in reality storing up wrath against the pro- 
 prietors. A number of things combined about 171 7 to make 
 the proprietary government peculiarly obnoxious to the col- 
 onists, and led to the demand for the assumption of political 
 
 ' Oldmixon, in Carroll, Collections, 11, 441-443. 
 
 'Statutes at Large, II, 266. 
 
 'McCrady, I, 489-491. 
 
 * Ibid., S05. 
 
 ' Hewatt, I, 200. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 143 
 
 control by the Crown. One of the first of these facts was 
 the Yamassee Indian war which broke out early in 171 5; 
 and, after the perpetration of horrible atrocities by the In- 
 dians, was suppressed only by supreme exertions and great 
 expense on the part of the colonists.^ The weakness of the 
 proprietary government was clearly shown in the course of 
 this war, while its narrow policy was evidenced at the close 
 of the war, when it forbade the provincial authorities to 
 protect their frontier by colonizing five hundred Irish upon 
 the deserted Indian lands.^ Most unwisely, too, the pro- 
 prietors had placed a number of the colonial offices in the 
 hands of two unpopular men,* Nicholas Trott and his 
 brother-in-law, William Rhett ; who thus were enabled to ex- 
 ercise wide political power, and interfere with elections of 
 members of assembly at the general elections in Charleston.* 
 The proprietors gave Trott a practical veto upon all the busi- 
 ness of the council and upon legislation by forbidding the 
 transaction of any business unless he was present at the 
 council meeting.^ Quarrels also arose inevitably over the 
 quit-rents due to the proprietors, and concerning the dis- 
 position of the profits of the Indian trade. To these causes 
 for dissatisfaction, the proprietors added another, which at 
 length drove the people of their province into open insur- 
 rection. 
 
 In 1 716, after Governor Craven had left the colony, the 
 assembly passed a number of important and popular meas- 
 ures, among which was one for the appointment of a public 
 receiver, another for the laying of duties upon slaves and 
 goods imported into the colony, and another for regulating 
 elections. The last of these is the one which has most value 
 for our purposes. 
 
 It has been noted that the assembly elections were all held 
 in Charleston; and although members were said to be 
 elected for one or another of the counties, yet the voters of 
 
 'For account of this war, see McCrady, I, S30-5S6; Hewatt, I, 212- 
 230. 
 •Hewatt, I, 229-230. 
 •McCrady, I, 528-529; Hewatt, I, 231. 
 
 * Hewatt, I, 232. 
 
 • McCrady, I, 529- 
 
144 "^he Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 all counties must assemble in Charleston on the two days of 
 election, and there decide upon their county representatives. 
 The burden and inconvenience of such a plan must have been 
 felt at an early day, and for a time the proprietors favored 
 the holding of elections in the localities. In 1683 they di- 
 rected that ten assemblymen should be chosen at Charleston 
 and ten at London in Colleton County,^ but this method ap- 
 parently did not become the custom,^ and the proprietors 
 " issued their commands in vain." In 1690 the proprietors 
 write that they have received information that it is found 
 troublesome and expensive for the inhabitants to come to 
 Charleston, and they therefore advise that the county of 
 Berkeley should be divided into four election precincts.* In 
 1697 the proprietors again revert to the subject, proposing 
 the formation of districts; and adding that if the inhabit- 
 ants of Charleston object, the governor may propose to erect 
 them into a corporation with the usual privileges.* The last 
 clause may give us the reason why the change was not 
 earlier accomplished; the Charleston inhabitants would be 
 benefited in many ways, and would gain considerably 
 greater influence in the elections if they were held in the 
 city, and their representatives in the assembly would doubt- 
 less oppose any district system. 
 
 But the proprietors themselves later favored these elec- 
 tions in Charleston, perhaps because they could be more 
 easily influenced than a number of separate elections in dis- 
 tant country towns. Trott and Rhett, the proprietary work- 
 ers, gained a " great Sway in the Elections," ® which were 
 often conducted for their purposes in a tumultuous fashion. 
 Several grand juries had presented these Charleston elec- 
 tions as a public evil,® and at last in 1716 the assembly took 
 
 " Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 406-7. 
 
 ' Collections S. C. Hist. Soc, I, 124. 
 
 ' Elections in Charleston are referred to in Hewatt, I, 232, 255 ; Car- 
 roll, Collections, II, 148, 159, 162, 318, 441 ; McCrady, I, 198-200, 282, 
 etc. 
 
 * Collections S. C. Hist. Soc, I, 142. 
 
 'Proceedings of the People of South Carolina, Carroll, Collections, 
 II, 149- 
 
 * Statutes at Large, II, 683. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 145 
 
 steps to district the colony and hold the elections in the 
 parish churches. Trott and Rhett, believing their influence 
 would be lessened " by this new Method," endeavored in 
 vain to prevent the passage of the bill ; the assembly passed 
 the act and sent it to England for ratification.^ It was said 
 that of this act, " the People were very fond; finding it gave 
 them a greater freedom of Election, and was more to them 
 than going out of their respective Counties to Charles 
 Towne." ^ 
 
 The act of December 15, 1716,* is entitled "An Act to 
 keep inviolate and preserve the freedom of Elections, and 
 appoint who shall be deemed and adjudged capable of choos- 
 ing or being chosen Members of the Commons House of 
 Assembly." The preamble states that " the far greatest part 
 of the inhabitants in their respective counties of this Prov- 
 ince, are at a considerable distance from the stated places 
 of election, whereby they are at great expense of time and 
 money, besides all other hazards in comeing to choose mem- 
 bers of the Commons House of Assembly ;" and that " the 
 several counties of this Province are divided into distinct 
 parishes, so that in them elections for members of the Com- 
 mons House of Assembly may be managed so as in a great 
 measure to prevent the bad effects of the present manner of 
 electing the said members." Following then the election 
 laws of Barbadoes, as Mr. McCrady has pointed out,* the 
 law provided for the use of the parishes, already established 
 by the church acts of 1704 and 1706, as election districts; 
 for the holding of elections in the churches or other con- 
 venient places between sunrise and sunset on not more than 
 two successive days; and appointed the church-wardens as 
 managers of the elections. The existence of the paper ballot 
 is shown by the following excerpts : 
 
 " Upon the closing of the poll, at convenient hours in the time of the 
 aforesaid election [the church wardens] shall put all the votes then 
 
 ^Carroll, Collections, II, I49- "Ibid. 
 
 'Statutes at Large, II, 683-691. 
 
 * McCrady, I, s6o. See also election law of Barbadoes of 1709, Acts 
 of Assembly of Barbadoes (London edition, 1721), pp. 266-274; and 
 election law of Jamaica, 1681, Laws of Jamaica (London, 1684). 
 
146 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 delivered in and rolled up by the electors, into some box, glass or 
 paper, sealed up with the seals of any two or more of the electors that 
 are then present, and upon the opening of the poll, shall unseal the said 
 box, glass or paper, in order to proceed in the said election." 
 
 "... The names of the electors for members of the Commons 
 House of Assembly, shall be fairly entered in a book or roll for that 
 purpose provided by the church warden or church wardens of each 
 parish, to prevent any persons voting twice at the same election, and 
 that if in voting, two or more papers with persons names written 
 thereon for members of Assembly, be (upon the scrutiny) found rolled 
 up together, or more persons names be found written on any paper than 
 ought to be voted for (to which paper the elector shall not be obliged 
 to subscribe his name) all and every such paper and papers shall be 
 invalid and of no effect. . . " 
 
 The act went farther, however, than merely to establish 
 the parish as the election division, for it introduced consider- 
 able changes in the qualifications of voters and members of 
 assembly. We have seen by the act of 1704, that electors 
 must possess fifty acres of land or ten pounds value of per- 
 sonal property, and they must have resided in the county at 
 least three months before the election. The new act not only 
 changed the existing residence and property qualifications, 
 but also added religious and racial restrictions. Some fif- 
 teen years earlier complaints had been made that among 
 other unqualified persons, some Jews and negroes had voted. 
 Under the law of 171 6 these classes were excluded. The 
 act reads, 
 
 " And whereas it is necessary and reasonable, that none but such 
 persons who have an interest in this Province should be capable to 
 elect or be elected members of the Commons House of Assembly, Be 
 it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That every white man, and no 
 other, professing the Christian religion, who hath attained to the age 
 of one-and-twenty years, and hath been in this Province for the space 
 of six months before the date of the writs for the election that he 
 offers to give his vote at, and upon his oath, (if required by the church 
 warden or church wardens, or any person present qualified to vote), be 
 proved to be worth thirty pounds current money of this Province shall 
 be deemed a person qualified to vote for and may be capable of electing 
 a representative or representatives to serve as a member or members 
 of the Commons House of Assembly for the parish or precinct wherein 
 he actually is resident." 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 147 
 
 Members of the assembly were required to own five hun- 
 dred pounds current money or five hundred acres of land in 
 the parish for which they were chosen. Persons owning 
 lands in certain parishes, temporarily deserted on account of 
 the Indian war, were given the strange privilege of voting 
 for representatives for the deserted parishes and not for the 
 parishes in which they were temporarily resident. Fines 
 were to be imposed upon officers making fraudulent returns, 
 and upon persons bribing or intimidating voters. Voters 
 were to be free from civil writs in going to and coming from 
 and while at the place of election. 
 
 From this summary of its provisions, it will be seen that 
 the election act of 1716 established a considerably different 
 basis for the suffrage. The franchise was now limited to 
 white Christian male citizens over twenty-one years of age, 
 who had been at least six months in the colony and who 
 actually resided in the election district wherein they voted; 
 and the fifty acres or ten pounds requirement now gave place 
 to a uniform property qualification of thirty pounds current 
 money. The latter phrase is not in itself intelligible unless 
 it is understood that as early as 1702 the colony had issued 
 paper money in the form of bills of credit. Subsequent emis- 
 sions were made in 1706, 1707, 171 2, 1716;^ and the value 
 of the currency rapidly declined. By 1714 sterling ex- 
 change was quoted at two hundred per cent,* and the end 
 was not yet reached. It is safe to say that the thirty pounds 
 currency in 1716 did not represent a greater purchasing 
 power than that of ten pounds sterling. 
 
 Weak places in the act of 1716 were soon found, and 
 scarcely six months after its passage, " an additional and ex- 
 planatory act" was found necessary. We are told that dis- 
 putes had arisen about the qualifications of voters and repre- 
 sentatives, and that the meaning of the former act "hath 
 been wrongfully wrested and perverted." ^ Judging from 
 the negative provisions which were added, it would appear 
 that apprentices or indentured servants, seafaring men, and 
 
 ' McCrady, I, 524- 
 
 'Hewatt, I, 204; Statutes at Large, II, 713; Ramsay, History of 
 South Carolina, II, 163. 
 'Statutes at Large, III, 2. 
 
148 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 other transients had participated in the elections. The sup- 
 plementary act of July 29, 1717/ made a number of minor 
 changes, almost all of which must have worked towards a 
 restriction of the sufifrage. The elector was now required to 
 reside in the parish — not merely in the province — six months 
 before the election; his property qualification was changed 
 from thirty pounds to fifty acres of freehold, or the payment 
 of taxes for the support of the government upon property 
 worth at least fifty pounds current money; and it was es- 
 pecially stated that " no apprentice or other covenanted ser- 
 vant for term of years, whether by indenture or by custom 
 of the county, nor any seafaring or other transient man, who 
 has neither freehold nor is liable to pay tax for a stock of 
 fifty pounds current money" should be deemed capable of 
 voting for representatives. Similar changes were made in 
 the qualifications of a representative, who must be a free- 
 born subject of Great Britain or the dominions belonging 
 thereto, or a person naturalized by act of parliament in Great 
 Britain or Ireland, twenty-one years of age, a resident of the 
 province for twelve months, a resident of the parish which 
 he represents, and possessed of five hundred acres of land in 
 the parish or one thousand pounds value of houses, lots and 
 lands in other parts of the province, or the same value of 
 personal property.^ 
 
 The evident purpose of this act was to approach more 
 closely to the ideal already expressed in the law of 17 16, 
 " that none but such persons who have an interest in this 
 Province should be capable to elect or be elected." The 
 change in the property qualification from thirty to fifty 
 pounds may have been due to a renewed depreciation of the 
 currency after the issue of more paper money in 171 6.* By 
 requiring this property to be taxable, the ordinary personal 
 property of uncertain value would be excluded, as the only 
 
 ^ Statutes at Large, III, 2-4. 
 
 ^ A person owning a settled plantation of five hundred acres with ten 
 able working negro slaves, under the care of at least one white man, 
 within the county where the owner resides, might be elected for the 
 parish where the plantation is situated, although not himself a resident 
 of that parish. 
 
 ^McCrady, I, 524. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 149 
 
 taxable property at this time consisted of land and negroes.^ 
 The strict residence requirements, both of voters and repre- 
 sentatives, were also intended to include only those having 
 " sufficient evidence of permanent common interest" ^ with 
 the community ; yet these restrictions were at variance with 
 the usual practice in the colonies and the uniform custom of 
 England. 
 
 But the work which the colonists had built up with such 
 pains in the election acts of 1716 and 171 7, the proprietors 
 determined should be overthrown by a stroke of their nulli- 
 fying pen. Trott and Rhett had been writing to England 
 and urging the proprietors to disallow the election laws to- 
 gether with several other recent acts.* Accepting their side 
 of the question, the proprietors on July 22, 1718, placed their 
 veto upon the election laws. They say : 
 
 " We have likewise read and considered two Acts of Assembly 
 . . . and finding the said two Acts tend to the entire alteration and 
 subversion of the Constitution of the Province of South Carolina, and 
 are contrary to the laws and customs of Parliament in Great Britain, 
 we therefore do declare the two last mentioned Acts to be null and 
 void, and we do hereby repeal, nullifie and make void the said two 
 Acts, and every clause, matter or thing therein contained whatsoever." * 
 
 With the repeal of the election law the proprietors directed 
 that the assembly should be dissolved, and a new one be 
 elected in Charleston according to the old method.® The 
 governor and council tried to conceal these instructions, but 
 the substance of them became known and, joined to the dis- 
 allowance of other popular laws, led to great excitement in 
 the colony. Governor Johnson did not put himself in full 
 accord with the popular sentiment, and, on the other hand, 
 he received the proprietary reprimand for not carrying the 
 orders into immediate execution.® 
 
 * See tax act of 1721, Statutes at Large, III, I49-IS7- 
 
 ''Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776, Section 6; the phraseology is most 
 interestingly similar to the South Carolina act of 1716, Statutes at 
 Large, II, 688. 
 
 ' Carroll, Collections, II, 149 ; Hewatt, I, 232. 
 
 * Statutes at Large, III, 31 ; McCrady, I, 626-628. 
 
 = Carroll, Collections, 150, 160. ' Ibid., IS8-IS9 ; Hewatt, I, 240, 246. 
 
150 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 " Thus the People were irritated and heated to a violent 
 Degree, and the Basis of all Government being either Love, 
 Fear or Interest, or perhaps any two, or a Mixture of all 
 the three, but in this there was neither one nor the other." ^ 
 The popular movement increased in strength until a general 
 association was formed in 1719, "to stand by their Rights 
 and Privileges, and to get rid of the Oppression and Arbi- 
 trary Dealings of the Lords Proprietors." ^ Governor John- 
 son was requested by the leaders to assume the government 
 under the King, and when he refused to do so, the assembly 
 elected by his writs denied the authority of the proprietors 
 and the council, and called themselves " the Representatives 
 of the People;" " a Convention, delegated by the People, to 
 prevent the utter Ruin of this Government, if not the loss of 
 the Province, until His Majesty's Pleasure be known." * To 
 this Johnson replied: 
 
 " It is not the People's Voting for you, that makes you become their 
 Representatives ; the Leige People of this, nor any other Province have 
 Power to convene and chuse their Representatives without being author- 
 iz'd so to do by some Writ or Order coming from Authority lawfully 
 impower'd." * 
 
 Finding Johnson firm in his intention to stand by the pro- 
 prietary rights, the Convention elected Colonel James Moore 
 as governor; opposed Johnson by force; and at last pro- 
 vided for an election of councillors ; " so they had now their 
 Governor, Council, and Convention (as they call'd them- 
 selves)." ^ By this armed uprising of the people the pro- 
 prietary authority in the colony was overthrown, and its 
 place was taken by a revolutionary government which 
 looked, not in vain, to the English government for recogni- 
 tion. The de facto subversion of the proprietors' govern- 
 ment in the colony in 1719 was followed by a de jure denial 
 of their power by the Crown's officials in England, and by 
 
 ' Carroll, Collections, II, 160. 
 'Ibid., 165. 
 ^lUd., 168-169. 
 'Ibid., 176. 
 ^Ibid., i8o--i83. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 151 
 
 the appointment of a royal governor and a provisional gov- 
 ernment in September, 1720.^ 
 
 Before this contest had reached its final stage still another 
 election law had been passed.^ This act of March 20, 1718- 
 19 expressed in strong language the popular satisfaction 
 with the new method of holding elections : 
 
 " The choosing members of the Commons House of Assembly for 
 this Province, by parishes or precincts, had been found by experience 
 to be the most easy, just and least expensive and hazardous method 
 that can be devised and approaches nearest to the form and method of 
 choosing or electing members in other his Majesty's dominions and 
 plantations, and not liable to the inconveniences that attended any other 
 method heretofore used or practised in this Province." 
 
 The act continued the suffrage requirements of the act of 
 171 7, but it strengthened the prohibition upon servants by 
 inserting the word free in the phrase describing the voting 
 class ; thereby limiting the franchise to " every free whife 
 man (and no other)," who possessed the several require- 
 ments as laid down in the former act. 
 
 The property qualifications of assemblymen were changed 
 considerably. The representative was no longer required to 
 be a resident of the district he represented, nor must he pos- 
 sess the necessary property within the district. The personal 
 property qualification was, however, omitted, and the new 
 requirement was the possession within the province of a 
 settled plantation of five hundred acres with six slaves upon 
 it, or one thousand pounds value in houses, buildings, town 
 lots, or other lands in any part of the province. The method 
 of balloting shows clearly that provision was made for a 
 secret ballot: 
 
 " Each person qualified to vote as is above directed shall put into a 
 box or sheet of paper prepared for that purpose by the said church- 
 wardens or other persons, as is above directed, a piece of paper rolled 
 up, wherein is written the name of the Representatives he votes for, 
 and to which paper the elector shall not be obliged to subscribe his 
 name." 
 
 ^We cannot here enter into the English side of this story. For a. 
 full account, see McCrady, I, 665-673. 
 
 ' Statutes at Large, III, So-SS- 
 
152 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 A few other minor changes were made particularly in the 
 apportionment of representatives, but with the exception of 
 the qualifications of assemblymen, the act of 1718-19 fol- 
 lowed closely the terms of the act of 171 7. The opinions so 
 strongly expressed in the preamble did not deter the pro- 
 prietors from still further opposing public sentiment, and on 
 July 24, 1719, they write that they " can by no means con- 
 sent" to the act.^ The controversy about the election acts 
 then became a prominent cause of the revolution of 1719, 
 and one of the first resolutions which the " convention" 
 adopted was one declaring certain of the repealed acts to be 
 still in force.^ In February, 1719-20, when the convention 
 had decided that they were again an assembly, they declared 
 the election act of 1 718-19 to be in force,^ and it was so 
 treated until formally repealed about a year and a half later. 
 
 South Carolina's overthrow of the proprietary govern- 
 ment was thus intimately associated with the right of free- 
 dom of elections. After 171 6, the assembly was engaged in 
 passing many important economic measures, and the people 
 of the province undoubtedly felt that these measures could 
 not be attained without a more reasonable process of elect- 
 ing their representatives. The people could not be ade- 
 quately represented, nor could the elections be kept free from 
 undue influence so long as Charleston was the only polling- 
 place. In South Carolina, as in Georgia, a true representa- 
 tive system could be gained only by overthrowing the per- 
 sonal control of proprietors or trustees, and accepting the 
 royal form of government, in which, by this time, a definite 
 and adequate system of representation was a fundamental 
 fact. 
 
 The provisional royal government had been in power but 
 a short time when still another election law was passed, and 
 the earlier ones repealed. Governor Nicholson's instruc- 
 tions * may have tended to restrict the suffrage, for they di- 
 rected him to permit freeholders only to vote for represen- 
 
 ' Statutes at Large, III, 69. 
 ' McCrady, I, 649 ; Hewatt, I, 259. 
 
 ' Statutes at Large, III, 103 ; act of February 12, 1719-20. 
 'Collections S. C. Hist. Sac, II, 145-147. Analyzed in McCrady, 
 History of South Carolina under the Royal Government, 25-33. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 1 53 
 
 tatives, while the law of 171 8-1 9 had given the right to 
 freeholders of fifty acres, or persons owning taxable prop- 
 erty to the amount of fifty pounds current money. Nichol- 
 son's first assembly in September, 1721, therefore, revised 
 the election laws, changing but slightly the machinery of 
 election or the qualifications of representatives, but imposing 
 new qualifications upon voters.^ 
 
 " Every free white man, and no other person, professing the Chris- 
 tian religion, who has attained to the age of one and twenty years, and 
 hath been a resident and an inhabitant in this Province for the space 
 of one whole year before the date of the writs for the election he 
 ofifers to give his vote at, and hath a freehold of at least fifty acres of 
 land, or hath been taxed in the precedent year twenty shillings, or is 
 taxed twenty shillings the present year, to the support of this Govern- 
 ment, shall be deemed a person qualified to vote for, and may be capable 
 of electing a representative or representatives to serve as a member or 
 members of the Commons House of Assembly, for the parish or pre- 
 cinct wherein he actually is a resident, or in any other parish or pre- 
 cinct wherein he hath the like qualifications." 
 
 It will be noticed that the provisions of the acts of 171 7 
 and 1 7 19 requiring a voter to be a resident for six months of 
 the parish in which he votes, are now changed to a require- 
 ment of a residence in the province for one year. The fifty 
 acres freehold is still retained ; but the fifty pounds taxable 
 property gives place to the annual payment of twenty shill- 
 ings taxes. 
 
 The tax-paying basis for the suffrage does not ostensibly 
 conform to the governor's instructions calling for elections 
 by the freeholders; but an inspection of the tax-laws of 
 the time during which this act was in force (1721-1745) 
 shows that freeholders or slaveholders were practically the 
 only taxpayers. Thus the rates of 1721 placed a levy of five 
 shillings upon every one hundred acres of land, and an un- 
 certain amount upon every negro, mulatto or Indian slave.* 
 A person who paid twenty shillings taxes would thus own 
 eight times the minimum amount of land required for the 
 
 ' Statutes at Large, III, 135-140. 
 'Ibid., 149-157- 
 
154 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 sufifrage, or else be a slaveholder.^ In 1724 the rates were 
 again five shillings on the hundred acres of land, and a defi- 
 nite tax of twenty shillings on each slave between the years 
 of seven and sixty.^ This act shows the relative values of 
 land and negroes, for it practically makes one slave equiva- 
 lent in value to four hundred acres of land. Down to 1734, 
 it may be presumed that the tax-paying qualification for the 
 suffrage limited that privilege to landholders and slave- 
 holders. After 1734 a tax on mercantile stocks and cash, 
 and later upon all white male persons was laid ; ^ but these 
 do not appear to have been permanent. In 1739 the taxes 
 are only ten shillings on slaves and ten shillings on every 
 one hundred acres of land.* 
 
 For over twenty years after 1721 the election act re- 
 mained unchanged.^ Governor Johnson's instructions of 
 1729 again directed that the assembly should be elected by 
 the freeholders ; * but it was not until after Governor Glen's 
 arrival in the colony that any change was made. By a sub- 
 sequent letter Glen shows his opposition to the ballot which 
 had been a part of South Carolina's elections from the first ; 
 and he may have been the author or proposer of the measure 
 which limited the sufifrage in 1745. The act of May 25, of 
 that year, plainly tells its purpose in the title, " An Act for 
 enlarging the qualifications of the Electors, as well as of 
 the Persons to be elected to serve as Members of the General 
 Assembly of this Province." "^ 
 
 Beyond the purposes given in the preamble of this act, I 
 
 'The act provided for the raising of £17,248 6d. by a tax of five 
 shillings on each one hundred acres of land ; and a pro rata assessment 
 of the remainder upon all the negro, Indian, Mustee, and mulatto 
 slaves between the years of seven and sixty. 
 
 ° Act of May 24, 1724, Statutes at Large, III, 238-245. 
 
 ' Statutes at Large, III, 386, 438. 
 
 'Ibid., 527. 
 
 °It has been said that the act of 1721 was disallowed in 1730; but if 
 such is the case, the disallowance was not recognized in the colony; 
 E. L. Whitney, The Government of the Colony of South Carolina, J. 
 H. U. Studies, XIII, 49. 
 
 ' McCrady, II, 93. 
 
 ' Statutes at Large, III, 656. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 155 
 
 have found no reason for its passage. We are told that " it 
 may be of evil consequence to give a right to any person or 
 persons to vote . . . who are late residents, and are not 
 possessed of a sufficient freehold and personal estate, and it 
 may be of equal detriment to admit any person or persons to 
 serve as Members of Assembly who are not amply quali- 
 fied." The act is, therefore, passed for " the augmenting 
 and enlarging the qualifications" of both elected and elect- 
 ors. The " augmentation" consisted in changing the quali- 
 fication from the holding of fifty acres of freehold or the 
 pajrment of twenty shillings taxes, to the following form : 
 
 " Every free white man, and no other person, professing the Chris- 
 tian religion, who has attained to the age of twenty-one years, and hath 
 been a resident and inhabitant in this Province for the space of one 
 year before the date of the writs issued for that election for which he 
 offers to give his vote at, and hath a freehold estate in a settled planta- 
 tion, or not less than three hundred acres of land unsettled, for which 
 he paid tax the precedent year, or hath a freehold in houses, lands or 
 town lots, or parts thereof, of the value of sixty pounds proclamation 
 money, in Charleston, or any other town in this Province, for which 
 he paid tax the precedent year, shall be deemed a person qualified to 
 vote for and is hereby declared capable of joining in the election for a 
 representative or representatives to serve as a member or members of 
 the Assembly for that parish or precinct wherein he is actually a resi- 
 dent, or in any other parish or precinct where he hath the like qualifi- 
 cations." 
 
 The radical nature of the changes introduced by this act 
 can be seen when it is noticed, that, for the first time since 
 1692, the suffrage is placed solely upon a freehold basis, a 
 policy which the act of 1759 reversed. Again, this free- 
 hold requisite was now considerably " augmented ;" the sim- 
 ple fifty acres being replaced by either (i) a settled plan- 
 tation, or (2) unsettled but taxable land to the amount of 
 three hundred acres, or (3) other forms of real estate to the 
 value of sixty pounds proclamation money} These pro- 
 visions must have raised the qualifications to about five or 
 
 ' £100 sterling was worth about £133 proclamation money ; while at 
 this time (174S) the South Carolina currency was circulating at the 
 ratio of £700 currency to £100 sterling (Hewatt, II, 14). 
 
156 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 six times what they had previously been. I have found no 
 facts to show to what extent they cut down the actual num- 
 ber of voters, but, especially in Charleston, the act must have 
 excluded some of the poorer electors. 
 
 The aristocratic features of the act were further increased 
 by permitting plural voting, and giving the freeholder a vote 
 in any parish in which he was properly qualified.^ The same 
 tendency is seen in the higher qualifications of representa- 
 tives, who were now required to possess a settled plantation 
 or freehold of five hundred acres of land with twenty slaves, 
 over and above all indebtedness, or value of one thousand 
 pounds proclamation money in houses, lots or other lands in 
 the province clear of all debts. The passage of such a law 
 is evidence of a decided increase in the economic well-being 
 of the governing classes, for it is unlikely the assembly 
 would pass such a law unless they expected the approval of 
 their constituents. It is proof, too, that the artisan and mer- 
 cantile classes of the town were politically insignificant ; and 
 furnishes indirect evidence of the truth of Hewatt's state- 
 ment that the merchants, artisans, and tradesmen established 
 themselves upon plantations in the country as soon as they 
 had accumulated sufficient capital to buy the necessary slaves 
 and lands.^ The act is a result, not a cause, of the economic 
 and political predominance of the planter in South Carolina 
 life. 
 
 Whatever may have been Governor Glen's share in the 
 passage of this election law, there can be no doubt that he 
 was opposed to the democratic secret ballot of South Caro- 
 lina, and wished to displace it by the English method of viva 
 voce voting. Writing to the English authorities he urges 
 the abolition of many elective offices in both church and 
 state; and said that the colony would be safer the closer it 
 adhered " to the customs at home." Elections by ballot 
 should also be avoided because " any person who attends the 
 
 ' It is said that large property owners took advantage of this clause 
 to vote in several parishes ; and that the practice later resulted in sec- 
 tional controversy between the low country and the uplands. See W. 
 A. Schafer, Sectionalism and Representation in South Carolina, Amer. 
 Hist. Assn. Report, igoo, I, 352. 
 
 ' See Hewatt, II, 127-130. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. 1 57 
 
 balloting box, may with a very little slight of hand, give the 
 election to whom he pleases." ^ He further criticised the 
 method of apportionment of representatives by which some 
 places received no representation and others obtained far 
 more than their just share. So far as we can see these 
 propositions of Governor Glen's were without result. 
 
 Only one more election law was passed between 1745 and 
 the Revolution. This was the act of April 7, 1759,2 which 
 changed the suffrage in the direction of a wider electorate. 
 The preamble to this act was similar to that of the act of 
 1745. and gives no hint to the reader that the law may bring 
 about an extension of the suffrage. The section defining the 
 qualifications of electors is more elaborate than any hereto- 
 fore adopted. 
 
 " From and after the determination of this present General Assem- 
 bly, every free white man, and no other person, professing the Prot- 
 estant religion, who shall have obtained the age of twenty-one years, 
 and shall have been a resident and inhabitant in this Province for the 
 space of one year, at any time before the date of the writ to be issued 
 for that election at which he shall offer to give his vote, and shall have 
 a freehold estate in a settled plantation, or not less than one hundred 
 acres of land unsettled, for which he shall have paid tax the preceding 
 year, or shall have a freehold estate in houses, lands or town lots or 
 parts thereof, of the value of sixty pounds proclamation money situate 
 in Charleston, or any other town in this Province, for which he shall 
 have paid tax the preceding year, or shall have paid the sum of ten 
 shillings proclamation money for his own proper tax the preceding year, 
 shall be deemed a person qualified to vote for, and is hereby declared 
 capable of voting at the election of, a representative or representatives, 
 to serve as a member or members of the Assembly, for the parish or 
 precinct where such elector shall be actually resident, or for any other 
 parish or precinct where he shall have the like qualifications." 
 
 The most striking innovation of the act is the substitution 
 of the word " Protestant" for " Christian" used in all the 
 earlier laws. We are again, unfortunately, left without any 
 reason for the change, and it seems the more remarkable 
 that the exclusion of Catholics from the suffrage should 
 
 ^ Collections of S. C. Hist. Soc, II, 305. 
 ^ Statutes at Large, IV, 98-101. 
 
158 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 come at such a late time. Such treatment has been noticed 
 in many of the other colonies, but in them it came early in 
 the eighteenth century, when the restoration of the exiled 
 Stuarts was not yet considered an impossibility. 
 
 In South Carolina in 1759 there could be no fear of the 
 Stuarts, but a number of Catholics had about two years 
 earlier been brought into the province. It may be that the 
 act was directed against these French Acadians, who had 
 been dispersed by the English government, and over a thou- 
 sand of whom arrived at the port of Charleston; ^ but of this 
 I have found no proof. 
 
 Important changes were also made in the property quali- 
 fications of voters. Four alternatives were now offered to 
 the prospective voter ; he might vote by virtue of the owner- 
 ship of a settled plantation as formerly ; or by owning one 
 hundred acres of unsettled taxable lands in place of the 
 earlier three hundred acres ; or on account of sixty pounds 
 value in proclamation money of houses, lots or lands in any 
 town in the province; or by virtue of the payment of ten 
 shillings (proclamation money) taxes during the preceding 
 year. The country franchise was thus extended by lower- 
 ing the alternative qualification from three hundred to one 
 hundred acres of freehold; and, on the other hand, it is 
 likely the suffrage among the town population was extended 
 by permitting those paying a certain amount of taxes to vote 
 in the assembly elections. Looking at the tax-assessments 
 at about this time, it is to be noticed that the earlier restric- 
 tion of taxes to slaves and land is not retained; but in 1758, 
 in addition to taxing slaves thirty-six shillings each and 
 land at the same amount for each one hundred acres ; a tax 
 of eighteen shillings was also assessed upon every one hun- 
 dred pounds at interest, four per cent, of the income was 
 levied upon annuities, and cattle, when a person owned over 
 thirty, were taxed two shillings and six pence a head.^ In 
 proclamation money these taxes would be only one-fifth the 
 amounts stated in the law. Yet making allowance for the 
 difference in the value in money, it is evident that the ten 
 shillings tax would open the suffrage to some persons, par- 
 
 ' McCrady, II, 326. See also Statutes at Large, IV, 31. 
 ' Act of May 19, 1758 ; Statutes at Large, IV, 54. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. . 159 
 
 ticularly in the towns, who did not possess the necessary 
 freehold qualification. 
 
 It has been said that the causes for the passage of the law 
 of 1759 have not been found by the writer. It is interesting 
 to note, however, that only three years later, the Virginia 
 legislature also passed an act which extended the suffrage; 
 and the questions naturally arise, whether there were any 
 conditions in the southern colonies in the fifteen years pre- 
 ceding the Revolution which called for an extension of the 
 suffrage, and if so, in what way this extension of the suf- 
 frage affected the revolutionary movement in that part of the 
 country? The records are not yet available for the prepara- 
 tion of answers to these questions. 
 
 Little need be said concerning the local suffrage of South 
 Carolina, for, apart from the parish officers, there were ab- 
 solutely no local elective officials. An instruction of May, 
 1 67 1, had provided for the monthly election by the inhabi- 
 tants of every town of " one or two of ye discreetest men" 
 to " truck w* ye Indians for Beades ;" ^ but this regular ap- 
 portionment of the Indian trade does not appear to have 
 been made. In 1697 the proprietors proposed the erection 
 of Charleston into a municipal corporation,^ but such a step 
 was not taken until almost ninety years later, when both the 
 proprietary and royal governments had been displaced.* 
 Under both of these governments the affairs of Charleston 
 were controlled by commissioners appointed by acts of the 
 legislature, vacancies in whose numbers were sometimes 
 filled by themselves or by the appointment of the governor.* 
 Local officers to look after roads, bridges, and the naviga- 
 tion of small streams were appointed in the same way.^ 
 
 It was in the parish alone, therefore, that any popular 
 election for local officials took place, and this parish election 
 system was a remarkably liberal one. Instead of the perma- 
 nent close corporation of the Virginia parish, the South 
 
 'Rivers, Sketch, Appendix, 368. 
 ' Collections S. C. Hist. Soc, I, 142. 
 
 * The city was incorporated in 1783 by act of legislature ; see Statutes 
 at Large, VII, gfj. 
 
 * Statutes at Large, VII, 53, 55, 59, 74, 89. 
 
 * Ibid., 478, 480, 485, 495 ; IX, 49-57, 163, 184, 190, 203, 229, 246, etc. 
 
i6o The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Carolina vestrymen were chosen annually, and the ministers 
 were elected by the people and not by the vestry. Parishes 
 in South Carolina were erected by the act of 1704/ entitled 
 " An Act for the Establishment of Religious Worship in 
 this Province, according to the Church of England, and for 
 the erecting of Churches for the Publick Worship of God, 
 and Ministers and the building convenient Houses for 
 them." The electors, both of the ministers and vestrymen, 
 were to be conformists to the Church of England, inhabi- 
 tants of the parish, and either freeholders or taxpayers of 
 the parish. 
 
 " The severall rectors or ministers of the severall parishes shall be 
 chosen by the major part of the inhabitants of the said parish, that are 
 of the religion of the Church of England and conform to the same, 
 and are either freeholders within the same parish, or that contribute 
 to the publick taxes and charges thereof." " 
 
 No change in this method of electing vestrymen or ministers 
 was made by the great Church Act of 1706,^ nor by the sub- 
 sequent acts relating to the subject during the colonial 
 period. The suffrage here was broader than in Maryland, 
 where an elector must be a tax-paying freeholder of the 
 parish ; but it did not differ much from the freeholders and 
 housekeepers of the Virginia parish elections. The most 
 marked distinction between the South Carolina vestry and 
 those of her neighbors was in the fact of its annual election ; 
 and this proved a most desirable feature, by which the in- 
 conveniences, carelessness and even corruption of the North 
 Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland vestries were avoided. 
 To this annual election of vestrymen and the popular elec- 
 tion of ministers much of the strength of the South Caro- 
 lina church has been attributed ; but there can be no doubt 
 that other economic and religious influences aided what 
 would otherwise have been only a piece of ecclesiastical 
 machinery. Perhaps the feature which made the South 
 Carolina vestry government so successful as compared with 
 
 ' Act of November 4, 1704, Statutes at Large, II, 236-246. 
 
 ' Ibid., 239. 
 
 ' Act of November 30, 1706, Statutes at Large, II, 282-294. 
 
The Suffrage in South Carolina. i6i 
 
 that of North CaroHna or Virginia was the fact that only 
 members of the Church of England could vote for vestry- 
 men or ministers. 
 
 In conclusion, then, we may summarize the suffrage pro- 
 visions here noticed. South Carolina began with an elector- 
 ate, which, on account of the ease of securing land, was 
 practically synonymous with free manhood. Some mer- 
 chants and artisans later settled in the colony, particularly 
 in Charleston, and a tax-paying or personal property quali- 
 fication was made an alternative with the freehold basis. 
 From 1692 onward, with the exception of the interval from 
 1745 to 1759, the laws were so worded that landless men 
 might vote, if they paid sufficient taxes or owned a certain 
 amount of personal property. Perhaps unconsciously, the 
 proprietors at first encouraged popular elections, by their 
 anxiety to establish a parliament in the form provided for 
 in the fundamental constitutions. Later they opposed a 
 more popular elective system, and for this reason as well as 
 others lost their province. The suffrage question comes 
 very prominently to the front in colonial politics in South 
 Carolina. On three occasions it is the principal theme be- 
 fore the people; first in the last decade of the seventeenth 
 century in connection with the political status of the Hugue- 
 nots ; secondly, in the first decade of the eighteenth century 
 when it took the form of irregularities in elections and an 
 attempt to establish religious qualifications of representa- 
 tives; and, thirdly, in 1716-1719, when there arose a popu- 
 lar demand for a method of election which would permit a 
 more accurate representation of the community. Under the 
 royal government the suffrage franchise did not become a 
 cause of popular excitement. Three great laws were passed 
 bearing upon the subject, those of 1721, 1745, 1759; but 
 these laws do not appear to have been the result of popular 
 clamor or interest. 
 
 The voter throughout the whole period must be a male 
 person over twenty-one years of age; after 1716 he must 
 be of the Christian religion, and of the white race. In 171 7 
 apprentices and servants were prohibited from voting, and 
 in 1 7 18-19 the word "free" was inserted before "white 
 man;" while in 1759 the word "Protestant" was substi- 
 
 II 
 
1 62 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 tuted for "Christian." Before 1696-97 there was appar- 
 ently no residence qualification upon voters, but from that 
 year a residence of three months was required. This was 
 raised to six months in 1716 and to one year in 1719, at 
 which point it remained throughout the colonial period. The 
 property qualification of fifty acres freehold prescribed by 
 the fundamental constitutions may have been observed in 
 the early years; but from 1692 to 171 6 the elector was per- 
 mitted an alternative of the ten pounds property (presum- 
 ably real or personal). In the latter year the requirement 
 was simply thirty pounds current money, but in 171 7 this 
 was changed to fifty aci'es of land or fifty pounds currency 
 value in taxable property; and the latter alternative was 
 again changed in 1718-19 to the payment of a tax of twenty 
 shillings. In 1745 the tax-paying basis is abolished, and the 
 fifty acres gives place to a settled plantation or three hun- 
 dred acres of unsettled land or sixty pounds proclamation 
 money value in town houses or lands. Lastly, in 1759 the 
 unsettled freehold was cut down to one hundred acres, and 
 the tax-paying basis was restored. 
 
 The student of the suffrage in this colony is impressed by 
 the breadth of the suffrage in a community which possessed 
 so many features of economic aristocracy. Frequent popu- 
 lar elections both in church and state were open to the free- 
 holders and taxpayers of the colony upon a comparatively 
 broad basis. And these elections, at first perhaps conducted 
 by the subscribing of names to one sheet of paper or by 
 proxy voting, soon came to be determined solely by written 
 paper ballots deposited by the voter himself in some crude 
 form of a ballot-box. The viva voce voting of the free- 
 holder of New York or Virginia here gives way to the 
 democratic ballot of the South Carolina taxpayer. 
 
CHAPTER VI-. 
 The Suffrage in Georgia. 
 
 Peculiar circumstances attended the settlement of Geor- 
 gia. The experience of the recent Indian and Spanish wars 
 had demonstrated the weakness of the southern frontier/ 
 and a plan which would populate this border land with Eng- 
 lish paupers and debtors, thus serving both utilitarian and 
 charitable purposes, commended itself to the Crown as 
 " highly becoming." As so frequently the case in philan- 
 thropic enterprises, the recipients of the charity in Georgia 
 were expected passively to take what was given, and Oliver 
 Twists were not included in the calculations of Oglethorpe 
 or the other trustees. Thus it happened that a type of gov- 
 ernment similar to the petty military despotism in Old Vir- 
 ginia was established in another colony a century and a quar- 
 ter after the Virginia settlement was made. 
 
 The royal charter of June 9, 1732, placed the colony in 
 the control of the twenty trustees and their associates or 
 successors, who, in their legislative powers, were restricted 
 only by the necessity of submitting their laws for approval 
 to the king in council, and the limitation that the laws, con- 
 stitutions or ordinances be not repugnant to the laws of 
 England.^ During the term of twenty-one years, all persons 
 in the colony were to be subject to laws made in this man- 
 ner. The corporation had the right for the same period to 
 appoint such governors, judges, magistrates or other civil 
 and military officers as were thought fit and needful ; at the 
 end of twenty-one years the colony should be given a form 
 of government and manner of passing laws determined by 
 the king, and receive a governor appointed by the Crown.^ 
 
 Under the terms of this charter the settlers received a 
 
 ' Preamble to Georgia charter, Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I, 
 
 369. 
 'Ibid., 373-374- 
 'Ibid., 377- 
 
 163 
 
164 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 surfeit of paternal legislation. The trustees met in London 
 in July, 1732, to begin the work of organizing the colony/ 
 and in the rules for settlement they never lost sight of the 
 military purpose of the colony. The settlers were provided 
 with tools and arms; their land allotments were to be laid 
 out in the neighborhood of towns and must not exceed fifty 
 acres in amount for each family; the lands were held on a 
 military tenure, and to make this sure, they were entailed in 
 the male line. The land must be cultivated within twelve 
 months after the grant, and the settler was required to plant 
 at least one hundred white mulberry trees for every ten 
 acres that he cleared,^ in order to encourage the silk culture, 
 which was a favorite project of the trustees. Slavery was 
 forbidden because it might injure the poor free laborers, and 
 a little later the manufacture or trade in rum or brandy was 
 prohibited.^ 
 
 The colony which settled at Savannah in 1733 was under 
 the control of Oglethorpe. No provision was made for a 
 general organization of the colony except in his person. A 
 town court composed of three bailiffs and a recorder assisted 
 by two constables and two tithingmen was established for 
 Savannah before the expedition left England,* but this court 
 possessed only judicial powers, while all other governmental 
 authority rested in their leader. It is difficult to define the 
 authority so exercised, for it extended to any economic, 
 political or military policy which seemed necessary to Ogle- 
 thorpe. There can be no question that in the main he used 
 the authority with discretion, and on some occasions even 
 called meetings of the inhabitants to discuss the afifairs of the 
 colony.^ But generally he issued orders as would a mili- 
 tary commander, without consultation with any one.® Such 
 action, while it may have been necessary, often led to dis- 
 content among those who felt themselves injured by it.'^ 
 
 ' Hugh M'Call, The History of Georgia, I, 16. 
 
 ^ Ibid., 22. 
 
 " Ibid., 25, 29. 
 
 * Collections of Georgia Historical Society, I, 95, 177 ; II, 282. 
 
 ^ Ibid., 11, III, 239. 
 
 ° Ibid., 109 ; III, 73. 
 
 ''Ibid., II, 146-149; Stevens, History of Georgia, I, 220-222. 
 
The Suffrage in Georgia. 165 
 
 The single town court of Savannah was later joined by a 
 second one at Frederica/ and both were supported by ap- 
 propriations from the Trustees' treasury.^ The officials of 
 these courts were appointed by the Trustees, while the 
 settlers exercised no share whatever in their government.* 
 Next to Oglethorpe, by far the most powerful man in the 
 colony, was the keeper of the Trustees' store, from which 
 supplies were distributed to the inhabitants. This officer, 
 sometimes also holding the position of bailiff of Savannah, 
 possessed almost the power of life and death over the 
 settlers; and he is described by one grand jury as having 
 " the dangerous power in his hands of alluring weak-minded 
 people, to comply with unjust measures, and also overawing 
 others, from making just complaints and representations" to 
 the Trustees.* 
 
 Oglethorpe's personal government continued until 1741, 
 when the Trustees divided the province into two counties, 
 established a president and four assistants as a governing 
 board at Savannah, and promised the same form of gov- 
 ernment for Frederica.^ But Oglethorpe retained his per- 
 sonal control of affairs in the south along the Spanish 
 frontier, and the Frederica county organization was never es- 
 tablished. Upon the General's return to England, the presi- 
 dent and assistants at Savannah were, in 1743, declared the 
 supreme political authority for the whole colony ; ^ and in 
 this form the government continued until the surrender to 
 the Crown. Throughout the period of trusteeship there 
 were no regular elections, either for local or general officers, 
 and no lawful representative system whatever. 
 
 But if the Trustees did not grant a popular government, 
 they could not prevent occasional meetings of the settlers,, 
 nor could they stifle the petitions of Englishmen seeking 
 redress of grievances. Both the charity-settlers and the 
 
 ' Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 95, 292. 
 
 'Ibid., II, 307; III, 90. Augusta may have received one magistrate 
 (ibid., II, 95)- 
 'Ibid., II, 160-161, 202, 233, 282. 
 *Ibid., 141, 233. 
 
 ° Stevens, I, 224-225 ; Jones, History of Georgia, I, 416. 
 "Stevens, I, 226. 
 
1 66 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 volunteers found themselves narrowly hedged in by the 
 theoretical rules of the Trustees respecting land tenures, quit- 
 rents, the silk culture, the rum traffic, and the use of negro 
 slaves. The multitude of grievances might, in other col- 
 onies where the danger of Spanish or Indian warfare did 
 not exist, and where the Trustees' store did not dispense 
 its blessings, have led to actual rebellion; but here it pro- 
 duced a great emigration to South Carolina, and called forth 
 a crop of protests, petitions and representations to the Eng- 
 lish authorities. 
 
 In the preparation of these petitions the colonists fre- 
 quently used the old English institution of the grand jury, 
 which was as near as they ever reached to a legal represen- 
 tative body. At other times the protests were the fruit of 
 simple gatherings of the freeholders and inhabitants. In 
 July, 1735, only two years after the settlement, the free- 
 holders signed a petition representing to the Trustees the 
 expensiveness of white servants, the profitableness of negro 
 slavery, and protesting against the acts of the store-keeper, 
 who had ruled all the other magistrates, so that they became 
 " in a manner but ciphers." ^ In 1737 the grand jury again 
 protested against the acts of the store-keeper, Thomas Caus- 
 ton; they asked for more servants, and particularly they 
 pointed out " the many inconveniences, for want of a body 
 of the laws and constitutions of this province."'' In 1738 
 a still stronger movement led to the signing of a petition 
 by 117 freeholders and settlers, praying for a modification 
 of the land system and for the admission of negro slaves ; * 
 and in 1740, twenty-four of the " most respectable" settlers 
 petitioned for the privilege of introducing slaves.* 
 
 The popular dissatisfaction reached a higher plane of 
 organization in 1741. On the seventh of October, of that 
 year, a meeting " of Landholders, Settlers and Inhabitants" 
 was held at Savannah to discuss their grievances and the 
 best mode of obtaining redress. The assembly appointed 
 Thomas Stevens as agent to represent the facts to various 
 
 ^ Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 200-201 ; Stevens, I, 290. 
 
 'Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 141, 211; Stevens, I, 290. 
 
 ' Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 217-222 ; Stevens, I, 279, 295, 297. 
 
 * Stevens, I, 291. 
 
The Suifrage in Georgia. 167 
 
 officials in England, and then selected a committee of corre- 
 spondence composed of five persons. The proceedings of 
 this meeting are signed by 123 persons, and letters favoring 
 its actions were received from eighteen absentees.^ In the 
 instructions which the committee of correspondence gave to 
 the agent, he was told to solicit " That a regular govern- 
 ment be established in Georgia, as in other of his Majesty's 
 provinces in America," ^ as well as the various economic 
 reforms which had been previously demanded. 
 
 Gradually some of the reforms were granted. The new 
 general government under president and assistants was an 
 improvement over the local courts ; the land laws were soon 
 made less strict; and the prohibition of the rum trade was 
 removed. Even the prohibition of slavery, the last ideal of 
 the Trustees, was broken down by the hiring of slaves on 
 long term leases from their Carolina owners.® Yet an ac- 
 count published in London in 1743 said the colony was a 
 failure, and gave a list of the causes for its ill-success.* 
 These were said to be ( i ) the too flattering descriptions of 
 the land circulated in Europe; (2) the entailment of estates 
 in the male line; (3) restrictions upon the sale of lands; (4) 
 restrictions upon the size of land grants; (5) the various re- 
 quirements with respect to the clearing, fencing and plant- 
 ing of lands; (6) higher quit-rents than the richest lands 
 in America could bear; (7) the prohibition of negro labor; 
 and certain political disadvantages which were expressed as 
 follows : 
 
 "8. The denying us the privilege of being judged by the laws of our 
 mother country; and subjecting the lives and fortunes of all people in 
 the colony to one person or set of men, who assumed the privilege, 
 under the name of a Court of Chancery, of acting according to their 
 own will and fancy. 
 
 "9. General Oglethorpe's taking upon him to nominate magistrates, 
 appoint justices of the peace, and to do many other such things, with- 
 
 'Co«. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, IS3-IS4; Stevens, I, 300; Jones, I, 416. 
 
 " Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, i55- 
 
 'For this gradual introduction of negroes, see M'Call, I, 206 ff.; 
 
 Stevens, I, 285-312. 
 ' Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 262-263. 
 
1 68 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 out ever exhibiting to the people any legal commission or authority 
 for so doing." ^ 
 
 Popular elections and a representative system at last de- 
 veloped out of the widespread desire for the introduction of 
 slavery. Early in 1749 another public meeting had been 
 held, and another petition praying for liberty to introduce 
 slaves was drawn up. The president and assistants called 
 in some of " the principal People of the Colony," ^ and upon 
 their advice drew up the petition and a set of proposed regu- 
 lations governing the slave system. The petition was signed 
 by the president, assistants and many of the inhabitants, and 
 certified with the town seal of Savannah.^ This meeting 
 and petition are the true germ of popular government in the 
 colony. When the action of the Georgia officers and in- 
 habitants became known in England, the Trustees at last 
 resolved to permit the introduction of slavery under certain 
 restrictions. And upon sending their proposed regulations 
 to the president of the colony they say, " as you took into 
 Consultation with you upon this Affair several of the prin- 
 cipal People of the Colony, when you propos'd the Regula- 
 tions which occurr'd to you, you must assemble such again 
 that they may see the Regulations upon which the Trustees 
 think proper to form the Act." * In this manner, the slave 
 question led to the first assembly of citizens which met under 
 the authority and with the approval of the Trustees. 
 
 In October, 1749, a convention which met in accordance 
 with this instruction was composed of about twenty-seven 
 persons,^ chosen from the different districts.^ I have found 
 no record of the method of choice in the localities, nor of the 
 manner of assignment of representatives. In the absence 
 of any law upon the subject, the elections, if held at all, 
 must have been managed quite informally. The assembly 
 
 * Coll. Ga. Hist. Soc, II, 262-263. 
 'Jones, I, 422. 
 
 'Ibid., 422-423; Stevens, I, 311. 
 'Jones, I, 423; M'Call, I, 209; Stevens, I, 311. 
 
 " So says Stevens, and Jones, of course, follows him ; M'Call gives 
 only twenty-three representatives. 
 'M'Call, I, 209. 
 
The Suffrage in Georgia. 169 
 
 adopted substantially all the regulations suggested by the 
 Trustees, and then the members signed their names to a 
 paper requesting the introduction of slavery under these 
 restrictions. The twenty-seven signers are said to be of the 
 " highest respectability in the province." ^ 
 
 This extraordinary assembly was followed shortly by pro- 
 vision for an annual meeting of representatives, who were 
 to meet not for purposes of legislation, but in order that the 
 Trustees might be made acquainted with the state of the 
 province, " the better to enable them to procure all the ad- 
 vantages they can for the good of the people, and provide 
 for the welfare and security of the province." ^ The assem- 
 bly was to meet for not longer than one month " at the most 
 leisure time," in each year. Every village, town, or dis- 
 trict having ten families settled within its limits, was en- 
 titled to send a representative, and those having thirty 
 families could " depute two persons." Savannah should 
 have four deputies; Augusta and Ebenezer each two, and 
 Frederica, if thirty families were inhabiting there, the same 
 number.^ 
 
 The assembly could only " propose, debate, and represent 
 to the Trustees what shall appear to them to be for the bene- 
 fit, not only of each particular settlement, but for the prov- 
 ince in general ;" * since legislative power was by the charter 
 vested solely in the Trustees. The representatives were to 
 furnish an account of the population, land cultivation, negro 
 servitude, and productions of the districts which they 
 severally represented. No qualifications for the suffrage 
 were set, but those of representatives were established in the 
 strangest manner. 
 
 "From and after the 24th day of June, 1751. no person shall be 
 capable of being chosen a deputy who has not one hundred mulberry 
 trees planted, and properly fenced, upon every fifty acres he possesses; 
 and that from and after the 24th day of June, I7S3. no person shall be 
 capable of being chosen a deputy who'has not strictly conformed to 
 
 ^Stevens, I, 312; Jones, I, 42S; M'Call, I, 209 ff. 
 
 ° Stevens, I, 245. 
 
 "Stevens, I, 246; Jones, I, 434-435; M'Call, I, 231. 
 
170 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 the limitation of the number of negro slaves in proportion to his white 
 servants, who has not at least one female in his family instructed in 
 the art of reeling silk, and who does not yearly produce fifteen pounds 
 of silk upon fifty acres of land, and the like quantity upon every fifty 
 acres he possesses." ' 
 
 " Thus tenaciously," says Stevens, " did the Trustees 
 cling to some of the original purposes of their settlement; 
 and so strangely did they engraft upon the legislature of 
 Georgia the unusual qualifications, not of freehold and in- 
 come, but of mulberry trees and raw silk, as constituting 
 eligibility to a seat in the assembly. This was sealed, and 
 became the law of the Trustees, on the 27th of March, 
 1750." ^ In no other part of the American colonies shall 
 we find a more absurd political qualification than this im- 
 posed by the philanthropic Trustees of Georgia. 
 
 But the government of the Trustees was fast approaching 
 its close. It had proved a " philanthropic, agricultural, in- 
 dustrial, commercial, and governmental" failure.^ Even be- 
 fore the Trust's twenty-one years of legal duration had ex- 
 pired, it felt the necessity of surrendering its authority to 
 the Crown, and on June 23, 1752, the transfer to the Crown 
 was completed, the last meeting of the Trustees was held, 
 and their seal broken.* After this the Board of Trade 
 recommended to the king that the colony be organized with 
 a governor, an assembly, and courts of judicature, under 
 regulations well adapted to the circumstances of the colony.® 
 And accordingly, on August 6, 1754, the King in Council 
 appointed John Reynolds as governor of the colony. 
 
 In the new governor's commission and instructions, the 
 suflfrage, for the first time in Georgia, was expressly defined. 
 The electors of members of the " Commons House of As- 
 sembly" were to be freeholders who possessed at least fifty 
 acres of land in the parish or district where they voted; 
 
 ' Stevens, I, 247. 
 
 'Ibid. Compare the equally extreme measures taken by Frederick 
 the Great to establish silk culture in Prussia. 
 ^Ihid., 313. 
 
 * Stevens, I, 252-258 ; Jones, I, 450-460. 
 ' lUd., 381 ; Ibid., 460. 
 
The Suffrage in Georgia. iji 
 
 while members of the assembly were required to possess at 
 least five hundred acres of land in any part of the province. =^ 
 The assembly was given legislative power similar to as- 
 semblies in other royal colonies. Now the silk-worm and 
 mulberry tree prerequisites gave place to a rational qualifica- 
 tion for suffrage or office-holding; and the old information- 
 giving group of deputies was displaced by a truly represen- 
 tative legislative assembly. 
 
 The first assembly met in January, 1755, and was com- 
 posed of nineteen members, who were apportioned among 
 three districts, into which the governor, for convenience, 
 divided the colony.^ Some excitement was caused in the 
 assembly by the actions of one Edmund Gray, who had 
 fraudulently gained a representative's land qualification, and 
 who even tried to assemble the freeholders in Savannah to 
 intimidate the assembly. He and his friends were expelled 
 from the legislature.* 
 
 The suffrage qualification came up for consideration in 
 this first assembly, for it was found that the terms of the 
 governor's instructions limiting the suffrage to those own- 
 ing fifty acres of land would disfranchise many of the in- 
 habitants in towns. Owing to the exposed situation of the 
 colony, it had been the policy of the Trustees and of Ogle- 
 thorpe to settle the people in towns, where they could be 
 easily protected; and in carrying out this policy the fifty 
 acres of each settler were often divided between a home lot 
 in the town, a few acres in the commons, and the remainder 
 in farm land near the town.* After the alienation of lands 
 was permitted, it is probable that many owners of town lots 
 did not possess any other land. To remedy the inequalities 
 which the uniform suffrage requirement would produce, the 
 assembly was forced to appeal to the English government, 
 since no law in the colony could change the governor's in- 
 structions. The assembly said, in a memorial to the king, 
 that according to the instructions 
 
 'Jones, I, 464. 
 
 ' Stevens, I, 389, 392 ; Jones, I, 474. 
 'Stevens, I, 3?fi-399- 
 
 'Ibid., 107, 137. Compare Penn's apportionment of lots in Philadel- 
 phia. 
 
172 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 " residents in towns having buildings and improvements greater in 
 value than five hundred acres, were not permitted to sit in the Assem- 
 bly; and freeholders of town lots liable to pay taxes for the support 
 of government, were not permitted to vote for representatives, though 
 the value of their one or two town acres greatly exceeded the fifty 
 acres by which many others became qualified to vote." ^ 
 
 In England the Board of Trade considered this memorial 
 during May and July, 1755,^ and referred the matter to the 
 lords justices. In November of the same year an additional 
 instruction was prepared for the governor, according to 
 which he was authorized to assent to a bill for ascertaining 
 the qualifications of electors upon the condition that the bill 
 be first submitted for approval to his Majesty, or that it 
 contain a clause suspending the execution of the act until 
 the king's pleasure should be known.* The power thus 
 granted does not appear to have been exercised. 
 
 In 1 76 1 an act was passed " To assertain the manner and 
 form of Electing Members to represent the Inhabitants of 
 this Province in the Commons House of Assembly."* The 
 preamble states that the manner and form of choosing mem- 
 bers had never yet been determined. The act does not 
 change the property qualifications of voters as they had been 
 in 1754. The suffrage clause reads: 
 
 ■' every free white man and no other who has attained to the age of 
 Twenty One years and hath been Resident in the Province Six Months 
 and is legally possessed in his own Right of fifty Acres of Land in 
 the said Parish District or village for which the Member or Members 
 is or are to be elected to represent in the General Assembly shall be 
 deemed a person qualified for Electing a Representative or Representa- 
 tives to serve as Member or Members of the Commons House of 
 Assembly for the Parish District Town or village wherein he is pos- 
 sessed of the above Qualification.'' 
 
 ' Stevens, I, 412 ; Jones, I, 489. 
 
 'MS. Board of Trade Journals (in Pa. Hist. Soc), Vol. 63, pp. 184, 
 185-186, 276, 280. 
 
 'Ibid., 320, 321, 324. 
 
 'Title only given in Watkins's Digest, 67; in full in Bishop, Elec- 
 tions in American Colonies, 279-287. 
 
The Suffrage in Georgia. 173 
 
 Thus in spite of the eariier protest of the townspeople, the 
 old requirement was continued, and, indeed, retained with- 
 out change until the Revolution. 
 
 The general conduct of elections was carefully defined by 
 the act of 1761. The returning officer was to prepare a book 
 and enter therein the names of all persons presenting them- 
 selves as candidates, leaving " a fair column" under each 
 candidate's name. It was the duty of the officer to repeat 
 distinctly the name of the candidate for which each elector 
 voted, and then to enter the elector's name in the " fair col- 
 umn" under the candidate's name. Voters were forbidden 
 to alter their votes after once casting them, and could not 
 vote twice at " one and the same Election." Candidates 
 were to be free-born subjects of Great Britain or the domin- 
 ions belonging thereto, or naturalized persons, professing 
 the Christian religion; they must be twenty-one years of 
 age ; residents of the province twelve months before the date 
 of the election writ, and possessed of five hundred acres of 
 land in the province. Either electors or candidates could be 
 compelled to swear that they were properly qualified. The 
 polls were to be open from nine in the morning until six in 
 the afternoon on not more than two days ; and fines were to 
 be imposed for intimidation or bribery in elections. 
 
 This act is the only general election act passed in the 
 colony of Georgia, and its suffrage provision of fifty acres 
 of freehold, taken from the governor's instructions, is the 
 only legal qualification for electors which the colony pos- 
 sessed. In the same way the elections for representatives 
 are the only ones of which any record has been found ; pre- 
 sumably all other officers were appointed by the Crown or 
 the governor.^ 
 
 ^It is very much regretted that none of the original materials of 
 Georgia history was accessible to the writer, except those published 
 in the Collections of the Historical Society. It is believed that a much 
 more detailed account of the suffrage and representation than that 
 given above could be obtained from the known extant material. Un- 
 fortunately, I have not had the opportunity to inspect these manu- 
 scripts. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Suffrage in New York. 
 
 I. Under the Dutch, 1 613-1664. 
 
 I. The Provincial Suffrage. 
 
 About fifteen years of colonial life in New Netherland 
 passed without any apparent popular participation in the 
 government. Under the control of the New Netherland 
 Company, the Dutch colony was merely a trading settle- 
 ment, and during the early years of the West India Com- 
 pany no provision was made for giving the colonists a share 
 in the government. It was not until the patroon concessions 
 of 1629 were issued that we find evidence of a change of 
 policy. By these concessions ^ broad feudal political and 
 economic rights were given to persons bringing out a certain 
 number of settlers. But in addition to the mediaeval terms 
 respecting patroons, the concessions also offered inducements 
 to individual settlers, and among other privileges gave the 
 colonies lying on each river or island the right to appoint 
 deputies every two years to give information annually to 
 the Commander and his Council.^ 
 
 These provisions might have furnished the basis for a 
 regular representative system had they been adhered to by 
 the directors in New Amsterdam; but, in fact, it was thir- 
 teen years after the granting of the concessions before a 
 partially representative body was called, and over twenty 
 years until, in 1658, a truly representative assembly was 
 summoned. 
 
 Three quasi-representative boards were erected by the 
 directors,—" The Twelve Men" of 1642, " The Eight Men" 
 of 1643-44, and "The Nine Men" of 1647-1650. The 
 Twelve Men were selected to advise Director Kieft concern- 
 
 ' O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, I, 1 12-120. 
 'Articles XXI and XXVIII. 
 174. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 175 
 
 ing the impending war with the Indians, and, naturally, in 
 this first and hasty election, we see no formal ideas of the 
 suffrage. The twelve committeemen were chosen by a meet- 
 ing " of all the masters and heads of families" of New Am- 
 sterdam and vicinity, which had been called by the director.^ 
 The board tried to induce the director to recognize them as 
 a permanent part of the government, but he refused their 
 demands, saying they had been chosen only to consult con- 
 cerning the Indian affairs ; but the director did promise that 
 he would consult with persons among the commonalty re- 
 garding taxation and other public matters.^ In this way the 
 governor offered to recognize informally the wishes of the 
 community, although he refused to provide a permanent 
 representative system. 
 
 The recurrence of Indian troubles ^ again forced Kieft to 
 call a general meeting of the settlers, in which, according to 
 a document signed by those present, only forty-eight persons 
 took part.* The commonalty, strangely, refused to select a 
 committee to represent them, but asked the director to nomi- 
 nate persons from their number, who might be accepted or 
 rejected by the meeting; and the director and council nomi- 
 nating eight men, the choice was accepted in a paper signed 
 by twenty-eight persons.^ 
 
 This meeting and the papers signed by those present show 
 how slim was the attendance at such gatherings, and how 
 narrow the occasional suffrage granted to the " masters and 
 heads of families." O'Callaghan estimates the population in 
 and around New Amsterdam at this time as about twenty- 
 five hundred souls, five hundred of whom were men.® If 
 these figures be correct, the meeting can scarcely be called a 
 democratic one; and we have no proof that it was a repre- 
 sentative body, although persons might have been present 
 from the neighboring settlements. Apparently this meeting, 
 like a later one, was composed only of " some of the most in- 
 
 ' O'Callaghan, New Netherland, I, 241 ; Brodhead, New York, I, 3i7- 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc., I, 202-203. 
 
 = Ihid., 181-185. 
 
 * Ibid., 191. 
 
 'Ibid., 192; O'Callaghan, I, 283. 
 
 ' O'Callaghan, I, 385-386. 
 
176 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 fluential burghers and inhabitants" of New Amsterdam and 
 its vicinity.^ It is thus rather difficult to interpret the real 
 meaning of the word " commonalty," and the meagreness 
 of the records leaves us in doubt whether participation in 
 the meeting was limited by definite action of the director or 
 by the reluctance of the people to attend. A system of proxy 
 voting would have solved the difficulty of inadequate means 
 of transportation, but there is no evidence pointing to the 
 existence of such a plan. The method which arose nat- 
 urally in Massachusetts and Maryland, and developed later 
 on Long Island under the English, appears totally lacking in 
 New Netherland.2 
 
 The Eight Men appointed by the director with the consent 
 of the commonalty placed a broad construction upon their 
 powers. They expelled one of their number and elected 
 another in his place; they passed local ordinances, adopted 
 measures for the prosecution of the Indian war, and de- 
 manded that taxes be laid only with their consent.^ They 
 wrote to the West India Company and the States General of 
 the Netherlands and threatened to betake themselves to the 
 English if their condition was not improved.* The follow- 
 ing year, 1644, the Eight Men, angered at Kieft's action in 
 imposing unpopular taxes, sent a long protest to Holland, 
 in which they spare no words to describe the director's lack 
 of judgment in dealing with the Indians and his arbitrary 
 rule over the Dutch.^ They say, — 
 
 *iV. F. Col. Doc, XIV, 220. Without doubt the difficulty of reach- 
 ing New Amsterdam from the neighboring Long Island and mainland 
 settlements would prevent a full gathering of even the heads of fami- 
 lies. Compare the reluctance to accept freemenship and perform politi- 
 cal duties in Massachusetts and Maryland, Mass. Col. Rec, II, 38; 
 Md. Archives, Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 1637-64, pp. 167, 
 170. 
 
 ' Proxy voting existed in the English town of Gravesend under the 
 Dutch rule (AT. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 329), and may have been customary 
 in other English towns, but it was not applied to the whole province 
 {Hempstead Town Records, I, 409). 
 
 = O'Callaghan, I, 285-1288. 
 
 * N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 139-140, 190. 
 
 "Ibid., 188, 209-213. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 177 
 
 " It is impossible ever to settle this country until a different system 
 be introduced here, and a new governor sent out with more people, 
 who will settle in suitable places, one near the other, in the form of 
 villages or hamlets, and elect from among themselves a Bailiff or 
 Schout and Schepens, who will be empowered to send their deputies 
 and give their votes on public affairs with the Director and Council, 
 so that the entire country may not be hereafter, at the whim of one 
 man, again reduced to similar danger." 
 
 With the composition and forwarding of their petition the 
 work of the Eight Men ceased, and we hear no more of their 
 organization. Kieft, however, called another meeting of the 
 commonalty in August, 1645, to which he submitted the 
 terms of a proposed treaty with the Indians, and assured 
 them " that if any one could give good advice, he might 
 declare his opinions freely." Only one person, a tailor, 
 objected to tlie treaty.^ 
 
 The petition of the Eight Men called forth proposals in 
 Holland for greater political freedom in the colony. The 
 Chamber of Accounts of the West India Company advised' a 
 formal representative assembly holding semi-annual meet- 
 ings, and having power to advise concerning almost all public 
 matters.^ But the Chamber of Accounts was more liberal 
 than the Board of XIX Directors, which was the real power 
 in the West India Company. They did, indeed, compose 
 new instructions to the director and council, but these gave 
 no power to the deputies called by the director, except to 
 inform him of the " State and condition of their Colonies." ^ 
 
 ^Brodhead, I, 408. 
 
 *"As the respective Colonies are allowed by the 28th article of 
 the Freedoms to delegate one or two persons to report their state 
 and condition to the Director and Council, at least once a year, so 
 are we of opinion that the said delegates should, moreover, assemble 
 every six months, at the summons of the Director and Council, for 
 mutual good understanding, and the general advancement of the public 
 welfare, to aid in advising them, besides, upon all affairs relating to 
 the prosperity of their Colonies, the conciliation of the Indians and 
 neighbors, the maintenance of the Freedoms and privileges, the removal 
 of abuses, and the support of the laws and statutes."— AT. Y. Col. Doc, 
 
 I, 154- 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 154- 
 
 12 
 
178 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 The petition may also have played a part in deciding the 
 company to recall Kieft and send out a new governor. 
 
 Stuyvesant had been in the colony but a short time when 
 he, too, was compelled to call in the people to assist him in 
 the wars with the Indians. He called together the people 
 of Manhattan, Breuckelen, Amesfoort, and Pavonia, and 
 directed them to choose eighteen persons from whom he and 
 the council might select nine, " as is customary in the Father- 
 land." ^ After the election by the commonalty, Stuyvesant 
 issued an ordinance in the nature of a charter of govern- 
 ment.^ In its preamble he says that he desired 
 
 " nothing more than that the government of New Netherland, en- 
 trusted to our care, and principally New Amsterdam, our capital and 
 residence, might continue and increase in good order, justice, police, 
 population, prosperity, and mutual harmony, and be provided with 
 strong fortifications, a church, a school, trading place, harbor, and sim- 
 ilar highly necessary public edifices, and improvements, to which end we 
 are desirous of obtaining the assistance of our whole Commonalty, as 
 nothing is better adapted to promote their own welfare and comfort, 
 and as such is required in every well-regulated government." 
 
 But as " it is difficult to cover so many heads with a single 
 cap, or to reduce so many opinions to one," he had directed 
 a certain number to be chosen from the community. From 
 this double nomination he now selected nine to act as the 
 " Interlocuters in behalf of the Commonalty." The ordi- 
 nance explained the duties of the Nine Men and the method 
 of holding meetings. It provided for an annual change in 
 the board upon the partial retirement principle of the Father- 
 land; six of the members were to lose their seats annually, 
 and the old board, " without its being necessary to convene 
 the entire Commonalty hereafter," should present twelve 
 new names and the old nine members to the director for his 
 choice of six new members. 
 
 " Thus jealously," says Brodhead, " did Stuyvesant hedge 
 the meagre privileges he was forced to concede to the people. 
 In the first election alone was the voice of the ' wavering 
 
 'Brodhead, I, 473; O'Callaghan, II, 36 (August, 1647). 
 "September 25, 1647; Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 
 75-78. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 179 
 
 multitude' to be expressed ; the Nine Men were to nominate 
 their successors." * 
 
 We cannot here enter into the work of the Nine Men, nor 
 look at the contest which they made for the rights of their 
 board as granted by Stuyvesant in his ordinance.^ When, 
 however, they desired a delegation to Fatherland, Stuy- 
 vesant proposed a new representative assembly, perhaps 
 hoping that the English towns on Long Island which 
 enjoyed broad privileges might support his policy against 
 the Nine Men.^ This conference, composed of deputies 
 from the " militia companies and the citizens," was scarcely 
 a representative body, for it contained only seven militia 
 officers and three citizens in addition to the company's offi- 
 cers.* The conference reached no definite conclusion, and 
 the two sides seem anxious to increase their strength by 
 inviting more deputies ; the party of the Nine Men suggested 
 the calling of two deputies from each village or colony in 
 the province, while Stuyvesant proposed summoning merely 
 deputies from the neighboring settlements." No records of 
 the projected assembly have been found. 
 
 In the following summer the Nine Men sent their famous 
 remonstrance to Europe.® This document is invaluable to 
 the student of colonial New York history, for it gives a re- 
 markably full account of the country, its resources, trade, 
 and political conditions. 
 
 The reasons for the declining prosperity of the province 
 are stated to be wholly political : 
 
 " As we shall treat of the reasons and causes by which New Nether- 
 land has been reduced to its present low and ruinous condition, so we 
 consider it necessary first to enumerate them separately; and, in ac- 
 cordance with our daily experience as far as our knowledge extends, 
 
 ' History of New York, I, 475- 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 315- 
 
 'Ibid. 
 
 * March 4, 1649; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV. 109-111; O'Callaghan, II, 90. 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 112. 
 
 'Ibid., I, 259-318, the three delegates bearing letters from the Nine 
 Men, a petition on behalf of the commonalty and a voluminous re- 
 monstrance, left New Amsterdam on August 15, 1649. 
 
i8o The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 we here assert in one word, and none better offers, that the cause is 
 bad government with its attendants and consequences. With our best 
 light we cannot perceive any other than this to be the sole and true 
 foundation-stone of the decay and ruin in New Netherland. This 
 government from which so much abuse proceeds is two-fold; to wit, 
 in Fatherland by the Company, and in this country." ' 
 
 The contest between the Nine Men and the director was for 
 the time transferred to the halls of the States General, and 
 that body considered a provisional order which. would have 
 established village governments, given a city government to 
 New Amsterdam, made two members of the director's coun- 
 cil elective, and provided for the continuance of the Nine 
 Men for three years.^ 
 
 But these proposals were met by the West India Company 
 with a seemingly liberal set of concessions,^ which actually 
 made no mention of political privileges while they increased 
 the economic inducements to settlers.* In the colony, too, 
 
 ' N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 29S. 
 ^Ibid., 387-391. 
 
 " The Council of New Netherland shall consist of a President 
 or Director; a Vice Director and of three Councillors, one of 
 whom shall be appointed on the part of their High Mightinesses 
 and the West India Company, and the other two selected from 
 the inhabitants of that country. 
 
 " For which purpose the Director and Council shall be bound 
 to call a meeting of the Patroons of Colonies, or their agents, 
 and of the deputies of the Commonalty, to be held within the 
 city of New Amsterdam for the purpose of nominating four 
 qualified persons from whom two shall be selected who shall be 
 thereunto qualified by their High Mightinesses and those of the 
 West India Company. These two elected Councillors shall 
 serve four consecutive years, but on the expiration of the afore- 
 said four years, one of the two may by lot continue two years 
 more and the other retire in order to present two others in 
 future, biennially, by a new nomination, in manner as afore- 
 said." 
 
 ' Dated May 24, 1650 ; N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 401-405. 
 
 •There can be no doubt that the West India Company did offer 
 favorable terms to settlers. In 1650 it was said that the company had 
 frequently transported the farmer and his family to New Netherland 
 
The Suffrage in New York. i8i 
 
 Stuyvesant refused to commission new members of the board 
 of Nine Men when a nomination was made to him in 
 December, 1650/ thus ignoring the order of the States 
 General of April 12, 1650, which directed the continuance of 
 the Nine Men until further orders from the States General.^ 
 The authority of the last of the three boards thus came to 
 an end. The three bodies, the Twelve Men, the Eight Men, 
 and the Nine Men, show a similarity in origin and in the 
 reasons for their failure. Each was selected from the com- 
 munity of New Netherland, either by direct voice of the 
 people or by the people ratifying the earlier choice of the 
 director. The principle which underlay their origin was not 
 a representation of localities, but of the whole community. 
 On the other hand, the work of all three ceased when they 
 came into conflict with the arbitrary power of the directors ; 
 no interference could be brooked with the authority of the 
 petty sovereigns of New Netherland or the privileges of the 
 honorable company which they represented. In the words 
 of Director Kieft regarding the Twelve Men, which un- 
 doubtedly expressed his own and Stuyvesant's later opinion 
 of the other boards as soon as their immediate advantage 
 to the director ceased, the boards tended " to a dangerous 
 consequence and to the great injury both of the country and 
 of our authority." ^ 
 
 and given him there a farm and bouwerie, four horses, four cows, and 
 sheep and pigs in proportion ; the farmer to have the use of the cattle 
 and their increase for six years; returning to the company the number 
 he had received. The farmer bound himself to pay the company one 
 hundred guilders and eighty pounds of butter yearly. {N. Y. Col. Doc, 
 
 I, 371.) 
 
 * In December, 1648, Stuyvesant renewed the board, putting in two 
 new members; and apparently a similar renewal must have taken 
 place in 1649, although I have found no record of the fact. In 1650 
 twelve nominations were made to Stuyvesant, but he refused to select 
 new members, claiming the old board had exceeded its powers {N. Y. 
 Col. Doc, I, 439, 450, 452, 455 ; O'Callaghan, II, 89; Brodhead, I, 
 495). 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 399- 
 
 'Ibid., 203. Stuyvesant for a short time had the sympathy and sup- 
 port of the English on Long Island. In 1651, Gravesend and Hempstead 
 
1 82 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 After the overthrow of the Nine Men, no such permanent 
 boards were again established, but occasional meetings, par- 
 taking of the nature of pure representative bodies, were held, 
 composed of deputies from the several towns and settlements. 
 The first record found of such a meeting is that of one called 
 by the director and council to meet on September ii, 1653. 
 The burgomasters and schepens of New Amsterdam, on 
 September 9, elected two persons to act as delegates to a 
 " general assembly of the country," ^ but no other record of 
 the meeting is known to the writer. 
 
 Later on in the same year two assemblies were held. The 
 first one met in pursuance of a call of Stuyvesant to the 
 " nearest subordinate colonies" to send deputies to meet two 
 members of the council and discuss means for stopping 
 the depredations of certain English thieves on Long Island.^ 
 
 wrote to Holland expressing their satisfaction with the government of 
 the directors. These letters have a peculiar interest in view of the 
 independent attitude shortly afterward taken by the Long Island towns. 
 
 ". . . We clearly acknowledge that the frequent changeing 
 a government or the power of electing a Governor among our- 
 selves, which some among us, as we understand, aim at, would 
 be our ruin and destruction by reason of our factious and vari- 
 ous opinions, inasmuch as many among us be unwilling to sub- 
 ject themselves to any sort of government, mild or strong, it 
 must, on that account, be compulsory or by force until the 
 Governor's authority be well confirmed ; for such persons will 
 not only despise, scorn, or disobey authority, and by their evil 
 example drag other persons along, whereby the laws would be 
 powerless, but every one would desire to do what would please 
 and gratify himself. In fine the strongest would swallow up 
 the weakest, and by means of elections or choosing, we would 
 be involved in like inconveniences. Moreover, we are not sup- 
 plied and provided with persons qualified and fit for such sta- 
 tions. Therefore, and seeing that we have nothing to bring 
 forward against our present Governor, but on the contrary, 
 truly, and in deed approving his public deportment in his ad- 
 ministration, we request that he be still continued over us, and 
 that no change be made." 
 
 ^Records of New Amsterdam, I, 117. 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 219. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 183 
 
 In addition to the councillors and New Amsterdam deputies, 
 only three towns, all English,^ were represented. The atti- 
 tude of the English was now far diflferent from their humil- 
 ity of 1651 ; they demanded protection from the West India 
 Company, and threatened if it were not granted to stop 
 paying taxes; and they urged the New Amsterdam authori- 
 ties to join them in an alliance for mutual protection.^ The 
 latter, however, suggested a full representation of all the 
 neighboring towns and the sending of a remonstrance to 
 officers of the company in Holland. The plan was adopted 
 and tacitly accepted by Stuyvesant,^ although the city magis- 
 trates and not the director invited the towns to send their 
 deputies to the second meeting.* 
 
 Deputies came to the meeting of December 10, 1653, from 
 four English towns, three Dutch towns, and from New 
 Amsterdam, but the English delegates controlled the meet- 
 ing.^ The principal work of the assembly was the drafting 
 and presentation to the director of a remonstrance which 
 was " written in English, by the Deputies from the English 
 villages." ® The petition '' recognized the divine and natural 
 origin of " paternal government," but, while acknowledging 
 the authority of the States General and the West India 
 Company, the petitioners claimed the privileges in New 
 Netherland which subjects of the Fatherland enjoyed. They 
 were apprehensive of the establishment of an arbitrary gov- 
 ernment among them : 
 
 " 'Tis contrary to the first intentions and genuine principles of every 
 well regulated government, that one or more men should arrogate to 
 themselves the exclusive power to dispose, at will, of the life and prop- 
 erty of any individual, and this, by virtue or under pretense of a law 
 or order he, or they, might enact, without the consent, knowledge or 
 election of the whole Body, or its agents or representatives. Hence 
 
 ^Gravesend, Vlissingen (Flushing), Newtown. 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 223-224; O'Callaghan, II, 238. 
 "N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 231, 239. 
 
 *Rec of New Amsterdam, I, 140; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 227-229. 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 553; XIV, 233-236. 
 
 'Ibid., I, 553. George Baxter of Gravesend was the author of the 
 remonstrance ; it was translated into Dutch before given to Stuyvesant. 
 '76«U, 5SO-SS2. 
 
184 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 the enactment, except as aforesaid, of new Laws or orders affecting 
 the Commonalty, or the Inhabitants, their lives or property, is contrary 
 and opposed to the granted Freedoms of the Dutch Government, and 
 odious to every freeborn man, and principally so to those whom God 
 has placed in a free state on newly settled lands, which might require 
 new laws and orders, not transcending, but resembling as near as 
 possible, those of Netherland. We humbly submit that 'tis one of our 
 privileges that our consent or that of our representatives is necessarily 
 required in the enactment of such laws and orders.'' 
 
 These general statements were followed by a list of specific 
 grievances.-' 
 
 Stuyvesant's first reply to the petition was an evasive one,* 
 but on December 12 he declared the assembly an illegal 
 gathering.* The following day the meeting, now calling 
 itself a " convention," replied that the director had given his 
 consent to their gathering ; and besides, the 
 
 " Convention had no other aim, than the service and protection of the 
 country, the maintenance and preservation of the freedoms, privileges 
 and property of its inhabitants, but not an unlawful usurpation of the 
 authority of the said Hon^le Director-General and Council; on the 
 contrary, their intention was to prevent illegal proceedings, while the 
 laws of Nature give to all men the right to gather for the welfare and 
 protection of their freedom and property." * 
 
 Stuyvesant gave a characteristic rejoinder to the last expres- 
 sions of the convention. The " pretended Convention" was 
 " actually declared to be illegal," and its members were called 
 
 ' Among which were the absence of any protection by the Company, 
 the enforcement of council orders which had never been published, the 
 refusal to grant deeds and patents which had been promised, and the 
 evidence of favoritism in the granting of lands. 
 
 ' He demanded a better translation of the petition and copies for each 
 member of the council ; the assembly refused both demands. 
 
 " He claimed they had exceeded their authority, and that the Dutch 
 towns had no right to send representatives {N. Y. Col. Doc., XIV, 232). 
 Since he had expressed his intention of giving them that right before 
 the meeting (Ibid., 223-4), his subsequent attitude must have come 
 from chagrin that the Dutch deputies did not give him their support 
 against the English. 
 
 'Ibid., 237. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 185 
 
 upon to disperse, and hold no more meetings, under pain " of 
 our extreme displeasure and arbitrary correction." * The 
 order was obeyed by the deputies, but their unredressed 
 wrongs smothered for a time until they broke out into the 
 flames of actual rebellion to Stuyvesant's rule. Naturally, 
 the director had the last words in the controversy. In two 
 papers ^ respecting the convention, he answered the com- 
 plaints of the deputies. Replying to their demand for all 
 the rights of subjects in Fatherland, he infers, in that case, 
 they would have the right to send deputies to the States 
 General, a line of reasoning which seems to him a reductio 
 ad absurdam. Concerning their demand for more privi- 
 leges, he said, — 
 
 " It ought to be remembered, that the Englishmen, who are the au- 
 thors of and leaders in these innovations, enjoy more privileges, than 
 the Exemptions of New Netherland grant to any Hollander." 
 
 And he hinted that their affinity for their own nation had 
 led them to threaten to tax themselves and secure their own 
 protection. Replying to the argument from the law of 
 Nature, proof and explanation were demanded: 
 
 "The Director-General and Council think, that the authorities are 
 appointed for these purposes, but not all men generally, for that would 
 create confusion. The Lords-Directors resolved for this reason with 
 the knowledge and consent of their High: Might: to appoint the Di- 
 rector-General and Council, giving them ample authority for the preser- 
 vation and protection of the privileges, freedom and property of the 
 Company and the good inhabitants and if necessary for the convoca- 
 tion of an Assembly of their subjects, but this authority was not con- 
 ferred on the Burgomasters and Schepens, much less to all men." 
 
 After the dismissal of the assembly of 1653, Stuyvesant 
 avoided giving the Englishmen an opportunity of again ex- 
 pressing their ideas. In February, 1654, when the opinion 
 
 'i\r. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 238. 
 
 ' One of these is his " Deductions'' upon their petition, sent to the 
 Directors of the Company (N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 233-236) ; and the 
 other is a statement entered upon the Council Minutes of New Nether- 
 land (ibid., 239^^40). 
 
1 86 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 of the localities was desired, Stuyvesant consulted with the 
 New Amsterdam authorities and with " the friends" in the 
 several villages.^ In May of the same year, when an English 
 fleet was feared, he called in the magistrates of the Dutch 
 villages of Breuckelen, Midwout, and Amesfoort.^ 
 
 When peace had been made with England, the Dutch 
 tried to conciliate the English inhabitants, and even went 
 so far as to offer remarkable concessions to new English 
 settlers, who, it was hoped, would settle between the Dela- 
 ware and Hudson rivers, and thus complete a line of settle- 
 ments between the distant parts of the province.^ The new 
 agreement permitted the English settlers in case of disagree- 
 ment between themselves and Stuyvesant or his successors 
 to elect a chief or director for themselves, only requiring 
 all writs to be issued in the name of the Netherlands.* But 
 the English took a yard where the Dutch would have given 
 them an ell. English settlers from Connecticut were coming 
 down the Bronx, and in 1662 Connecticut claimed the entire 
 Bronx and Westchester settlements, together with all the 
 towns on Long Island, including those hitherto under the 
 Dutch, and directed all of them to send deputies to the next 
 general court.' A compromise was reached later, by which 
 Stuyvesant yielded Westchester and eastern Long Island to 
 Connecticut, while the English towns in western Long 
 
 '^ Rec. of New Amsterdam, I, 159. 
 
 'Ibid., 201. The English on Long Island were found to be in cor- 
 respondence with the authorities in Boston, and two of them were im- 
 prisoned by Stuyvesant. In March, 1655-6, the republic of England 
 was publicly proclaimed in Gravesend {N. Y. Col. Doc, II, 152 ; XIV, 
 246, 278, etc. ; Brodhead, I, ch. XVII ; Flint, Early Long Island, 277- 
 278). 
 
 ' O'Callaghan, II, 443. 
 
 * Dated February 14, 1661. 
 
 " The said inhabitants shall have full liberty, after they have 
 planted their colonie, in case of difference with the aforesaid 
 Peter Stuyvesant, or any that shall survive him as Governor, 
 by appointment of the States of Netherlands, to chuse a Di- 
 rector or Cheife; only they shall issue out all writs of what 
 nature soever, in the name of the States Generall of the United 
 Netherlands." 
 'Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-65, 420-423; Brodhead, I, 703. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 187 
 
 Island, hitherto under Dutch control, were to be independent 
 of both Connecticut and New Amsterdam.^ The inhabi- 
 tants of these towns, perhaps familiar with the earlier prom- 
 ise made to intending Englishmen, now elected one John 
 Scott as " president" and set up an independent govern- 
 ment, until the decision of the king should be known.* 
 
 In the mean time, Stuyvesant, upon the suggestion of the 
 New Amsterdam authorities,^ had called together another 
 assembly. This body, meeting on November i, 1663, was 
 more nearly representative of the Dutch population than any 
 of the earlier assemblies or boards. Two delegates from 
 each of eight Dutch towns, including New Amsterdam, 
 were sent, and in one instance at least the election was with 
 the consent of the people.* This assembly took no positive 
 measures to support the Dutch authorities, but spent its time 
 in complaining of the Company's neglect of the colony. Its 
 only practical outcome seems to have been the appointment 
 of a delegate to visit Fatherland and explain to the authori- 
 ties the defenceless condition of the province.® 
 
 The continued aggressions of the English under Scott 
 led Stuyvesant again to ask advice from the city officers, 
 but he met with scant encouragement. They replied they 
 were indifferent concerning the sovereignty of the country, 
 whether it were held by Dutch or English. " We are of 
 opinion," they say, " that the Burgher is not bound to dis- 
 pute whether this be the King of England's soil or their 
 High Mightinesses ; but if they will deprive us of our prop- 
 erties, freedoms, and privileges, to resist them with our 
 lives or fortunes." ^ But Scott's menacing attitude must 
 
 ' O'Callaghan, II, 495. 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, S42, 544. S47-8, S5i^; O'Callaghan, II, 
 498-500; Brodhead, I, 723-28; Flint, Early Long Island, 282-286; 
 Thompson, Long Island (second edition), II, 320; Records of New 
 Amsterdam, V, 18-24. 
 
 ' Rec. of New Amsterdam, IV, 318. 
 
 'O'Callaghan, II, 490, note 4. In the return from Boswyck, the 
 magistrates of that town state that "the aforesaid magistrates have 
 chosen and named two persons from the same [village], with the 
 knowledge and consent of the majority of the inhabitants." 
 
 "Rec. of New Amst, IV, 342. 'Ibid., V, 20. 
 
1 88 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 have seemed dangerous to the property and freedom of the 
 Dutch, for shortly after this we find the New Amsterdam 
 authorities advising the calling of another assembly.^ 
 
 The last representative assembly of New Netherland met 
 in New Amsterdam on April lo, 1664, and was composed 
 of deputies from twelve Dutch towns.^ The old dispute 
 regarding the duty of the Company to protect the colony 
 furnished the principal theme for discussion. Stuyvesant 
 demanded supplies and military levies from the inhabitants; 
 the deputies demanded the fulfilment of the company's 
 promises. And with mutual recriminations the assembly 
 closed its meeting without any action for the protection of 
 the province. It was not long after this that the dreaded 
 English attack came, and the fleet under Nicholls won an 
 unexpectedly easy conquest. Since the Company gave itself 
 " so little concern about the safety of the country and its 
 inhabitants as not to be willing to send a ship of war to its 
 succor in such pressing necessity, nor even a letter of 
 advise,"^ the people had carried out their threat, that they 
 would not longer " dwell and sit down on an uncertainty," 
 but would be obliged " to seek by submission to another 
 government" * the protection which the Honorable Com- 
 pany refused. 
 
 2. The Sufifrage in Local Elections. 
 
 A. In the Dutch Towns. 
 
 There was apparently but little popular political activity 
 in the Dutch towns of New Netherland.^ The development 
 of these towns was slow, and often it was artificially encour- 
 aged by the New Amsterdam authorities.® The colonists 
 
 ' Rec. of New Amsterdam, V, 33. 
 
 ' O'Callaghan, II, 505-509. 
 
 • N. Y. Col. Doc, II, 367-^. 
 
 •Ibid., 375. 
 
 •This section merely summarizes the conclusions reached by the 
 writer in an article in Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 1-18. 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 160-162; Laws and Ordinances of New Neth., 
 206, 234, 368. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 189 
 
 lacked the common ownership of the land, the common 
 political rights, and the intense religious interest which 
 helped to form the New England town. The absence of 
 these centralizing forces and the liberal policy of the Dutch 
 West India Company in making large individual land 
 grants greatly retarded the growth of towns among the 
 Dutch. Many years usually intervened between the date of 
 settlement of a locality and the time of its incorporation. 
 
 When the towns were incorporated, the town officers 
 were a schout and several schepens, who were in some 
 cases first selected by the local inhabitants,^ but thereafter 
 in all cases, it is believed, constituted a close corporation. 
 The existing magistrates had the power to nominate a 
 double number of persons from whom the director and 
 council selected some to fill vacancies in the local magistracy. 
 A number of these nominations have been preserved, and in 
 no case is there evidence of popular election of the proposed 
 magistrates.^ 
 
 While, therefore, the evidence points to the absence of any 
 regular popular elections, there were occasional meetings of 
 the settlers to consider questions of local importance. We 
 have records of such a meeting in Brooklyn in 1660, to which 
 the magistrates " had convened all the inhabitants of the 
 •village of Breuckelen." ^ In 1663 the "town people" of 
 Harlem were summoned in meeting to take measures to avert 
 a threatened Indian attack.* Similar, but not frequent, in- 
 stances are to be found concerning Bergen," New Amster- 
 dam,^ and the Delaware settlements.'' Stuyvesant, in writing 
 to Holland in 1653, wishes to give the impression that popu- 
 
 ' Stiles, Hist, of Brooklyn, I, 45 ; Laws and Ordinances of New 
 Neth., 33S; Thompson, Long Island (second ed.), II, iSS- In other 
 cases even the first selection was made in the charter itself, N. Y. Col. 
 Doc, XIII, 196-198; Laws and Ordinances of New Neth., 403, 458. 
 
 ^Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 9, notes. 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 479- 
 
 * Riker, Hist, of Harlem, 222. 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 232, 319. 
 
 " Records of JVew Amst., IV, 273 ; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 220. 
 
 'JV. Y. Col. Doc, XII, isi, 154-5, 308; Pa. Archives, Second Series, 
 VII, S". 
 
igo The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 lar elections were not uncommon, but his letter scarcely 
 proves the fact : 
 
 " It is untrue, that any Magistrates liave been appointed against the 
 laws of Netherland or against the wish of the people. . . The Magis- 
 trates of New Amsterdam, before being installed and taking the oath 
 in the presence of the Director-General, were each by name and sur- 
 name and by his oflSce proclaimed from the front of the Council 
 Chamber, and the Community was called upon to express their objec- 
 tions. The same is usually done by the Director-General and Council 
 at the installation of other, military officers. . ." ' 
 
 But in all these cases the popular action appears upon an ex- 
 ceptional occasion and does not enter as an integral part into 
 the town life. Under such circumstances the suffrage was 
 an accidental privilege rather than a definite right, and con- 
 sequently we find among the Dutch no statements of the 
 suffrage qualifications. Where popular elections did not take 
 place, there could be no definition of the suffrage. 
 
 B. In the English Towns. 
 In the English towns which developed under the New 
 Netherland jurisdiction, political practice was far more popu- 
 lar than in the Dutch settlements.^ Director Kieft encour- 
 aged English settlers, and gave favorable charters to four 
 English towns before a single Dutch village had been incor- 
 porated. In the charters of Newtown, Hempstead, Flushing, 
 and Gravesend there is a degree of popular government never 
 attained in the Dutch towns.* The towns received a definite 
 tract of land, with power to build a town and fortifications, 
 and to practise liberty of conscience.* Within the town the 
 
 'AT. F., Co/. Doc, XIV, 235. 
 
 ' See Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 10-16. 
 
 = Newtown chartered, March 28, 1642 ; for charter, see O'Callaghan, 
 New Netherland, I, 425. Hempstead chartered November 16, 1644; 
 see Thompson, Long Island (second edition), II, 4-6. Flushing char- 
 tered October 10, 1645 ; see Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 
 48-51. Gravesend chartered December 19, 1645 ; see Documentary Hist, 
 of N. Y., I, 629-632. 
 
 * Gravesend charter. 
 
The Suffrage in New York, 191 
 
 patentees could erect a civil organization, hold town meet- 
 ings, and elect three magistrates and a schout, who should 
 be confirmed by the director. The Gravesend charter 
 reads, — 
 
 " With Hbertie likewise for them, the s* pattentees, theyr associates 
 heyres etc to erect a bodye politique and ciuill combination amongst 
 themselves, as free men of this Province & of the Tovirns of Grauesend 
 & to make such civill ordinances as the Maior part of ye Inhabitants 
 flfree of the Towne shall thinke fitting for theyr quiett & peaceable 
 subsisting & to Nominate elect & choose three of ye Ablest approued 
 honest men & them to present annuallie to ye Gouernor Generall of 
 this Province for the tyme being, for him ye said Gouern"" to establish 
 and confirme. . . ." 
 
 The Hempstead charter contained almost exactly the same 
 terms, while the Newtown and the Flushing charters were 
 somewhat less liberal. Some years after this Stuyvesant 
 granted more restricted privileges to the English settlers at 
 Westchester ^ and Jamaica,^ in which he attempted to limit 
 them to the customs of the Dutch towns. 
 
 We have considerable evidence of democratic political 
 activities in these English towns. In the first place, their 
 annual returns of elections to the director show that the 
 officers were appointed in the town meeting by a popular vote 
 and not by nomination of the magistrates.^ In the second 
 place, a number of orders of the town meetings are extant 
 showing regular activity upon the part of these meetings, and 
 throwing much light upon the details of town government.* 
 There can be no doubt, with this evidence before us, that the 
 English townsman exercised a regular and strong control 
 over this town government through the popular elections and 
 the town meetings. 
 
 In such cases the New England customs appear to have 
 governed the suffrage conditions. The four early town char- 
 
 ' March 16, 1656 {N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 65-6). 
 
 'March 21, 1656 {Ibid., XIV, 339-340). 
 
 * N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 189, 296, 300, 329, 343, 345, 422, 424, etc. 
 
 *Ihid., 128-129; 504-506; 529-530. 
 
192 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 ters had implied that the original founders would be joined 
 by certain associates or followed by successors and heirs, and 
 that the political privileges granted would extend and de- 
 scend to these persons. Associates, upon receiving their lots 
 and rights in the common lands, obtained at the same time a 
 voice in the town meeting.^ The admission of such asso- 
 ciates usually required the consent of the town meeting, and 
 in Gravesend none of the original twenty-eight owners could 
 sell his land until he had settled and built a house in the 
 town ; while even after he had done so he must first " pro- 
 pound it to the towne in generall & in case the towne would 
 not buy," then he might sell to outsiders.* It was expressly 
 stated, however, that the sale might not be made to one 
 " notoriouslie detected for an infamous person or a disturber 
 of the common peace." Hempstead excluded " quakers and 
 such like," and required newcomers to show letters of com- 
 mendation and approbation from the authorities of the town 
 from which they came.* 
 
 The elections, especially after the Quaker difficulties had 
 arisen, were not always managed with decorum. A party 
 of Dutchmen who had purchased lands and houses in Graves- 
 end claimed to have been excluded from the suffrage, 
 although proxy votes were cast by the English for those in 
 confinement, for others who had left the town, and for con- 
 spirators against the goverrunent.* "An honest Dutchman, 
 who was a hired man," was not permitted to vote in the place 
 of his master who was absent. It is interesting to notice 
 that in this town of Gravesend occurs the only instance found 
 in all the colonies of woman suffrage. In the summer of 
 1655, when the town had neglected to make its usual nomi- 
 nation of officers to the director, Stuyvesant wrote to Lady 
 Moody, the oldest patentee of the town, and the other inhab- 
 itants, directing them to perform their duty as required by 
 their patent; and a month later the names of the selected 
 nominees were sent to the director in a document signed by 
 
 ' In Hempstead, N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 529. 
 
 ^N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 128-g. 
 
 'Ihid., 529. 
 
 * Ibid.; see also Laws and Ordinances of New Neth., 338. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 193 
 
 Deborah Moody and John Tillton " as clerk in Behalf of the 
 Rest." 1 
 
 Stuyvesant, who followed Kieft, was opposed to the privi- 
 leges which the latter had granted the English. In 1653 he 
 wrote, — 
 
 "The English (on Long Island) do not only enjoy the right of 
 nominating their own Magistrates, but some of them also usurp the 
 election and appointment of such Magistrates, as they please, without 
 regard to their religion. Some, especially the people of Gravesend, 
 elect libertines and Anabaptists, which is decidedly against the laws 
 of the Netherlands. 
 
 "... But if it be made a rule, that the selection and nomination 
 shall be left to the people generally, whom it most concerns, then 
 every one would want for Magistrate a man of his own stamp, for 
 instance a thief would choose for Magistrate a thief and dishonest 
 man, a drunkard a smuggler, etc. ." ' 
 
 And in 1656, when Englishmen asked for town charters for 
 settlements at Westchester and Jamaica, the director replied 
 that, regarding both lands and election of magistrates, they 
 might be placed upon " the footing and order in use in the 
 villages of Middleburg, Breuckelen, Midwout, and Ames- 
 foort," all of which had the limited privileges of the Dutch 
 towns.^ The same conservatism is shown in Stuyvesant's 
 negotiations with some Milford inhabitants who proposed 
 leaving their homes in Connecticut and making a settlement 
 in what is now New Jersey.* 
 But while the director was opposed to popular government, 
 
 '■N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 527-529. See Flint, Early Long Island, 
 104-115, Brodhead, I, 411-412, for Lady Moody's settlement at Graves- 
 end. Compare the demand made by Mrs. Margaret Brent for sufifrage 
 in Maryland. See Neill, Virginia Carolorum, 274-275, for sketch of 
 life of Lady Moody. 
 
 ' Ibid., 235. 
 
 ^ Ibid., 339-340. It must be noted that the towns of Jamaica and 
 Westchester interpreted their charters very broadly, and held town 
 meetings and popular elections in the same manner as the other English 
 towns were accustomed to do (AT. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 504-506, 509; 
 Bolton's Hist, of Westchester, Revised edition, II, 279-281). 
 
 * Ibid., XIII, 209-^22. 
 
 13 
 
194 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 he could not stamp it out in the English towns. We have 
 abundant evidence of communal activity among the English 
 settlers; their town meetings and popular elections were held 
 almost continuously under the Dutch rule; ^ and at last their 
 self-consciousness found expression in the union of six towns 
 and the election of President John Scott. 
 
 C. In New Amsterdam. 
 
 Nearly forty years after the first settlement of New Neth- 
 erland, a separate government was erected for the city of 
 New Amsterdam. The first demand for a distinct city gov- 
 ernment was sent to Holland by the Nine Men in 1649, when 
 their representatives were directed to ask for a " suitable 
 municipal government." ^ It was urged that this, together 
 with other reforms, would encourage the settlement of the 
 colony and promote its prosperity. A committee of the States 
 General shortly afterwards advised the establishment of a 
 " Burgher Government" in New Amsterdam, consisting of 
 a sheriff, two burgomasters, and five schepens.* The report 
 was not adopted, but its consideration stirred up the West 
 India Company, and on April 4, 1652, Stuyvesant was 
 directed to erect a government similar to that of Amsterdam. 
 The officers were to be those named in the provisional order 
 of the States General, selected from the " honest and respect- 
 able" persons of the settlement. The directors querulously 
 expressed the hope that some such might be found among the 
 inhabitants.* 
 
 It was ten months after the dating of this instruction 
 before Stuyvesant inaugurated the city government. He 
 allowed no popular election of magistrates, although after 
 the choice of the officers they " were each by name and sur- 
 name and by his office proclaimed," and " the community was 
 called upon to express their objections." ' Stuyvesant does 
 
 'See Stuyvesant's rule forbidding town meetings in Flushing, Laws 
 and Ordinances of New Neth., 338. 
 
 *N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 260. 
 
 *Doc. Hist, of N. v., I, 598; N. Y. Col. Doc. I, 387-391. 
 
 'Ibid., 599-600. 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 235; O'Callaghan, II, 212-216; Brodhead, 
 I, S48-S4" 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 195 
 
 not refer to any objections, and it is unlikely, under the cir- 
 cumstances, that any were made. 
 
 Another three years passed before the director would agree 
 to a method for renewing the magistrates, although the bur- 
 gomasters and schepens had twice petitioned for a change.^ 
 When this was granted in 1656, it was so hedged about that 
 it contained no provision for popular elections.^ A double 
 nomination was to be made annually by the magistrates, but 
 the existing magistrates were always to be considered in 
 nomination; the nominees must be well-qualified persons, 
 favorable to the director and council ; and a member of the 
 council must be present at the meeting of the magistrates 
 when they selected their nominees. Under this arrangement 
 the local officials were annually elected until the coming of 
 the English.^ 
 
 The organization of the city government was soon made 
 yet more aristocratic. Stuyvesant was not content with for- 
 bidding popular elections and compelling double nominations 
 by the magistrates, nor even was the presence of the coun- 
 cillor at the selection sufficient for him. By ordinances of 
 January 30 and February 2, 1657,* Stuyvesant limited nar- 
 rowly the number of persons who could hold the municipal 
 offices. The ordinances established two classes of citizens, 
 one holding the greater burgherecht, and the other the 
 smaller burgherecht. The first class was composed of those 
 who had held colonial, municipal, military, or ecclesiastical 
 offices, or the male descendants of such, or who had paid fifty 
 guilders. The second class was made up of those born in 
 the city, or those who had kept fire and light for a year and 
 a half, or who kept shop and paid twenty guilders. The 
 
 'In i6S4 and 1656; N. Y. Col. Doc. XIV, 244; O'Callaghan, II, 311. 
 
 * Records of New Amsterdam, II, 16, 24-29. 282-286; O'Callaghan, 
 II, 370. 
 
 •It is to be noted, however, that New Amsterdam was not given a 
 separate schout or sheriff until 1660. {Doc. Hist, of N. Y., I, 600.) 
 
 *Laws and Ordinances of New Neth., 299-301. See J. F. Jameson, 
 Mag. Amer. Hist., VIII, 321, for a discussion of local government in 
 Holland and the Netherlands. Also O'Callaghan, I, 391, II, 338-341; 
 Brodhead, I, 452 ff. For the granting of the burgherecht, see N. Y. 
 Hist. Soc. Coll., 1885, 1-16. 
 
ig6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 tenure of municipal offices was limited to those possessing 
 the greater burgherecht, who thus constituted a close heredi- 
 tary office-holding class. 
 
 In conclusion, it may be said that regular popular suffrage 
 was not practised among the Dutch of New Netherland. 
 Neither in the local town governments, nor in the municipal 
 government of New Amsterdam, nor in the colonial repre- 
 sentative system, is there evidence of such suffrage. Occa- 
 sional rneetings of the " community" were held in New 
 Amsterdam or in the villages, and in some cases a selection 
 of magistrates by the officials was publicly announced to the 
 inhabitants. But such cases cannot furnish a basis for a 
 general system of elections, nor give rise to a definite theory 
 of the suffrage. Again, the elective system of New Nether- 
 land was clogged by a process of double and triple nomina- 
 tions, by the arbitrary power of the director, and by the 
 aristocratic classes in the city of New Amsterdam. The 
 democratic practices of the English towns are in marked 
 contrast to the ideas of Stuyvesant, but these towns are not 
 an integral part of New Netherland. They are off-shoots 
 from the New England town life, and they bear all the 
 characteristics of the parent stem. The true Dutch towns are 
 miniature reproductions of the institutions of the Nether- 
 lands, with their indirect and cumbrous elective machinery 
 exercised by a commercial aristocracy. 
 
 II. The Early English Period, 1664-1691. 
 
 This is the period of struggle for the right of representa- 
 tion, during which no continuous representative system ex- 
 isted, although one assembly was held at the opening of the 
 period and several near its close. We will but glance at the 
 suffrage in connection with these assemblies, without taking 
 up the details of the interesting contest between the colonists 
 and James, Duke of York. 
 
 The Duke's patent had given him absolute power to govern 
 all English subjects within his territory by such laws as he 
 or his assigns should make. No mention was here made of 
 the popular participation in the framing of laws which many 
 earlier proprietors had been compelled to acknowledge. The 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 197 
 
 Duke was unrestrained in his power except by the feeble 
 provision that his laws should be " as neare as conveniently 
 may be" agreeable to the statutes of England. His control 
 over commerce and his legal ownership of the land made the 
 property and trade of the existing settlers insecure; while 
 under the charter he need grant them no political privileges. 
 We look in vain in this remarkable charter for any indication 
 of popular government. 
 
 But the Duke must conciliate, at least in a degree, the 
 inhabitants of his new territory, or its possession would be 
 profitless to him. The terms of capitulation granted by 
 Colonel NichoUs, the Duke's representative, to the Dutch 
 inhabitants constituted a voluntary limitation of the pro- 
 prietor's power. By these articles, of which there were three 
 sets,^ the Dutch were admitted as English denizens upon 
 recognizing the king's authority. They were guaranteed in 
 their lands and other property, and might, if they wished, 
 leave the country within a limited time and take their prop- 
 erty with them. To those remaining, the Dutch rules of 
 inheritance were promised, and they were permitted freedom 
 of conscience and worship. In all cases no sudden change 
 in political organization was contemplated, and the existing 
 officers were directed to continue the performance of their 
 duties for a time at least. 
 
 On Long Island, where Nicholls wished to keep the good 
 will of the English settlers, his promises were still broader. 
 He is said to have written to certain prominent men prom- 
 ising that the English inhabitants of the island should have 
 privileges equal to, if not greater than, those enjoyed by the 
 other New England colonies.^ In February, 1665, Nicholls 
 proceeded to carry out his plans for a government of Long 
 Island, although he may have previously erected Long 
 Island, Staten Island, and the Bronx settlements into a 
 county called Yorkshire. He now wrote to the towns re- 
 
 " The three sets were drawn respectively for New Amsterdam and its 
 surrounding territories, for the upper Hudson settlements, and for the 
 Delaware regions. See N. Y. Col. Doc, II, 250-253 ; XIV, 559 ; III, 
 
 71-73- 
 
 ' Southold Town Records, I, 357; Rept. of N. Y. State Historian, 
 1897, 240-242; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 555-556. 
 
198 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 minding them of the many grievous inconveniences under 
 which they had groaned, and explaining how the king at his 
 own charge had shown his " signall grace and honor" to 
 his subjects by conquering the Dutch, and by giving control 
 of the land to the Duke of York. Nicholls then states his 
 determination to settle " good and knowne Laws" for the 
 country, with the best advice and information of a general 
 meeting.^ 
 
 This general meeting, called the Hempstead assembly, is 
 the first representative body held under the English in New 
 York. The representatives were to be chosen by the several 
 towns, and Nicholls directed that the deputies be " chosen 
 by the major part of the freemen only, which is to be under- 
 stood, of all Persons rated according to their Estates, 
 whether English or Dutch;" and he recommended that the 
 people select " the most sober, able, and discreet persons 
 without partiality or faction, the fruit and benefitt whereof 
 will return to themselves in a full and perfect settlement and 
 composure of all controversyes, and the propagacon of true 
 Religion amongst us." Under this provision, it is believed 
 that none but freeholders voted, although the phrase " rated 
 according to their Estates" is not easily translatable at this 
 late day ; it surely excluded those who paid only poll-taxes. 
 
 Thirty-four deputies attended the meeting at Hempstead, 
 and on March i, 1665, the assembly accepted a code of laws 
 which Nicholls had drafted, and which came later to be 
 called the " Duke's Laws." This code made no provision 
 for a general provincial organization except of the judicial 
 circuits and the military companies ; it omitted all reference 
 to a general representative assembly, which was so distinctive 
 a feature of the New England colonies, and was one of the 
 privileges which the Long Islanders had expected to receive.^ 
 In spite of strong popular protests and numerous petitions, 
 almost twenty years passed before the Duke agreed to an 
 assembly. 
 
 At last, by the instructions given to Governor Dongan, on 
 
 ^N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 564. 
 
 'Southold Town Records, I, 338-359; Easthampton Town Records, 
 I, 241 ; Hempstead Records, I, 260 ; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 631-2 ; Re- 
 port of State Historian for l8g7, 240-242. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 199 
 
 January 27, 1682-3, formal provision was made for an 
 assembly.* 
 
 ". . . there shall be a General Assembly of all the Freeholders, by the 
 persons who they shall choose to represent tfiem in order to consult- 
 ing with yourself and the said Council what laws are fitt and necessary 
 to be made and established for the good weale and government of the 
 said Colony and its Dependencyes, and of all the inhabitants 
 thereof . . ." 
 
 The new governor arrived in the province in August, 1683, 
 and shortly afterwards, on September 13, warrants were 
 issued to the sheriffs of the province for the election of depu- 
 ties to an assembly. These writs directed that the freehold- 
 ers in the several towns should take part in the election,^ and 
 a few days later the council entered upon its minutes the 
 order, " none but freeholders to vote at the election." * The 
 writs further established a curious system of indirect voting 
 for certain parts of the province. Each of the three ridings 
 of Yorkshire was to send two delegates. New York City was 
 to elect four, Esopus and Albany each two, and Staten 
 Island, Schenectady, Pemaquid (Maine), and the islands 
 ( Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, Gardiners, etc.) were each 
 to send one. On Long Island, on the Esopus, and on the 
 islands the various towns or settlements were to elect a cer- 
 tain number of committeemen, who should meet in the prin- 
 cipal town and there elect the proper number of deputies 
 from the riding or the district.* Thus this assembly differed 
 from that of 1665 in the unit of representation, which in the 
 
 'AT. Y. Col. Doc, III, 331; N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 108-110. 
 ^ Ibid., XIV, 770-771 ; Journals of Legislative Council of N. Y., I, 
 Introduction, xi. 
 ' Calendar of Council Minutes, 33. 
 
 'Evidence of this method of voting exists in the records of East 
 Hampton and Huntington. 
 
 "At a Legall Towne meting there, [four persons] were 
 chosen to meete at Southold uppon Wednesday next to Joyne 
 with the Committee of ye other Townes in Chusing Two Rep- 
 resentatives for this Rideing to Meete at York according to 
 order." East Hampton Records, II, 134-5- See also Hunting- 
 ton Records, I, 373. 
 
200 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 earlier one had been the town, but in the later body was a 
 much wider district or territory, to which as yet no specific 
 name was given.^ 
 
 The assembly in its first act, which it called a " charter," 
 provided for a general organization of government, and 
 stated a number of specific rights of the citizen.^ Among 
 the many other subjects treated in this remarkable act occurs 
 the first general statement of the suffrage qualification : 
 
 " Every ffreeholder within this province and ffreeman in any Corpora- 
 con Shall have his free Choise and Vote in the Electing of the Repre- 
 sentatives without any manner of constraint or Imposicon. (A)nd that 
 in all Eleccons the Majority of Voices shall carry itt and by freeholders 
 is understood every one who is Soe understood according to the Lawes 
 of England." 
 
 The English practice at this time was that established by 
 the acts of 1430 and 1432 fixing the qualifications of the 
 suffrage as forty shillings income from freehold; and this 
 remained the legal qualification in New York during the 
 short existence of the representative system tmder Governor 
 Dongan. It is to be noted, however, that the provincial 
 franchise included also freemen in corporations. In 1683 
 this would have included New York City alone, where the 
 Dutch burgherecht had been translated into the English free- 
 manship, and continued under much the same privileges and 
 restrictions.* 
 
 Dongan's second assembly was elected in 1685 in virtue 
 of writs directed to the sheriffs of the counties, commanding 
 the freeholders of each county to elect representatives,* pre- 
 sumably in accordance with the terms of the act just quoted. 
 
 In one county at least, the indirect system of voting estab- 
 lished in 1683 was used again in 1685. An entry in the 
 Southampton records is as follows : " At a towne meeting 
 held in Southampton with the rest of the county by the 
 
 '■ One of the acts of this first assembly was to divide the colony into 
 twelve counties; N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 121; N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 575. 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 111-116; the charter was subsequently vetoed by 
 James, after he had become King; N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 357. 
 
 •N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 337. See post. 
 
 * Journal of Legis. Council, Introduction, xiv. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 201 
 
 major voote of the pxoes of ye county major Howell was 
 chosen to be one of ye assemblymen for the County of Suf- 
 folk, And Mr. Joshua Hubert was the other." ^ This elec- 
 tion was the last held under the government of James II. 
 The king soon discontinued the representative system, and 
 gave legislative power to the governor and his council.^ 
 
 Under the usurper Jacob Leisler, who seized control of the 
 colonial government after the news of the English Revolu- 
 tion of 1688 reached New York,* there were occasional 
 popular elections, and a partially representative system was 
 established. Leisler, without doubt, felt the necessity of 
 strengthening his questionable authority by gaining the good 
 will of the people. This he did by procuring the popular 
 election of members of a council of safety ; * but many of 
 the inhabitants were opposed to his authority and took no 
 part in the election. It is said that his followers were " some 
 of the meanest sort of the Inhabitants," ^ and according to 
 one account only one-third of the people participated in the 
 elections.® In New York City Leisler ordered that certain 
 officers, by charter appointive by the king's governor, should 
 be elected by the Protestant freeholders,'' and sent writs 
 directing the popular election of justices and militia officers 
 in the counties, all of whom had previously been appointed 
 by the governor.® In February, 1689-90, Leisler took 
 
 ^ Southampton Town Records, II, 286. 
 
 ' See commission and instructions of Governor Dongan, N. Y. Col. 
 Doc, III, 369-375. 382-385. 
 
 'Doc. Hist, of N. v., II, 426; N. y. Col. Doc, III, 598. 
 
 *This committee was partially representative of the province, two 
 persons coming from each of the town or settlements of New York 
 City, Brooklyn, Flatbush, Flushing, Newtown, Staten Island, New Jer- 
 sey, Esopus, and Westchester. But Albany, Ulster, and Suffolk Coun- 
 ties, and almost all of New Jersey were unrepresented, and many towns 
 in the several counties were individually opposed to the revolution. 
 See Doc Hist, of N. Y., II, 56, 427 ; AT. Y. Col. Doc, III, 585, 597, 6o9, 
 670, 737. 
 
 'Ibid., 427. 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, 111,670. 
 
 ' Ibid., 67s ; Doc. Hist., II, 35. The election was carried through by a 
 minority of the inhabitants. 
 
 ' Ibid., 655, 674-5- 
 
202 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 another step in organizing the government by issuing writs 
 for the election of " proper and fit" persons to act as repre- 
 sentatives of the counties.^ All the counties except one were 
 represented in this assembly,^ but " Suffolk County would 
 not meddle with it." * The elections do not appear to have 
 been fully participated in by the people. In New York 
 City Leisler personally directed the elections, at which only a 
 few persons, " all off his side," voted. " From the other 
 Counties came Representatives onely chosen by a few people 
 off their side and very weak men." * 
 
 Leisler failed in gaining the support of the influential in- 
 habitants. His friends did not belong to the former govern- 
 ing class, but he must have gained adherents among the 
 poorer classes, since his popular elections would admit them 
 to a greater share in the provincial government. But a 
 revolutionist is often forced to ignore the forms of law ; and 
 while Leisler attempted to maintain the elective system, yet 
 his evident interferences in the system made the suffrage 
 little more than a farce. The merchants of New York, in a 
 petition to the king and queen, could find no better name 
 for his followers " than a Rable, those who formerly were 
 scarce thought fit to bear the meanest ofifices." ® A gathering 
 of freeholders on Long Island called Leisler a " Tyrant," 
 who, they said, acted upon Catiline's maxim that " The Ills 
 that I have done can not be safe but by attempting greater." ® 
 Thus, in spite of his democratic utterances, Leisler's acts 
 were not accepted by the people of the province, nor approved 
 by the English authorities, who, in November, 1689, com- 
 missioned a new governor for the colony. 
 
 If the Duke's laws made no provision for a general elective 
 system, they did not lack rules for the local suffrage. The 
 laws were drawn from New England sources, and yet it is 
 remarkable that Nicholls cut out the whole subject of free- 
 manship, both of the colony and the town. This principle, 
 
 ' Doc. Hist., II, 73. 
 
 ' Journal of Legislative Council of N. Y., Introduction, xxiv. 
 
 ' N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 717. 
 
 'Ibid. 
 
 ' Ibid., 748-9. 
 
 'Ibid., 7S4-6. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 203 
 
 copied from English corporation practice, received an ex- 
 tended connotation in America, and lay at the basis of local 
 and colonial suffrage in New England during Nicholls's 
 time. It must be remembered that Nicholls and his fellow- 
 commissioners were directed by their instructions to inquire 
 into this exclusive freemanship to which the king objected.^ 
 His practical knowledge of the workings of the freeman- 
 ship principle in New England must have determined Nich- 
 olls to omit it from his code. Although the word freeman 
 occurred scores of times in the New Haven and Massachu- 
 setts codes, from which Nicholls drew his legislation, yet it 
 is sedulously erased from the Duke's laws, and even the 
 allied subjects of residence and admission of inhabitants are 
 not mentioned.^ The New England codes forbade a man 
 settling in a town without the consent of the local officers 
 or the town meeting; but this, too, savored of the freemail 
 idea and was rejected by Nicholls. In addition to fostering 
 political and ecclesiastical intolerance, the New England 
 freemanship, whether of town or province, was opposed to 
 the powers granted by charter to the Duke of York ; ^ and 
 Nicholls also had the example of Stuyvesant before him in 
 opposing the freemanship idea.* Thus there were abundant 
 reasons for Nicholls's refusal to adopt the freemanship prin- 
 ciple; his own experience in New England, his instructions, 
 
 ^N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 51-54, 57-63, 84, 110-113; Records of Massa- 
 chusetts Bay, IV, pt. II, 129, 173-174, 186 ff., 200-211, 218 ff. 
 
 ' The word freeman does occur once in the Laws, but in that case it 
 means free man, N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 36. The words freeman or free- 
 men are used twenty-five times in the New Haven Laws of 1656, and 
 fifty-five times in the Massachusetts laws of 1660. 
 
 ' By the Duke's charter he and his heirs are given power " to admit 
 such and so many person and persons to trade and traffique unto and 
 within the terrytoryes and islands aforesaid and into every and any 
 part and parcell thereof and to have possesse and enjoy any lands or 
 hereditaments in the parts and places aforesaid. . . ." 
 
 "'None of the Townes of N. Netherlands are troubled with in- 
 habitance, the which doe not Lyke her or her Magistrates, beinge 
 reserved that they doe nolradmitt any inhabitance without approbation 
 and acknowledgement of the Director Generall and Counsell. . . ." 
 N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 211. 
 
204 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 the Duke's charter, and Dutch custom were all opposed to 
 the exclusiveness of the New England corporation. 
 
 But, although the laws made no provision for these sub- 
 jects, there is reason to believe that the towns, at least in 
 Long Island, acted upon the New England custom. The 
 town books show many actions and by-laws of the town 
 meetings relating to the admission of new inhabitants.^ A 
 person " not legally accepted" is ordered to leave Easthamp- 
 ton,^ and a " notorious thief" is rejected as an inhabitant.* 
 In Southampton, in 1676, after a division of the town lands 
 had been made, the holders of the land could not sell or let 
 them to any one except he were " approved of by ye Justices, 
 the minister ye constables and overseers of ye town." * And 
 in Hempstead no " unresident" person could settle in the 
 town without the consent of the town.^ It is evident from 
 these few illustrations that the towns kept control of the 
 admission of inhabitants, and even imposed severe conditions 
 upon intending settlers, as when, in Southampton, they must 
 be acceptable to four sets of ofificials, including the minister. 
 
 Since the Duke's laws omitted the subject of freemanship, 
 it might be supposed that Nicholls would substitute some 
 other form of qualification for the suffrage. But, in fact, he 
 did not clearly define the voting class. The elective officers 
 under the laws were constables, town overseers, gaugers of 
 cask, militia officers, church wardens, and ministers.^ In 
 the case of militia officers alone the voting class is distinct, 
 for these officers are to be elected by " the plurality of voyces 
 of the Soldiers." ^ 
 
 In the suffrage for the other officers, four different expres- 
 
 '■ E.g., East-Hampton Records, I, 282, 288, 324 ; II, 175. 
 
 'Records, I, 371. 
 
 " Ibid., II, 17s. 
 
 * Ibid., 2SS. 
 
 'Ibid., 28. 
 
 " Other officers not mentioned in the laws were occasionally elected 
 by the towns; see Hempstead Records, I, 228; Huntington Records, 
 I, 359-360. 
 
 'iV. Y. Col. Laws, I, 50. All persons over sixteen years of age, in- 
 cluding servants, and excluding certain judicial and ecclesiastical offi- 
 cials and a few others, were to attend the militia trainings. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 20^ 
 
 sions are used in describing the electors : " householders," 
 " inhabitants householders," " freeholders," " Inhabitants 
 freeholders. Householders." In spite of the seeming variety, 
 it is believed that these phrases all refer to the same class of 
 citizens ; ^ and that the words " inhabitants" and " house- 
 holders" are to be taken not in a substantive, but an adjec- 
 tive, sense, qualifying the word " freeholders." The word 
 inhabitant meant a householder,^ and the suffrage must have 
 been limited to inhabiting and householding freeholders. 
 
 Although it is clear that Nicholls meant to limit the suf- 
 frage to freeholders, yet there is no statement of the size of 
 freehold required; and perhaps the variance in local condi- 
 tions made it impracticable to adopt a general qualification. 
 
 But the lack of definiteness led to many contests and dis- 
 puted elections in the several towns. It was the natural ten- 
 dency of the original proprietors in the towns to desire to 
 
 ^ The evidence for this belief is drawn from two sources : (o) the 
 internal evidence of the Laws; and (fe) the practice of the towns. 
 
 (o) From the Laws. In one place the Laws speak of the elec- 
 tion of overseers by the " Housholders," and in another place, by 
 the " freeholders ;" and similarly the election of the minister is 
 said to be by " the Inhabitants housholders ;" and by the " In- 
 habitants freeholders housholders." 
 
 (&) From the town practice. The town records use the words 
 as loosely as do the Laws. For instance, in Southampton the 
 phrases occur, " inhabitants or freeholders ;" " freeholders ;" " free- 
 holders and Inhabitants" {Records, II, 279, 29s, 305 ; also I, 135" 
 138 note). In 1672 an election in Hempstead was contested be- 
 cause persons had voted who were freeholders indeed, but held 
 only small tracts, and it was maintained that a man must be not 
 only a freeholder, but a freeholder of a certain number of acres, 
 in order to possess the suffrage (AT. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 667). In 
 1676 Andros granted a patent to the town officers of Southold, for 
 themselves and " their associats, the freeholders and Inhabitants of 
 the sd Town," and subsequently these officers state, "All which 
 freeholders we doe fully own ... to be our onely associats" {Town. 
 Records, II, 8-12). The last case shows that the town officers 
 believed Inhabitants to be a qualification of the word freeholders; 
 a man must be an inhabitant and a freeholder to be qualified to 
 vote. 
 ' " He who hath a house in his hands in a town, may be said to be 
 an Inhabitant." Jacob's Law Dictionary, London, 1797. See post. 
 Chap. XI. 
 
2o6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 limit the right of suffrage to themselves or those who had an 
 equivalent share in the town lands. As the towns increased 
 in population, or lands were divided among the descendants 
 of the early settlers, or poorer persons bought small tracts, 
 there arose a class made up of freeholders, indeed, but free- 
 holders who were not on a plane of economic or social 
 equality with the original proprietors. Under these circum- 
 stances, a contest between the two classes was bound to 
 occur, and the governor usually threw his influence on the 
 side of the wealthier class. 
 
 As early as 1666 the Court of Assizes ordered that the 
 " Dividing of Towne Lotts, thereby multiplying poor free- 
 men and votes, to be rectified by the Sessions;"^ but the 
 remedy was evidently not satisfactory, for again in 1670 
 the Long Island towns petitioned for legislation against 
 " divers poor inconsiderable persons, who though they have 
 but a Small Portion of a Lott, yett Expect to give their votes 
 in Town Courts equal with ye best freeholders." ^ The peti- 
 tioners feared that this tendency might " in tyme prove to ye 
 destruction of ye place, in that it will come to be governed by 
 ye worst and least concerned of ye Inhabitants ;" and again 
 the Assizes referred the matter to the Court of Sessions. In 
 the same spirit was the decision of the governor and council 
 in 1680, limiting the suffrage in Flushing in public and town 
 matters to those who held at least sixty acres of land, the 
 proportion to which the original settlers were entitled.* And 
 at a somewhat later period the voting upon land questions 
 in Southampton was taken not by persons, but by " fifties," 
 keeping up the equality of votes according to the original 
 
 ^ Rept. of State Historian, 1896, 341. 
 
 •AT. y. Col. Laws, I, 83. 
 
 •"Whereas the former constitution of the sd Towne, at their first 
 settlement, in the yeare 1654, was in dividing their home Lotts, into 4 
 acres a piece, then addicon of six acres, & after that 50 more to each 
 Inhabitant None for the future shall be esteemed a Freeman of sd 
 Towne that hath not sixty acres of land within its limits, besides 
 
 meadows & such as shall have the like proporcon of land & 
 
 no other other to be esteemed Freemen for votes in publick or other 
 town matters." J\r. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 751. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 207 
 
 proportion of fifty acres apiece.^ But the governor's power 
 was not always extended to the large landholders, and in a 
 disputed election case in Hempstead in 1672 the smaller free- 
 holders were upheld in their claim to the right to vote.^ 
 
 It was the latter policy which was to be adopted as the 
 general principle for the colony and local elections in the 
 next period of New York history. The increase in the value 
 of land and the growth of population would make the fifty 
 or sixty acres requirement a burdensome one ; and the later 
 practice required the freehold to be of a certain value rather 
 than of a certain size.^ In some of the Long Island towns it 
 is interesting to note a tendency towards proxy voting, but 
 it does not appear to have become a general policy in any 
 town.* 
 
 The provisions of the Duke's laws, which we have been 
 discussing, did not at first hold good outside of Yorkshire ; ^ 
 
 ^ Even fractions of a proportion were counted. The town meeting 
 " having under the consideration the Laying out a division of Land 
 proceed to a voote by proxees as followeth 64J4 fifties were for a 
 division, 7954 fifties were for no division." Town Records, II, 143, 
 April 2, 1700. 
 
 ' This election hinged upon the votes of certain persons who were 
 said to " have small parcells of land & have no relation to the Towne, 
 equall wth ye Ancient Inhabitants, some Lotts being divided into 
 severall shares." The decision of the governor states that the claimants 
 were "Capacitated by the Law to give their Votes as ffre-holders." 
 N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 667. 
 
 ' See post. 
 
 *One case has already been referred to in the early history of 
 Gravesend, N. Y. Col. Doc, XIV, 529. In Hempstead, in 1684, we 
 have the express provision " that it is agreed upon by the major vote 
 that for the future none of the Inhabitants of this towne bring in 
 any Vots more then their owne except it bee through Sixness or 
 Lameness and if Soe then they Send and order on the publique towne 
 meeting that they gave him that brings their vote their order soe to 
 precede for them and noe other votes to be of any Effect;" Town 
 Records, I, 409, April 18, 1684. 
 
 In Southampton, in 1700, voting on the public land matters was 
 said to be by "proxees;" but this may have meant ballots {Town 
 Records, II, 143)- 
 
 ' Long Island, Staten Island, and Westchester. 
 
2o8 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 but they were gradually extended to the upper Hudson ^ and 
 Delaware settlements, although it is believed they were never 
 fully in force in the Delaware region.* In New York City 
 there were no elective offices until, in 1683, Governor Don- 
 gan granted limited privileges by which the mayor, recorder, 
 sheriff, coroner, and town clerk were to be appointed by the 
 governor, and the freemen in six wards elected their own 
 aldermen, common councilmen, constables, overseers of the 
 poor, assessors, scavengers, questmen, and other officers.' 
 The word freemen was not here defined, but it may have had 
 the meaning of the word in the Dutch days. Three years 
 later, when a formal charter was granted to the city,* Don- 
 gan permitted the popular election of aldermen, assistants, 
 and petty constables, but the other municipal officers were 
 chosen by the governor or the city authorities. The elective 
 officers were to be " chosen by Majority of Voices of the 
 Inhabitants of each Ward ;" a most vague provision, which 
 later called for more precise definition.^ Similar provisions 
 are found in the Albany charter of the same year.® 
 
 During the short period of legislative activity from 1683- 
 85, there were few changes in the provisions of the Duke's 
 Laws respecting local suffrage. In one case we find the 
 word freeman ^ linked with that of freeholder ; in another 
 case the word freeholders alone is used ; * and in still another 
 act the popular election of militia officers was discontinued.® 
 
 In concluding the subject of the local suffrage during the 
 years 1665-1691, it may be said that while with two excep- 
 
 ^See Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 717-718; Munsell's Annals of Albany, 
 VI, 20; VII, 97; Hist. Coll. of Albany, IV, 390-509 passim; N. Y; 
 Col. Doc, XIII, 428, 438, 449, 459, 471. 
 
 ' See treatment of Suffrage in Delaware. 
 
 'N. Y. Co/. Doc, III, 338-9. 
 
 * April 27, 1686, Col. Laws, I, 181-195. 
 
 ' See post. 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 195-^16; Munsell, Annals of Albany, II, 62-87. 
 
 ''Ibid., 131, chap, g of acts of March i, 1683. Assessors and treasurers 
 were to be elected by the major vote of the freeholders and freemen of 
 each city, town, and county. 
 
 " Act of October 21, 1684, Col. Laws, I, 143. 
 
 " Act of October 27, 1684, Col. Laws, I, 161. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 209 
 
 tions the suffrage franchise was limited to the land-holding 
 class, yet no definite amount of land was set as a necessary 
 qualification. The exceptions to this qualification are to be 
 found in the case of the freeman in New York City during 
 the period 1 683-1 686, and the election of militia officers by 
 all the soldiers down to 1684. The most difficult question is 
 that arising out of the use of the word " inhabitants;" while 
 the most picturesque features are to be found in the struggle 
 of the small freeholders to obtain the franchise, and in the 
 partial proxy system for the election of representatives. 
 
 III. The Later English Period, 1691-1775. 
 I. The Provincial Suffrage. 
 
 The basis for the suffrage franchise in the royal colonies 
 is to be found, first, in the commissions and instructions 
 given by the English government to the colonial governors ; 
 secondly, in the laws passed by the colonial assemblies from 
 time to time ; and finally, in the local customs and interpre- 
 tations which arose under these instructions and these laws. 
 In New York, the commission of Governor Slaughter, of 
 November 14, 1689, marks the legal beginning of a perma- 
 nent representative system. The temporary instructions sent 
 by William and Mary to Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson 
 in July, 1689, did indeed authorize him to call to his assist- 
 ance as many as necessary of the principal freeholders and 
 inhabitants of the province.^ But this vagne provision would 
 not have furnished an adequate basis for an assembly even if 
 Nicholson had remained in control. And, as events proved, 
 it was Leisler, and not the regularly commissioned governor, 
 who attempted to revive the representative form of govern- 
 ment. Since Nicholson did not have opportunity to carry 
 out the power given to him, and since Leisler's assemblies 
 did not possess royal sanction, we must date the revival of 
 representation from Slaughter's time. 
 
 By this commission the governor could call assemblies of 
 the " inhabitants being freeholders," according to the usages 
 
 ^N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 606. 
 
 14 
 
2IO The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 of the other American plantations.^ The members of the 
 assembly were to be " duely elected by the Major part of the 
 Freeholders of the respective Countyes and places ;" and leg- 
 islative power was vested in the governor, council, and as- 
 sembly.^ The phraseology of this document was closely 
 copied in the commissions of later governors,^ and the Eng- 
 lish government contented itself with a general restriction of 
 suffrage to freeholders without attempting to define the 
 word. 
 
 The first assembly under Slaughter took up the question 
 and gave the word freeholder a legal meaning. By the act 
 of May 13, 1 69 1, it was provided 
 
 " That every freeholder within this Province and freeman in any 
 Corporation shall have his free choice & voat in the electing, of the 
 Representatives without any manner of Constraint or Imposition; and 
 that in all elections the Majority of votes shall carry itt, and by free- 
 holders is to be understood every one who shall have fourty shillings 
 P Annum in freehold." * 
 
 This act, it will be seen, is identical with the requirement of 
 1683, except that forty shillings income from freehold is 
 now expressed instead of giving a mere reference to the 
 English qualification. The distinction between the county 
 and the borough suffrage, which was to continue so long 
 in New York history, is also established by this act.' 
 For a few years the colony enjoyed in comparative peace 
 
 ' N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 221 ; N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 623. 
 
 'The relation of the governor to the council in legislation later led 
 to disputes which were appealed to England for decision. 
 
 ' In one commission, that of Governor Hunter, dated September 15, 
 1709, occur the words " assemblies of the Freeholders and Planters" 
 {N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 92-98) ; but the latter^ word does not again occur. 
 
 ' N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 244. 
 
 'Under the royal government the Long Island towns, for a time at 
 least, kept up the proxy, or indirect methods of election which they 
 had adopted in 1683, as the following extract shows: "At a towne 
 meeting (being legally Convened) ordered that by a Majr vote that 
 Capt John Wheeler should on ye nth of ye Instant go to Southampton 
 [to] carry our Towne proxes for the electing of Representatives for 
 this County of Suffolk" {East-Hampton Town Records, II, 281 ; Octo- 
 ber 5, 1692). 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 211 
 
 its newly found privilege of representation, and apparently 
 did not feel the need of an elaborate regulation of elections. 
 But by 1698 serious election difficulties had arisen. We can- 
 not follow all the party struggles which led to these dis- 
 orders, but both sides seemed willing to adopt unscrupulous 
 methods. In this year it was said that the representatives 
 elected were mainly " men of no great figure, Taylors and 
 other mean conditions ;" ^ that the sheriff of Orange County 
 had not permitted a single freeholder to vote, and yet had 
 returned persons as legally members of the assembly ; ^ and 
 that eleven out of the nineteen members of the assembly held 
 positions by disputed elections.* The governor was forced 
 to dissolve the assembly ; but in the succeeding election there 
 was fighting in a number of places, not without some broken 
 heads in consequence, and contested seats in the assembly.* 
 
 These disorders showed the need of a more comprehensive 
 election law, and at the session of 1699 an act ® was passed 
 which remained in force without substantial change until the 
 Revolution. In its preamble the act told the conditions 
 which called for its passage : 
 
 " Whereas of late ye Election of ye Representives to serve in Assem- 
 bly in ye respective Cittys & Countyes of this province have been 
 managed with great ourage tumult & Deceit to ye grevious oppression 
 And Depriving of ye Subject of his Chiefest Birthright in Chuseing 
 of his Representatives in Assembly for Remedy whereof for ye time 
 to come and y't ye Subject may freely enjoy his undoubted right of 
 Electing his Representatives without Disturbance or molestacon. Bee 
 it enacted," . . . etc. 
 
 The qualification for the suffrage was changed from the fif- 
 teenth century English law to one better suited to colonial 
 conditions ; that is, the forty-shilling income was changed to 
 
 'i\r. Y. Col. Doc, lY, 384. 
 
 ' Ibid., 395 ; 384 ; Ruttenber, History of the County of Orange, 45-46- 
 
 'Ibid. 
 
 *Ibid., 507; Smith, History of New York, 97, 99 (London edition of 
 
 1757)- 
 
 'Act of May 16, 1699, N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 405 ff. Repealed by act 
 of November 27, 1702, but the repealing act was disallowed by the 
 Queen in 1708. Cf. English statute, 7 and 8 Wm. III., chap 25. 
 
212 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 a requirement that the elector possess lands or tenements to 
 the value of forty pounds, in freehold, free of all incum- 
 brances, and have held them at least three months before the 
 election. Representatives were to have the same qualifica- 
 tions as electors, and both elector and elected must be over 
 twenty-one years of age. In case a poll were necessary, the 
 sheriff was authorized to appoint sworn clerks to set down 
 the name of each elector, the place of his freehold, and the 
 name of the person for whom he should vote. Any candidate 
 might require any elector to take oath that he was a free- 
 holder, that he had not been previously polled at the election, 
 and had not procured his freehold in order to gain a voice 
 in the election. In New York City and Albany the suffrage 
 was open to all freemen of the corporations who had resided 
 in the city three months before the election. 
 
 This act did not provide for election by ballot, nor did it 
 include the elaborate provisions against fraud and error 
 which are to be found in the laws of Pennsylvania and Dela- 
 ware. Yet from 1708 to the Revolution it remained the 
 principal election law of the colony. Frequent legislation 
 was had upon the subject of local suffrage, but the colonial 
 elections were permanently limited to persons possessing 
 forty pounds value of freehold, or holding freemanship in 
 either of the two cities. 
 
 The act of 1699 did not have the quieting effect upon 
 elections which its authors had hoped to gain from it. The 
 party troubles continued,^ and in 1701 the legislature passed 
 a number of partisan measures ; all of which, however, the 
 succeeding legislature of 1702 repealed, together with the 
 election act of 1699.* ^ut the repealing act in turn was dis- 
 
 ^ Smith's Hist, of N. Y. (London ed. of 1757), 99 ff; Journal of 
 Legislative Council of N. Y., I, 168-170; Colonial Laws, I, 450-523; 
 N. Y. Col. Doc, IV, 958. 
 
 -N. Y. Col. LarMS, I, 523. The preamble to the repealing act is as 
 follows: "For as much as Several Acts and Laws have lately been 
 past in this Colony, with plausible and Colourable Titles and pre- 
 tences, some of them Incongruous, and unjust in themselves, others to 
 obtain private and Sinister ends, under the Cloak of publick good; 
 many pretended Acts as Laws, by persons unquallified by Right or Law 
 to sit or act in the Legislative power, and by Several as were not the 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 213 
 
 allowed by the queen on June 26, 1708, after the Crown 
 had refused its consent to a number of other acts of the 
 period, 1700-1702.^ This disallowance of the repealing act 
 restored legality to the act of 1699, and brought back to the 
 statute-book a number of other laws, the principal among 
 which for our purpose was one defining the nature of free- 
 hold requisite for voters, and excluding Catholics from the 
 suffrage. 
 
 The act of October 18, 1701, extended the word freeholder 
 to include any person who held land for his life or his wife's 
 life, and declared him legally qualified to vote if the land 
 were in sufficient quantity. Mortgages upon his freehold 
 should not debar a man from the suffrage, if he were in pos- 
 session and derived an income from the property. In this 
 form the freeholder clause remained unchanged until the 
 Revolution, with the exception of a minor clause in an act 
 of 1769, which provided that the holding of lands in trust 
 for a corporation or for pious purposes should not qualify 
 the trustee for the exercise of the suffrage.^ 
 
 Choice of the People, and all of them, instead of being for the profit 
 and advantage of the Subject, as they ought to be, have been and 
 prov'd to the Distruccon of property, the confining and Enervating of 
 Liberty, Ruinous to Trade, to the Impoverishing of the People, a Dis- 
 couragement to Industry and hurtfull to the Settlement and prosperity 
 of the Colony." (Act of November 27, 1702.) 
 
 ^N. Y. Col. Doc, IV, 1026; V, 48. 
 
 ''Act of May 20, 1769, Col. Laws, IV, 1094. The act was subse- 
 quently disapproved by king, June 6, 1770. The contested election of 
 1737 led to a decision by the legislature that those who held freeholds 
 of forty pounds, three months before election, could vote; but a 
 grantee of a mortgage in fee forfeited, in possession of mortgaged 
 premises for several years was not qualified by virtue of the mortgage 
 (JV. Y. Col. Doc, VI, 56). Governor Cornbury in 1708 proposed a 
 novel plan of representation based upon tax assessments. The gov- 
 ernor had found difficulty in getting the assembly to pass a duty on 
 certain goods which the English government desired taxed. The 
 country districts, wanting cheap goods, refused to vote for the measure, 
 so the governor urged giving to New York City as many representa- 
 tives as the rest of the province possessed ; and this would not be so 
 unequal, he said, since the last assembly had put one-half the tax 
 assessments upon New York City (Col. Doc, V, 58). It is needless 
 
214 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 After 1 70 1 two more questions concerning the suffrage 
 arose. One of these was the imposition of reHgious restric- 
 tions by the disfranchisement of Catholics and Jews, and the 
 other was the question of non-resident and plural voting. 
 Among the various acts which had been passed in 1701, re- 
 pealed by the subsequent assembly, and restored by the dis- 
 allowance of the act of repeal, was the act of October 18, 
 1 701, already quoted, concerning freeholds. This act had a 
 severe clause positively forbidding any papist, popish re- 
 cusant, or any person refusing to take the various test oaths, 
 from voting for representatives or for any other officer what- 
 ever.^ The act, however, had no punitive provision respect- 
 ing this clause, and it is to be doubted if it was strictly 
 enforced. 
 
 Somewhat the same doubt surrounds the disfranchisement 
 of the Jews in 1737. In that year a contest arose between 
 two assembly candidates in New York City, Philipse and 
 Van Home, over the result of the election, and the dispute 
 was carried to the assembly for decision. In the argument 
 which arose, Mr. Smith, later chief-justice, acted as counsel 
 for Van Home, and urged that the apparent majority of 
 votes for Philipse was gained through the votes of some 
 Jews and some non-resident voters. Smith delivered an im- 
 passioned speech, in which he described the death of Christ 
 at the hands of the Jews, and urged that the curse still clung 
 to the race and rendered them unfit for political duties. So 
 vivid was his description that the staid legislators wept, and 
 the populace within hearing wanted at once to attack the 
 Jews. The impression of the speech was so strong that the 
 
 to say that the English government did not adopt the suggestion of 
 Cornbury. 
 
 ^ " . . . . from henceforth and for ever hereafter, no Papist, no 
 Popish Recusant, or Such person or persons as shall refuse Upon the 
 tender and demand of the Sheriff, or either of the Candidates, to take 
 the Oaths appointed by Law to be taken instead of the Oaths of Alle- 
 giance and Supremacy, and to Sign the Test and Association, as 
 Directed by Law in other cases shall be Suffered to give his or their 
 Vote or Votes for any Representative or Representatives to Serve in 
 this or any future Generall Assembly within this Province, or for any 
 other Officer or Officers whatsoever." {Col. Laws, I, 452-4.) 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 215 
 
 assembly passed a resolve altogether disfranchising Jews and 
 refusing to count their votes in the contested election.^ Both 
 the act of 1701 and the resolve of 1737 were unrepealed at 
 the time of the Revolution, but the enforcement of either 
 must have been left to the local officers, and it is perhaps 
 impossible to determine to what extent Jews and Catholics 
 were actually disfranchised. 
 
 The other phase of the suffrage, that of non-resident and 
 plural voting, remains to be mentioned. As early as 1700 it 
 was thought proper to permit a freeholder to vote in several 
 counties if he held land in each; and to facilitate this plural 
 voting, it seems to have been customary to hold the elections 
 on different days in different counties.^ In 1737, too, this 
 right of non-residents was expressly affirmed by the legis- 
 lature when objection was made to the counting of their 
 votes in the disputed election case already mentioned. The 
 decision of the legislature favoring non-resident voting, 
 while in accord with the English practice, did not win popu- 
 lar favor, when the opinion was held " that a personal resi- 
 dence was as requisite in the elector, as communion of inter- 
 ests by a competent freehold." * This popular opinion may 
 have been strengthened by the participation of absentee free- 
 holders in the provincial elections, while they were excluded 
 from the local town meetings and elections, where only 
 inhabiting freeholders could vote.* The limitation to inhabi- 
 tants in the one case would tend to create a popular sentiment 
 in favor of the same test for all elections. 
 
 ' The Continuation of Smith's Hist, of N. Y. (Coll. of N. Y. Hist. 
 Soc, 1826), 36-41; Dunlap's Hist, of N. Y. (N. Y., 1839), I, 318-319- 
 ' In a petition against the actions of Lord Bellomont, March 11, 1700, 
 it is said, — 
 
 " That soon after his LordP issued out writts for chusing a 
 new assembly, and the Election was appointed to be upon the 
 same day in all places except the two most remote counties 
 whereby the best freeholders who had estates in several coun- 
 ties, were deprived of giving their votes at several elections," 
 N. y. Col. Doc, IV, 621. See also Ruttenber, History of 
 Orange County, 44-47 ; Bishop, History of Elections in Ameri- 
 can Colonies, 69. 
 " Continuation of Smith's Hist., 37. 
 ' See post, p. 219. 
 
2i6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 The non-resident voting was, however, continued, and 
 tax-lists are extant for the city and county of New York for 
 1768 and 1769 in which the non-resident voters are par- 
 ticularly designated.^ In the latter year the subject came 
 up for discussion in the assembly and council during the 
 consideration of a new election law. Mr. William Smith, 
 Jr., in the council, in opposing certain parts of the proposed 
 bill, said that so far as it casts doubts upon the suffrage of 
 non-residents that it interfered with a right which " is essen- 
 tial to Liberty, clearly established by sound Exposition, and 
 invariably followed." ^ The bill passed, but was subse- 
 quently disallowed by the king, probably because it required 
 the representative to reside in the district which he repre- 
 sented.* An act of 1775 shows that the claim to vote more 
 than once sometimes led to inconsistencies. The freeholders 
 of the town of Schenectady and the manors of Rensseler- 
 wyck and Livingston had claimed the right not only of 
 electing the representative from those places, but also of 
 
 ^ See " A Copy of the Poll List of the Election for Representatives 
 for the City and County of New-York; which Election began On 
 Monday the 7th Day of March, and ended on Friday the nth of the 
 same Month, in the Year of our Lord MDCCLXVIII. Alphabetically 
 Made." And similar list for election of Jan. 23-27, 1769. The non- 
 resident voters are marked by the letters N R. In 1769 there were 
 only six non-residents out of 1575 electors ; in 1768 there were twenty- 
 seven. 
 
 "Journal of Legislative Council, II, 1706, May 19, 1769. The bill 
 also required representatives to reside in the district which they repre- 
 sented. To this Mr. Smith said " incapacitating non-residents from 
 representing their Electors is an alteration of the Election Act of 1699 
 (the first section of which is nearly similar to the Statute of the 8th of 
 H. VI. cap. 7) is repugnant to the constant usage of Parliament, and 
 the general practice of the assembly, for near seventy years past, 
 abridges the Right of Electors in all the Counties, and may be very pre- 
 judicial to the City and County of New York in particular, where it is 
 for many reasons most probable the greater number of non-resident 
 Members would reside; and it is the more unreasonable with respect 
 to the city since this Capital sends only four out of twenty-seven Mem- 
 bers, tho' it bears one third part of the Burden in all Publick 
 Levies." 
 
 " Act of May 20, 1769; disallowed, June 6, 1770. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. ziy 
 
 having a part in the election of a representative for the city 
 and county of Albany. The act significantly forbidding the 
 exercise of such a plural suffrage " in the right of such free- 
 hold only," leads to the intimation that those who held free- 
 holds in both parts might vote in each place.^ 
 
 These illustrations are sufficient to show that throughout 
 the colonial period the freeholder might, if he chose, vote in 
 all the counties in which he possessed land ; ^ while to make 
 this possible the elections were sometimes held upon different 
 days in different counties, or the polls were kept open for 
 nearly a week, during which a freeholder might visit several 
 counties and cast his vote in each. 
 
 Some few facts concerning the number of electors have 
 been found. In 1 735, in a disputed election for representa- 
 tive from New York City, when a poll had been demanded, 
 and the inhabitants had been brought to the polls in coaches 
 and accompanied with drums and musicians, it was found, 
 at ten o'clock at night, that one candidate had received 413 
 and the other 399 votes ; and this in an election when " the 
 zeal of the friends of the candidates was so great that it was 
 supposed every voter in the city was brought out." * If this 
 supposition were true, there were over eight hundred voters 
 in a population of about 10,000,* or eight per cent, of the 
 population. A tax-list for 1761 shows 1447 voters in the 
 city and county of New York; ^ and one for 1769 contains 
 the names of 15 15 electors.® In the latter case it is inter- 
 esting to note that out of the 15 15 electors 407 voted in the 
 
 ' Act of April 3, 177s, Ch. 69 ; Laws of New York, 1774-5, 206-7. 
 
 "Early in the commonwealth period the suffrage was limited to in- 
 habiting freeholders. The act of March 27, 1778 (chap. 16) provided 
 that no one could vote in state elections unless he resided in the district 
 in which he offered to vote. Laws of the State of New York, I, 28 
 (Albany, 1886). 
 
 " Valentine's Manual of the Corporation, 1869, p. 851. 
 
 * Ihid., 1851, 352, gives the population of the city for 1737 as 10,664. 
 
 " " A Copy of the Poll List of the Election for Representatives for the 
 city and County of New- York; which Election began on Tuesday the 
 17th Day of February, and ended on Thursday the 19th of the same 
 Month, in the year of our Lord MDCCLXI. Alphabetically Made." 
 
 • Similar list for election of January 23 to January 27, 1769. 
 
2i8 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 right of both freemanship and freehold, 506 were freeholders 
 only, and 602 were freemen only. It would thus appear that 
 in New York City two-fifths of the electors of representatives 
 did not possess land, but voted in the right of their free- 
 manship. 
 
 According to Valentine's Manual,^ the population in the 
 year nearest to 1761 given therein (1756) was 13,040, and 
 in the nearest year to 1769 (1771) it was 21,863. These 
 figures would make the voting class in the city at from 
 one-ninth to one- fourteenth of the total population; and, 
 taking into consideration the variation of dates, the electors 
 may have comprised about eight per cent, of the population, 
 while two-fifths of these electors did not possess real estate, 
 but voted in virtue of their freemanship alone. 
 
 The provincial suffrage during this period was first based 
 upon the English custom, but in a short time the qualification 
 was changed to a freehold of the value of forty pounds, or 
 the holding of freemanship in either of the two municipal 
 corporations. Catholics were by statute early excluded from 
 the suffrage, and later Jews were disfranchised by resolution 
 of the assembly. Non-residents could vote wherever the 
 freehold lay, and might thus cast several votes in different 
 counties. Voting throughout all the period was according 
 to the English viva-voce plan. 
 
 2. The Local Suffrage. 
 
 The local franchise of the province of New York may be 
 divided into five classes: (i) County elections; (2) city 
 elections; (3) town elections and town meetings; (4) parish 
 elections; (5) the meetings of persons interested in the com- 
 mon lands of the town.^ A few words may be said about 
 each of these forms of suffrage. 
 
 I. County Elections. The earlier county officers were ap- 
 pointed by the governor or by act of legislature,^ but by an 
 
 ' 1851, 3S3- 
 
 = There were no militia elections in New York during this period. 
 ' Act of June 19, 1703, Col. Laws, I, 532-8 ; Act of October 13, 1713, 
 Col. Laivs, I, 795-800. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. * 219 
 
 act of October 6, 1708/ entitled an "Act to Relieve this 
 colony from Divers Irregularitys and Extortions," the coro- 
 ners were to be elected by the freeholders of the counties. 
 In the elaborate act of 1703 which established the repre- 
 sentative county officers,^ all elections for the supervisors, 
 assessors, and collectors were to be made by the freeholders 
 and inhabitants of the respective towns; and while subse- 
 quent acts provided for the election of these officers in dis- 
 tricts or precincts as well as in towns, yet the phrase " free- 
 holders and inhabitants" is almost invariably used.* The 
 use of a somewhat similar phrase has already been noted in 
 the Duke's Laws, and it is believed that the class here de- 
 scribed was inhabiting freeholders, as under the earlier code. 
 The proof that the word inhabitant was meant as an addi- 
 tional qualification for the freeholder rather than as an addi- 
 tional class of voters is gained from the laws themselves and 
 from the custom of the towns. In several instances the 
 phrase " freeholders inhabiting within the said county" or 
 district is used, thus giving clear evidence of the intention 
 of the framers of the laws ; * while an inspection of the town 
 books of Hempstead shows that none but freeholders were 
 permitted to vote in that town.** 
 
 * Col. Laws, I, 622. 
 
 ' Act of June 19, 1703, chap. 133, Col. Laws, I, 539-542 ; the act of 
 May 13, 1691 {Col. Laws, I, 237), was so vaguely worded that it led to 
 many disputes. 
 
 ' For the early laws on this subject see acts of November 12, 1709 (Ch. 
 212); November 25, 1710 (Ch. 225); December 10, 1712 (Ch. 257); 
 October 23, 1713 (Ch. 270) ; October 23, 1713 (Ch. 271) ; July 21, 1715 
 (Ch. 297) ; July 3, 1718 (Ch. 354) ; June 24, 1719 (Ch. 397) ; June 24, 
 1719 (Ch. 380) ; etc. 
 
 'Acts of June 19, 1703 (Ch. 133) ; July 21, 1715 (Ch. 297 and Ch. 
 300) ; May 27, 1717 (Ch. 332). See also Bishop, History of Elections 
 in American Colonies, 222-3. 
 
 ° The legal phrase " freeholders and inhabitants" is often used by the 
 town clerks ; sometimes the term is simply " inhabitants ;" but in Hemp- 
 stead the words are so used that we can gather from them the idea that 
 only freeholders could vote. Thus the records from 1685 to 1704 speak 
 of matters being concluded by "mager" vote of the town; after 1704 
 the words " freeholders and inhabitants" sire infrequently used, but the 
 general term is merely " freeholders ;" while after about 1750 the legal 
 
220 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 The difficulty in picturing the voting class arises from the 
 fact that the word inhabitant was never defined in the laws, 
 and that the phrase was generally adopted by all officers 
 and town clerks, so that it is almost impossible to find any- 
 thing else than the single legal phrase. The same clause 
 was used throughout the colonial period,^ and even appears 
 frequently in the returns for the election of deputies to the 
 provincial convention of April, 1775,^ although here, as in 
 the town records of the colonial period, the word inhabitant 
 is sometimes used. In elections for county officers, with the 
 possible exception of those for coroner,* the franchise was 
 restricted to inhabiting freeholders. No limitation of the 
 necessary freehold, either as to size or value, having been 
 found, it may be taken that any freeholder, of large or small 
 estate, could vote in the county elections if he were an inhabi- 
 tant of the county. 
 
 2. City Elections. In these elections the principal pecu- 
 liarity lay in the freemanship. The old burgherecht of the 
 Dutch New Amsterdam had continued under the English 
 rule, and was well expressed in an ordinance of the mayor 
 and aldermen in 1675-6: 
 
 " Ordered that noe person or Merchant whatsoever shall sell, or cause 
 to bee sold, or put to sale any Goods, wares and Merchandizes by Re- 
 tale upon paine to forfeit all such goods, wares and merchandizes unless 
 
 phrase is used almost exclusively. These variations were without doubt 
 due to the idiosyncrasies of the clerks, but they show us that it made 
 no difference whether the attendants at the town meetings and elections 
 were called inhabitants or freeholders, or freeholders and inhabitants; 
 and since this is true we are logically forced to the conclusion that the 
 narrower term must be accepted. Records of Hempstead, II-IV passim. 
 
 'Acts of March 24, 1772, Col. Laws, V, 395, 403; act of February 8, 
 1774 (Ch. VIII) ; Laws of 1774-S, P- 12; act of March 19, 1774 (Ch. 
 XLII), Laws of 1774-5, P- 70; April 3, 1775 (Ch. LXXVI), Laws of 
 1774-5, P- 212. 
 
 'Journal of Provincial Convention, April 20, 1775, I, 2-9. Elec- 
 tions were said to be by " freeholders and inhabitants," by " freemen, 
 freeholders and inhabitants" (N. Y. City) ; " by inhabitants," and by 
 " freeholders." 
 
 'The act of October 6, 1708, named only freeholders as electors of 
 coroners. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 221 
 
 such person or persons are Free-men or made Free or Burghers of this 
 Citty, and settled housekeepers for the space of one year or given secu- 
 rity for the same Unless by Special License from the Mayor and Alder- 
 men with the approbacon of the Governor. And if any Person or Per- 
 sons soe made free shall depart from this Citty by the space of six 
 months Unless such Person or persons so departing shall during that 
 time keepe fire and Candle Light and pay Scott and Lott shall Loose his 
 and their freedome; and that all and every Merchant hereafter to be 
 made free shall pay for the same, Six Severs; And all Handecraft 
 trades [men] and others to pay two Severs for their being made free- 
 men; (Unless by Speciall order of Court) ."^ 
 
 By the provisional charter granted in 1683 the beaver 
 skins were commuted into pounds and shillings, every mer- 
 chant or shopkeeper paying three pounds twelve shillings 
 for his freedom, and every craftsman one pound four shill- 
 ings.^ Dongan's charter gave to the mayor, recorder, and 
 aldermen the power to admit freemen, but to make no greater 
 charge than five pounds ^ for the f reemanship. Four days 
 after the date of the charter the city authorities raised the 
 fee to the limit permitted in the charter,* but in 1691 it was 
 changed back to the sums required in 1683.* In 1694-5 ® it 
 was further provided that every apprentice should be regis- 
 tered with the city authorities, and upon completing a term 
 of service of not less than four years should be made free 
 of the city by his master, " if he have well and truely served 
 him." Montgomery's charter of 1730'' made no change in 
 the freeman qualifications; and the fees of 1683, with the 
 extension to apprentices in 1695, continued the method of 
 gaining the freemanship until the Revolution put a stop to 
 the municipal activities. Some laws were passed during this 
 period respecting the suffrage in the city. An act of 1702, 
 called forth by the " great Strifes Debates & Suites" which 
 had previously happened, required voting freeholders not 
 only to hold land in the city, but also to reside therein, and 
 
 ' N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1885, 40-41- 
 
 = Ihid., 4S, 47. 
 
 'Ibid., 48; N. Y. Col. Laws, 181-195. 
 
 'Ibid.,^. 'Ibid., so. 
 
 ° Ibid., 52 ; January i6, 1694-5. 
 
 ''N. Y. Col. LaM's, II, 575-639- 
 
222 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 gave freemen the right to vote only in the ward in which 
 they resided, provided they had taken their residence in the 
 ward three months before the election.^ By the Montgomery 
 charter electors were spoken of as " ffreeholders or ffreemen 
 Inhabitants of the said city," which was the requirement of 
 the act of 1702; while vestrymen were subsequently elected 
 by the " wards." ^ An act of 1771* identified the word 
 freeholder as used in the charter with its use for the pro- 
 vincial suffrage, i.e., forty pounds value of freehold; and 
 required freemen to have held their freedom for three months 
 and have resided in the ward one month. This act also 
 required electors to declare whether they voted as freehold- 
 ers or freemen, a rule which had already been in use.* 
 
 The Albany charter of 1686, which remained the' consti- 
 tution of the city until the Revolution, prescribed that elective 
 officers should be chosen " by the majority of voices of the 
 inhabitants of each ward." The mayor, recorder, and alder- 
 men could admit freemen, but none could be admitted except 
 natural born or naturalized subjects of the King of England ; 
 and they could not be compelled to pay more than three 
 pounds twelve shillings for merchant right or thirty-six 
 shillings for craftsman rights in the city.^ These sums were 
 evidently retained in practice for strangers coming to the 
 city, but for persons born in Albany the fee, in 1763, was 
 reduced to two shillings,® and later was made still lower.' 
 The names of those admitted, except in a few instances, are 
 not given in the records,* but occasional mention is made of 
 fees accruing from the admission of freemen.* 
 
 ' N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 490 ; disallowed bj' the queen, December 31, 
 1702. 
 
 ^ Acts of November 29, 1745, Col. Laws, III, 506 ; and of January 27,. 
 1770, Col. Laws, V, 85. 
 
 ' Col. Laws, V, 228 ; continued by act of March 9, 1774. 
 
 * See poll lists of 1768-69. 
 
 "AT. Y. Col. Laws, I, 209, 210; Munsell's Annals of Albany, II, 79-80. 
 
 ° Munsell, Hist. Coll. of Albany I, 144. 
 
 ' Ibid., 172, 199. In 1769 it was reduced to one shilling six pence. 
 
 ' Albany City Records are published in Vols. II-X of Munsell's An- 
 nals of Albany, and Vol. I of the Hist. Coll. of Albany. 
 
 ' Hist. Coll. of Albany, I, passim. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 223 
 
 The city elections are usually said to be by the " inhabi- 
 tants,"^ but it is believed that this meant inhabiting free- 
 holders and freemen, and in one case the electors are dis- 
 tinctly so described.^ A contested case in 1773 led to the 
 adoption of rules regulating the suffrage, prescribing (i) 
 that no alien could vote, no matter what his term of resi- 
 dence; (2) British subjects having resided six weeks in the 
 city had the right to vote in the wards they inhabited; (3) 
 no bond servant could vote during the time of his service ; 
 (4) the votes of persons who had been bribed were null and 
 void.^ 
 
 3. Town Elections. The earliest act upon this subject is 
 that of May 6, 1691,* which authorized the holding of town 
 meetings and gave to the freeholders at these meetings the 
 right to make prudential by-laws and to elect certain local 
 officers. Other early acts also used the word freeholders 
 alone ^ in defining the suffrage. In an act of 1702,® later 
 disallowed by the queen, the voters of Kingston ( " Kings 
 Town") are spoken of as " freeholders and freemen" of the 
 town, but no other application of the word freemen to town 
 voters has been noticed. After 1703 the term " freeholder 
 and inhabitant" is generally used in the laws and town rec- 
 ords, and is believed to have the meaning ascribed to it for 
 county elections.'' 
 
 'Munsell, Annals of Albany, VI, 266. ''Ibid., 285. 
 
 ° Munsell, Hist. Coll. of Albany, I, 254. 
 
 * " An Act for the Enableing each Respective Towne within this Prov- 
 ince to Regulate their Fences and Highwayes and make Prudentiall 
 Orders for their Peace and Orderly Improvements," Col. Laws, I, 225. 
 
 " Act of May 13, 1691, Col. Laws, I, 237 ; May 16, 1699, Col. Laws, I, 
 427. The act of October 18, 1701, makes no mention of an electoral class, 
 merely providing for elections by the " towns." 
 
 " Act of May l, 1702, Col. Laws, I, 488. 
 
 ' See Col. Laws, I, 539, 1033; II, 130; III, 54, 320, 415, 947, 9S9, 1017; 
 IV, 944, 977 ; V, 405. It is interesting to notice that when the legislators 
 desired to express the class which we to-day would call inhabitants, they 
 used other phrases in addition to the "freeholder and inhabitant" clause. 
 Thus taxes were to be levied upon " all & every ye ffreeholders. In- 
 habitants Residenters and Sojourners of and in this Province" (Act of 
 May 16, 1699, Col. Laws, I, 396-401). Other tax laws varied the word- 
 ing somewhat, but almost invariably added another class to the free- 
 
224 ^^^ Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 4. Parish Elections. Under the Duke's Laws, ministers 
 had been elected by the towns, but by the act of September 
 22, 1693,^ ten " vistry" men and two church wardens were 
 to be elected in each parish in the counties of Richmond, 
 Westchester, and Queens and in the city of New York by 
 the freeholders of the city or county, and the minister was to 
 be selected by the vestrymen. There are but few later acts 
 concerning these elections, one of which used the phrase 
 freeholders and inhabitants,^ another " freeholders" alone,* 
 and still another only " inhabitants." * It is most likely that 
 these terms all refer to the class of local voters already men- 
 tioned. In New York City a later act provided for the 
 election of vestrymen by " each ward," ® but afterwards the 
 word freeholder alone is used,® and again the qualifications 
 of voters for other city elections are established for the city 
 parish elections.^ The apparent intention was to place the 
 parish elections upon the same suffrage basis as the political 
 elections of the towns and cities. 
 
 5. Suffrage concerning Land Matters. Still another divi- 
 sion of the population for voting purposes existed. This 
 arose out of the interest of certain persons in the unoccupied 
 and common lands of the towns, which, having been granted 
 to certain proprietors at the founding of the towns, con- 
 tinued as a distinct right of their descendants and successors. 
 The laws ® gave to those thus concerned the right to make 
 rules relating to the common lands and in certain cases to 
 divide the lands among themselves. The phrases used in 
 the laws describing this class of persons are " proprietors," 
 
 holders and inhabitants. See Chaps. 8, 15, 20, 22, 29, 39, 43, 50, 51, 53, 
 56, 63, 71, 82, etc., of colonial laws. 
 
 ^ Col. Laws, I, 328. 
 
 ' Laws, III, 429, referring only to Richmond County. 
 
 ° Col. Laws, I, 440-1. * Laws, V, 297. 
 
 ' Act of November 29, 1745, Col. Laws, III, 506. 
 
 " Act of January 27, 1770, Col. Laws, V, 86. 
 
 'Act of February 16, 1771, Col. Laws, V, 228; revived and continued 
 until 1780 by act of March g, 1774, Laws of N. Y. 1774-5, 45- 
 
 ' Acts of October 30, 1708, Laws, I, 633 ; of July 21, 1715, Laws, I, 
 882; of October 16, 1718, Laws, I, 1006; of February 19, 1756, Laws, 
 IV, 41-3; and of January 27, 1770, Laws, V, 115. 
 
The Suffrage in New York. 225 
 
 " owners," " joint tenants," " tenants in common," etc., all 
 of which sufficiently mark off the owners of such lands from 
 those holding no share therein. 
 
 The body of tenants in common differed from the " free- 
 holders and inhabitants" of the ordinary town meeting by 
 excluding some voters and including others not ordinarily 
 permitted to vote in the town meeting. Thus there can be 
 no doubt that there were freeholders in the towns who did 
 not enjoy the rights in the commons,^ and, on the other 
 hand, non-resident freeholders may have been allowed to 
 vote on matters which so directly concerned their own prop- 
 erty interests.^ The matters were to be determined by the 
 owners resident in the colony, however,* thus ignoring any 
 proprietors, if there were such, resident in Europe. An 
 inspection of the records of Hempstead shows that frequent 
 meetings of the " freeholders and tennants in common of 
 the plain Land in the town abovesaid" were held, and by- 
 laws and regulations concerning the care and division of the 
 town land were adopted.* In such elections the proportions 
 of the early allotment of land were sometimes maintained, 
 as in Southampton, where the voting is said to be by 
 " fifties," and even portions of a " fifty" might be voted.^ 
 A later act may have limited the voting in such elections to 
 those who held full shares according to the early division.® 
 
 While an effort has been made here to enumerate the 
 various forms of local suffrage, it will be noticed that the 
 elections mentioned were almost all made up of freeholders 
 
 ' N. Y. Col. Doc.', XIV, 7SI. In the Southampton Records occurs the 
 phrase " those interested in the town lands," which may imply that there 
 were some not so interested, Records, II, 252. 
 
 ' It must be admitted that no proof has been found for the latter state- 
 ment except the negative evidence coming from the general omission of 
 the word "inhabitants" in connection with such meetings. See the 
 various references to the laws and to town action. 
 
 ' Act of October 30, 1708, gave power to joint tenants here residing 
 by major vote to divide their lands. 
 
 * Records of Hempstead, IV, 86, 216, 219, 248, 3S1. 375. 446-448, etc. 
 
 'Southampton Town Records, II, 143, April 2, 1700. The term evi- 
 dently referred to fifty acres. 
 
 ' Act of October 16, 1718, Col. Laws, I, 1006. 
 
 IS 
 
226 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 and inhabitants, or, as we have interpreted the phrase, of 
 inhabiting freeholders. The variations from this rule are to 
 be found in the city elections of New York City and Albany, 
 and in the elections and meetings concerning common land. 
 It is believed that the double qualification of freeholdership 
 and inhabitancy was required in county, town, and parish 
 elections from 1703 until th^ revolutionary period. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 The Suffrage in New Jersey. 
 
 New Jersey's history as a political organization begins 
 with Stuyvesant's grant of a charter to the settlement of 
 Bergen, on September 5, 1661.^ Before that date, although 
 some forty years and more had passed since the first settle- 
 ment, there was no incorporation of the inhabitants either 
 along the Hudson or on the Delaware. Indeed, the popula- 
 tion was so small in numbers and so scattered geographi- 
 cally that it would be the height of archaeological nicety to 
 attribute any political activity to the settlers. Only one hun- 
 dred and thirty-nine persons took the oath of allegiance to 
 the new proprietors in 1665, after the coming of Governor 
 Carteret to the colony ,* and under the Dutch the number of 
 heads of families must have been still smaller. And when 
 the Dutch governor granted his charter in 1661, he gave to 
 the residents of the Bergen territory a government similar 
 to that which he had imposed upon other parts of the Dutch 
 dominion ; it consisted simply of a local court, composed of 
 four officers, and possessing certain limited judicial, legis- 
 lative, and administrative powers. In the selection of this 
 court the people appear to have had no choice, for the yearly 
 appointments were made by the New Amsterdam authori- 
 ties from a double number of candidates proposed by the 
 existing officers.^ As this continued to be the method of 
 government until the occupation of the country by the Eng- 
 lish, it is scarcely of moment to apply the word suffrage to 
 conditions which were fixed first by a local close corporation, 
 and in the last resort by the general officers at New Amster- 
 dam. It is not until the coming of the English that any 
 element of popular government appears. 
 
 By a hostile act against a friendly nation, Charles II. of 
 
 ' Laws and Ordinances of New Netherlands, 403. 
 * New Jersey Colonial Archives, I, 48-51. 
 ^ New York Colonial Documents, XIII, 231. 
 
 227 
 
228 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 England on March 12, 1663-64, made his well-known grant 
 to his brother, James, Duke of York, including within the 
 lands so bestowed not only Maine and Long Island, but also 
 that from the west side of the Connecticut River to the east 
 side of the Delaware,^ and giving James full and absolute 
 power to govern the inhabitants of the ceded territory. 
 Before he had acquired possession the Duke had parted with 
 a large share of his grant to two noblemen. Lord Berkeley 
 and Sir George Carteret; and on June 24 granted them the 
 land between the Hudson and Delaware rivers " in as full 
 and ample manner as the same is granted unto the said Duke 
 of York." 2 And although Colonel Nicholls, the Duke's 
 governor at New York, strongly opposed the grant,* it re- 
 mained valid, and soon was acted upon by the new pro- 
 prietors. 
 
 In the winter of 1664-5 Berkeley and Carteret proceeded 
 to advertise their colony, and announced certain " Conces- 
 sions and Agreements of the Lords Proprietors of the Prov- 
 ince of New Csesarea, or New Jersey, to and with all & 
 every the Adventurers and all such as shall settle or plant 
 there." * Considering the close relations of the proprietors to 
 the king and the Duke of York, these concessions are re- 
 markably favorable to the intending settlers. The liberty of 
 conscience was guaranteed, the political privilege of a gen- 
 eral legislative assembly and of chartered towns and cities 
 was promised, and the great inducement of cheap, almost 
 free, land was held forth. 
 
 Before mentioning the suffrage conditions as laid down 
 in the concessions, it will be proper to call attention to the 
 manner of obtaining land and the conditions imposed upon 
 the settlers therein. During the whole colonial period free 
 holding was the most marked qualification for the suffrage 
 in New Jersey ; and the question, therefore, naturally arises, 
 upon what conditions could land be obtained? The pro- 
 
 ' Learning and Spicer, Grants, Concessions, and Original Constitutions 
 of the Province of New Jersey, 3 ; Poore, Charters and Constitutions, 
 I, 783. 
 
 ' Ihid., 8 ; Smith, History of New Jersey, 60-61. 
 
 ^ New Jersey Col. Archives, I, 46-48. 
 
 * Learning and Spicer, 12-26. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey, 229 
 
 prietary concessions gave to every free man going out before 
 January i, 1665, one hundred and fifty acres for himself 
 and the same amount for every able-bodied servant, well 
 armed and provisioned, which he should bring with him ; and 
 seventy-five acres for every weaker servant, male or female, 
 over fourteen years of age. And upon attaining his freedom 
 each Christian servant was to receive seventy-five acres. The 
 only conditions required of the settler were that he should 
 be fully armed, provisioned for six months, and that after 
 March 25, 1670, he should pay annually a quit-rent of one- 
 half penny for each acre which he had received. Settlers 
 who should come to the colony after 1666 would receive 
 smaller amounts of land, diminishing year by year, until by 
 1668 the amount for an able-bodied settler was to be only 
 sixty acres. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the settler needed little more 
 capital than sufficient to purchase his own equipment and 
 arms; the proprietors demanded no money payment for 
 lands, but at the end of five years — 1670 — the quit-rents 
 should become due. It was further provided that all subjects 
 of the King of England should be at liberty to plant and 
 become freemen of the province. Thus land was the cheapest 
 commodity in the country ; and a community whose members 
 possessed thousands of acres of land might still be compelled 
 to take up a voluntary contribution of nails in order to roof 
 over the meeting-house.^ Land was thus open to any free 
 English subject who could get out to the new country ; and 
 its value must be expressed, not in terms of purchase money 
 paid to the proprietors, for there was none such, but in 
 terms of the cost of transportation of men, implements, and 
 cattle thither. Indeed, land in America sometimes had a 
 negative value, and it was necessary to pay persons to go 
 out to it ; the owners hoping to be reimbursed by the growth 
 of the country and advancement of trade.^ Once in America, 
 if the settler possessed a good character and was not politi- 
 cally or religiously obnoxious, it was an easy matter to get 
 land. Since agriculture was almost the sole occupation, he 
 
 ' In Newark, April 17, 1669; Town Records, 18. 
 
 ' See the inducements offered by the Dutch West India Company to 
 settlers; N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 371. (March 4, 1650.) 
 
230 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 who did not possess land was usually a vagrant and socially- 
 dangerous. Hence, to the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- 
 tury settler and statesman the possession of land meant little 
 more than that the individual had a permanent and definite 
 employment. 
 
 With this understanding of the ease of acquiring land and 
 the universality of land-holding, we are ready to look at the 
 first definite suffrage qualifications laid down in New Jersey. 
 The concessions provided for an annual session of an elective 
 assembly chosen by the freeholders of the province : 
 
 " The inhabitants being freemen, or chief agents to others of the 
 Province aforesaid ; do as soon as this our commission shall arrive, by 
 virtue of a writ in our names by the Governor to be for the present 
 (until our seal comes) sealed and signed, make choice of twelve depu- 
 ties or representatives from amongst themselves ; who being chosen are 
 to join with the said Governor and Council for the making of such laws, 
 ordinances and constitution as shall be necessary for the present govern- 
 ment and welfare of the said Province. But so soon as parishes, divi- 
 sions, tribes and other distinctions are made, that then the inhabitants 
 or freeholders of the several respective parishes, tribes, divisions and 
 distinctions aforesaid, do by our writts, under our seals (which we 
 ingage, shall be in due time issued) annually meet on the first day of 
 January, and choose freeholders for each respective division, tribe or 
 parish to be the deputies or representatives of the same: which body 
 of representatives or the major part of them, shall, with the Governor 
 & Council aforesaid, be the General Assembly of the said Province, the 
 Governor or his deputy being present. . . ." 
 
 This regulation, made before the first body of emigrants to 
 the new province had set out, provided for two kinds of 
 assemblies: a preliminary representative body, chosen by 
 the whole community of planters and settlers and their 
 agents ; and a permanent representative organization, elected 
 by the freeholders and based upon geographical districts. 
 The latter assembly, thus composed of governor, council, 
 and house of deputies, was given large powers. It could 
 appoint its own meetings and adjournment, constitute courts, 
 erect manors, hundreds, boroughs, towns and cities ; it could 
 levy taxes, organize and train the militia, and naturalize 
 foreigners; it should determine the method of land allot- 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 231 
 
 ment, and make provision for the support of government. 
 The laws of the assembly must be consonant to reason and 
 conform as nearly as convenient to the laws of England; 
 and they must not be opposed to the interest of the Lords 
 Proprietors nor repugnant to the Concessions; and lastly, 
 the laws should remain in force only one year unless con- 
 firmed by the proprietors. 
 
 The Concessions had stated that the electors of the depu- 
 ties in this assembly should be freeholders, but no definition 
 or qualification of the word freeholder was given. Yet free- 
 holder is a relative rather than a definite term, and particu- 
 larly was the meaning of the word undetermined in 1665. 
 It implied, however, certain legal proof of the right of pos- 
 session, and often required the performance of express 
 duties to the lord. In New Jersey these two qualifications 
 of a freehold were translated into the terms " proprietary 
 title" and " proprietary quit-rents;" and for over a hundred 
 years they furnish the unchanging background for the his- 
 tory of the province. We must now notice how the question 
 originated. 
 
 Before the news reached America that the Duke of York 
 had ceded part of his territory to Berkeley and Carteret, 
 Colonel Nicholls, whose orders had been to subdue and gov- 
 ern all the land described in the King's patent to the Duke, 
 had made land grants in what is now New Jersey. The first 
 of these grants was made by Nicholls to several Long Island 
 inhabitants who wished to settle on the site of the later town 
 of Elizabeth; and this grant was followed in the spring of 
 1665 by a patent for lands along the coast southward and 
 westward of Staten Island, called the " Monmouth Pat- 
 ent." ^ When Governor Carteret arrived, in the summer of 
 1665, to t^'^s charge of the province for the proprietors, he 
 
 ' For the Elizabeth-town settlement and claims see W. A. Whitehead, 
 A Review of some of the Circumstances Connected with the Settlement 
 of Elizabeth, N. J., read before the N. J. Historical Society, May 20, 
 1869 ; also Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments, 
 42-45 ; Smith, History of New Jersey, 61-68. 
 
 For the Monmouth patent see Leaming and Spicer, 661-663; N. J. 
 Archives, I, 43-46; Whitehead, East Jersey, 4S-47i 61; Smith, New 
 Jersey, 62. 
 
232 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 found that settlements had been made under these patents; 
 but for the time being the previous settlers appear to have 
 recognized his authority, and no question of jurisdiction 
 arose for several years. 
 
 The first three years of the provincial government were 
 consumed by the governor and council in allotting land, sur- 
 veying tracts, and organizing local governments; and not 
 until April, 1668, did the governor issue a proclamation for 
 the freeholders to elect their delegates to an assembly.^ The 
 elections were held accordingly, and ten deputies were 
 selected from six towns ; ^ and in May and November the 
 governor, council, and deputies held sessions of the " Assem- 
 bly" at Elizabeth-Town, at which a number of acts were 
 passed. But no sooner was the representative system inau- 
 gurated than the question of the suffrage arose. 
 
 The governor in his writ had directed that all freeholders 
 should take part in the elections, but now the disputed land- 
 titles led to troubles at the elections. Many of the settlers 
 on the Monmouth and Elizabeth-Town patents had refused 
 to repatent their lands under the proprietors, and declined to 
 take the oaths to the proprietors; and thus in a short time 
 after Carteret had issued his writ for the first election the 
 necessity arose for a definition of a freehold. The governor 
 and council met the conditions boldly by refusing altogether 
 the suffrage to those who would not take the oath of alle- 
 giance : 
 
 " Prohibition for those at Navesinks to bare any office or have any 
 Vote in Election till they have taken the Oath. 
 
 " . No person or persons are to be admitted as a Freed man or 
 
 Freholders of this Province of New Jersey . . . untill they have taken 
 or subscribed to the Oath of Aleagance to our Soveraign Lord the King 
 and his Successors and to be true and faithfull to the Interest of the 
 Lords Proprietors. . .'" 
 
 But it was difficult to enforce such a rule when voting was 
 done in the towns without any control by the governor and 
 
 ^N. J. Archives, I, 56; Whitehead, East Jersey, 59. 
 " Whitehead, East Jersey, 59, note 3. 
 ' N. J. Archives, I, 58. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 233 
 
 council. Naturally, the next step was to threaten the towns 
 which permitted illegal voting. The inhabitants of Wood- 
 bridge had been granted a charter/ with the right to elect 
 local magistrates and deputies to the assembly ; but they had 
 admitted some illegal voters to their town meetings, and 
 now Governor Carteret threatens them with the forfeiture 
 of their charter. This proclamation goes a step farther 
 than the one to Navesinks, where the requirement was only 
 the taking of the oaths, by demanding also the formal pat- 
 enting of lands as a qualification for voting : 
 
 " Whereas I have Reseved information that ther are severall persons 
 which you have Admitted to have ther voices in ye towne meetings, that 
 have not any Land Surveyed and pattented according to theire Articles 
 and the tenner of the Charter granted to your Corporation, But on the 
 Contrary in Contempt doe Wilfully neglect the same, Against the Lords 
 Proprietors Authority, and to the prejudice and hindrance of all other 
 honest minded men, as also the indangering of the breach of your 
 Charter by ye suffering of such malignant Spirits to live amongst you, 
 or to have anything to doe in your publick afairs, for the preventing 
 whereof I have thought good by the advise of my Counsell to signify 
 this unto you; That all such persons that are not conformeable to the 
 Tenner of your Charter, and that have not pattented their land accord- 
 ingly are not from this day forward to [be] Accompted as freholders, 
 and by Conciquence are not to have any ofice whatsoever ; nor to have 
 any vote or voice in your towne metings upon any publick busines 
 whatsoever; nor yett to enjoy any lands within the bounds of your Cor- 
 poration ; but [it] shal and may be lawful for you to dispose of those 
 lands intended for them for the other persons that will be obedient or 
 submit themselves to the laws and government of the province. . . " ' 
 
 This was in October, 1670, and in the mean time the 
 proprietary quit-rents had become due, March 25, 1670, and 
 many of the inhabitants of the tracts granted by Nicholls 
 refused to make the payments to the New Jersey proprietors. 
 The Newark settlers had provided for the prompt payment 
 of their rents,* but the Elizabeth-Town and IVIonmouth pat- 
 ent inhabitants refused to pay, claiming their prior grants. 
 
 * See charter in N. J. Historical Society Collections, I, 184. 
 
 ^ N. J. Archives, I, 63. 
 
 'Newark Town Records, N. J. Hist. Soc. Coll., VI. 30. 
 
234 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Several irregular meetings of deputies were held during this 
 period,^ presumably to take general action against the pro- 
 prietors. In May, 1672, representatives of five towns met 
 at Elizabeth-Town, and, taking advantage of the absence of 
 Governor Carteret in New York, they elected James Car- 
 teret, a son of the proprietor. Sir George Carteret, as " Presi- 
 dent of the Country." ^ Upon this the governor was com- 
 pelled to return to England, where his actions were sus- 
 tained by the proprietors, even against Carteret's own son. 
 
 Governor Carteret returned to the province with docu- 
 ments confirming his own authority, the rights of the pro- 
 prietors, and vesting political power within the province in 
 those only who held proprietary titles to their lands. The 
 king sent over a letter directed to the governor and council 
 of the province commanding all persons to yield allegiance 
 to Berkeley and Carteret.* The proprietors forwarded " a 
 declaration of the true intent and meaning of the Conces- 
 sions," in which the old Nicholls patentees were expressly 
 excluded from the suffrage : 
 
 " . . no person or persons whatsoever shall be counted a free- 
 holder of the said Province, nor have any vote in electing, nor be capable 
 of being elected for any office of trust, either civil or military, until he 
 doth actually hold his or their lands by patent, from us, the Lords pro- 
 prietors." * 
 
 These documents were published by tlie governor upon his 
 arrival, and warnings sent to the towns to have their lands 
 surveyed and registered.^ But the process of reducing all 
 the inhabitants to the rule of the proprietors was unexpect- 
 edly interrupted by the reconquest of all the region from 
 the Delaware to the Hudson by the Dutch in the summer 
 of 1673. 
 
 After the Dutch fleet had taken New York City, the New 
 Jersey towns near New York sent commissioners to the 
 
 ' Whitehead, East Jersey, 60, note 3 ; 66-69. 
 
 " Ibid., 67. 
 
 ' Learning and Spicer, 38. 
 
 * Ihid., 32-34 ; Whitehead, East Jersey, 71. 
 
 ^ N. J. Archives, I, 119. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 235 
 
 Dutch ofificers at New Orange (New York), yielding their 
 allegiance to the Dutch/ and receiving in return the same 
 privileges as those granted to the Dutch towns.^ In the 
 towns, where the charters of Governor Carteret had granted 
 the local suffrage to all freeholders, the Dutch established 
 the system of double nomination which had been such a dis- 
 tinctive feature of their earlier government in the New 
 Netherland region.^ The Dutch retained control of their 
 old territory only a few months, and in February, 1674, the 
 New York, New Jersey, and Delaware lands were all re- 
 stored to the English by treaty, occupation being taken by 
 Edmund Andros for the English in October, 1674. 
 
 After the retrocession of the lands to the English, King 
 Charles made a second grant to his brother James,* and 
 James in turn made a second grant of New Jersey." But 
 this new grant was made only to Carteret and did not in- 
 clude all the province, for as early as March, 1673, Berkeley 
 had disposed of his undivided half of New Jersey to John 
 Fenwick in trust for Edward Byllinge.® The Duke of York 
 thus recognized the division of the province, and in his grant 
 to Carteret gave him the better part of the territory: that 
 north of a line drawn from Barnegat Creek to a point on 
 the Delaware below Renkokus Creek. The division of the 
 land made by this grant was naturally not acceptable to the 
 successors of Berkeley, and on July i, 1676, a quintipartite 
 deed of division was drawn up between Byllinge and his 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc.yiin, 4,73. 
 
 ' N. J. Archives, I, 124. At the time of the surrender to the Dutch, 
 there were estimated to be 391 male inhabitants (freeholders?) in the 
 province, of whom 327 took the oatji of allegiance to the Dutch {Ar- 
 chives, I, 133). 
 
 ' N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 477; N. J. Archives, I, 126. A most curious 
 system of triple nomination and indirect election was established. Each 
 of the English towns in New Jersey was to elect two deputies ; these 
 deputies were to meet and to nominate three persons for schout (sheriff) 
 and three for secretary, and from these nominees the Director and 
 Council would select one for each office. 
 
 ' Leaming and Spicer, 41-45. 
 
 "July 29, 1674. Leaming and Spicer, 46-48. 
 
 ' Whitehead, East Jersey, 81. 
 
236 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 assignees on one part and Carteret on the other, by which 
 the share of the Berkeley claimants, now called West Jersey, 
 was very considerably enlarged.^ From this time until the 
 assumption of control by the Crown in 1702, New Jersey 
 was divided into two political organizations, with distinct 
 policies and development. We must, therefore, , turn our 
 attention first of all to the continuation of the struggle 
 between Carteret and his settlers in East Jersey, and then 
 take a summary view of the suffrage as it existed in West 
 Jersey under the proprietors. 
 
 Upon his return to the province after the Dutch occupa- 
 tion, Governor Carteret was again fortified with ample 
 powers to bring the malcontents upon the NichoUs grants to 
 terms. A second letter from King Charles was obtained, 
 acknowledging Carteret's title and commanding all to yield 
 him obedience ; ^ still more additional directions were made 
 supplementary to the original Concessions.^ One year's time 
 was given to the Nicholls patentees to repatent their lands, 
 and at the end of that time, if the new registration were not 
 made, the lands and homes of the occupiers were to be for- 
 feited. No one could vote nor hold office unless his land 
 was obtained by the proprietary title ; and the people of one 
 of Nicholls's grants who had peaceably submitted were re- 
 warded with greater political privileges in matters of local 
 government. Thus threats and hopes of rewards were both 
 used to bring the obdurate settlers to a recognition of the 
 proprietary rights. 
 
 The reasons for the refusal of the old settlers to take out 
 new patents were threefold : the inconvenience of new sur- 
 veys and registration, the fees and cost of repatenting, and 
 the perpetual quit-rents which the new patents required. 
 The governor made the matter as convenient as possible by 
 appointing special days upon which inhabitants could take 
 out their patents, and thus become " quallified as well for a 
 Generall Assembly as Elective for other Offices." * The 
 
 * Learning and Spicer, 61-72. 
 
 ^ Ibid., 49. 
 
 ' Ibid., 50-57. 
 
 ' N. J. Archives, I, 176. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 237 
 
 second assembly of the province met in the fall of 1675/ and 
 from that time until 1688 frequent assemblies were held. 
 Yet the electors and members of these assemblies appear not 
 to have been always qualified according to the instructions 
 of the proprietor; 2 many of the old inhabitants must still 
 have refused to patent their lands under the proprietor ; and 
 yet the governor could not prevent their voting and even 
 sitting in the assembly. 
 
 Other difficulties now beset the province. The Duke of 
 York's governor in New York, Edmund Andros, claimed the 
 right to levy customs duties upon all ships entering New 
 Jersey ports; and in the conflict of authority which arose 
 over the subject Andros entered New Jersey, seized Governor 
 Carteret, and imprisoned him in New York.* A jury failed 
 to convict Carteret, and the case was sent to England for 
 the consideration of Sir George Carteret and the Duke of 
 York. In the interim Andros ruled East Jersey, and per- 
 mitted the inhabitants a privilege which his master had 
 denied New York, a representative assembly. This assem- 
 bly stood upon their rights under the concessions and as 
 Englishmen when Andros tried to force the Duke of York's 
 Book of Laws upon them : * 
 
 " 1680 New Jersey Assembly to the Go : 
 
 "June 2id Wee the Deputies of the Freeholders of this Province of 
 New Jersey doe expect that all privileges belonging to Inhabitants & 
 Freeholders of the s<i Province granted to them by Vertue of the Con- 
 cessions made by the L* John Berkeley & S^ George Carterett bee to all 
 Intents & Purposes allowed & confirmed & maintained to the aforesaid 
 Inhabit"ts & Freeholders without any Infringment: one particular 
 principal whereof is as of right belonging to every free borne English- 
 man, that there bee a Generall Assembly called once a yeare . . ." ° 
 
 The independent attitude of the assembly was shown not 
 only towards Andros, but also towards Governor Carteret 
 when, after the disavowal of Andres's acts, he was reinstated 
 
 ^ Learning and Spicer, 94. 
 
 " N. J. Archives, I, 364. 
 
 " Smith, New Jersey, 68 ; Whitehead, East Jersey, 93. 
 
 * N. Y. Col. Doc, XIII, 541 ; N. J. Archives, I, 296-7 ; 30S ff- 
 
 '■Ibid., 311. 
 
238 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 in authority. The assembly of October, 1681, appears to 
 have been under the influence of the settlers upon the Nich- 
 olls grants, and accordingly the session was a very stormy 
 one, in which the assembly protested against the orders of 
 the proprietors in 1672, which had limited political privileges 
 to those who held proprietary titles ; and the governor denied 
 the right of many of the assembly to sit in the house at all 
 because they did not possess patents from the proprietors.^ 
 
 This was the last assembly held under the authority of the 
 Carterets, and it was the most turbulent. Throughout the 
 whole period in which Sir George Carteret or his family held 
 East Jersey the province was in a state of turmoil over the 
 land question. The disputes arose out of the unfortunate 
 grants made by Nicholls, and their termination was not 
 reached until over fifty years had passed. The proprietors 
 used every means within their power to bring the Nicholls 
 patentees to terms. Forcible eviction was threatened, and 
 perhaps tried in a few cases ; submission was encouraged by 
 granting additional privileges to those who had peaceably 
 acknowledged Carteret's authority; and as a last resort, in 
 the instructions of 1672 and 1674, the proprietor had directed 
 that those refusing to recognize his authority should be 
 debarred from political privileges, both in the towns and in 
 the provincial elections. But the situation was one in which 
 the possessor was stronger than the absent proprietor or his 
 governor in the colony; evictions were almost impossible 
 when such a large part of the population was concerned. 
 The occupiers retained possession, and in addition often exer- 
 cised political rights. The whole situation is most interest- 
 ing as showing the close connection between political privi- 
 leges and land-holding; and it illustrates the difficulty of 
 enforcing abstract title rights in a new country. 
 
 After the death of Sir George Carteret in 1680, the trus- 
 tees of his estate sold East Jersey at auction to William Penn 
 
 • N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 293-300 ; N. J. Archives, I, 354-365. Concern- 
 ing the additional instruction of 1672, the Assembly said : " The Lords 
 would likely neuer haue had a thought of such Contradicc'on of them- 
 selves had it not been a bratt begotten in New Jersey sent for England 
 to be borne and Retransported to New Jersey to be fed with the groanes 
 and Oppressions of the People." {Archives, I, 363.) 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 239 
 
 and eleven associates.^ And shortly after this each of the 
 twelve purchasers disposed of one-half of his share to 
 another, thus making in all twenty-four proprietors. In 
 order to make their title to the province more secure, the 
 new proprietors obtained a new release from the Duke of 
 York* and a letter from the king recognizing their right 
 to their purchase. Having thus settled their title, the pro- 
 prietors appointed a governor, Robert Barclay, the famous 
 Quaker apologist, and Barclay in turn appointed a deputy 
 who was to reside in the province. 
 
 Following these first steps in provincial organization, the 
 proprietors of East Jersey issued a most remarkable political 
 code for the province, called " The Fundamental Constitu- 
 tions for the Province of East New Jersey in America." * 
 This frame of government provided in elaborate terms for a 
 great council composed of the twenty-four proprietors or 
 their proxies and representatives of the freemen to the num- 
 ber of seventy-two or one hundred and forty-four. A great 
 advance was made by the constitutions upon the subject of 
 the suffrage. The old vague term " freeholder" was care- 
 fully defined, and non-freeholders who rented houses in 
 towns were allowed the privilege of voting : 
 
 " The persons qualified to be freemen, that are capable to choose and 
 be chosen in the Great Council, shall be every planter and inhabitant 
 dwelling and residing within the Province, who hath acquired rights to 
 and is in possession of fifty acres of ground, and hath cultivated ten 
 acres of it ; or in boroughs, who hath a house and three acres ; or have 
 a house and land only hired, if he can prove he have fifty pounds in 
 stock of his own." * 
 
 Thus a decided step towards political equality was proposed 
 by the proprietors, and the artisans and small freeholders of 
 the towns were placed upon an equality with the larger free- 
 holders of the country districts ; while the rights of the latter 
 
 ' February i and 2, 1681-2 ; Learning and Spicer, 73 ; Whitehead, East 
 Jersey, 103. 
 ' Learning and Spicer, 141-150. 
 'Ihid., 153-166. 
 'Article III of the Constitutions. 
 
240 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 were restricted by requiring the country freeholder to be in 
 possession, and to have under cultivation at least ten acres 
 of his freehold.^ The proposed arrangement, which was 
 nearer to political equity than the old qualifications, had one 
 defect, for by it the freeholder must have " acquired rights 
 to" his land ; and this might lead, and indeed eventually did 
 lead, to the old trouble concerning proprietary titles. 
 
 Among the proprietors, who were to constitute one house 
 of the assembly, the suffrage qualifications were closely lim- 
 ited. No proprietor could retain his vote unless he kept at 
 least one- fourth of his propriety ; and as there were twenty- 
 four proprieties at first, at least one-ninety-sixth of the whole 
 province of East Jersey must be retained by each proprietor. 
 If any proprietor thus forfeited his right to vote in the pro- 
 prietary council, his right might be passed on to others who 
 held the required amount, or after forty years had elapsed, 
 and vacancies still appeared, then selections might be made 
 from those possessing five thousand or three thousand acres 
 of land. As an apologist for the Fundamental Constitutions 
 says, — 
 
 "To avoid Lording over one another, No man can purchase above 
 the 24th part of the Countrey ; and on the other hand, least any should 
 squander away their Interest, and yet retain the character of the Gov- 
 ernment that belongs to Property, and thence be capable to betray it, 
 as not being bound by Interest, there must be a suitable quantity re- 
 tained, otherwise the Title in the Government extinguishes in him, and 
 passes to another, to be Elected by the Proprietors, that Dominion may 
 follow Property, and the inconveniency of a Beggarly Nobility and 
 Gentry may be avoided." ^ 
 
 Such was the seventeenth and eighteenth century conception 
 of political rights; dominion should follow property, and 
 the privilege of participating in government was conditioned 
 
 *The requirement that part of freehold should be cultivated is seen 
 in Penn's Laws Made in England ; in Markham's Frame for Penna. ; 
 Penna. Act of November 27, 1700, and January 12, 1705-6, and Delaware 
 Act of 1734. 
 
 ^ George Scot in Model of the Government of the Province of East- 
 New-Jersey, London, 1685 ; reprinted in N. J. Hist. Soc. Coll., I, 239 ff ; 
 269. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 241 
 
 upon the antecedent participation in the wealth of the coun- 
 try; the politically efficient were those " bound by Interest." * 
 
 This proposed code never went into effect, for, although 
 the proprietors thought they had granted many new privi- 
 leges in the Fundamental Constitutions, the people and as- 
 sembly did not view the code in the same light; further, the 
 new frame was to go into effect only upon those who would 
 submit to a new survey of their lands, accepting new titles, 
 paying all old quit-rents, and who promised to make pro- 
 vision for the support of the government.^ Such restrictions 
 would have defeated a much better constitution than the 
 Fundamentals of 1683. The governor in the province was 
 compelled to retain the government under the Concessions of 
 1665, and in April, 1686, the assembly decidedly refused to 
 accept the new frame. After that time it is supposed that no 
 further action was taken towards the establishment of the 
 code.* 
 
 But one more feature of a constitutional nature remains to 
 be noted before the surrender of East Jersey to the Crown. 
 Between 1686 and 1702 the province had passed through 
 many experiences; comparative peace had reigned between 
 1686 to 1688, and then the land was turned over to Andros 
 as part of his " Dominion of New England ;" from 1689 till 
 1692 there was no general provincial government whatever ; 
 then came a few years of quiet until the arrival of Governor 
 Basse in 1697. During all this time the only consecutive 
 policy was the popular opposition to the proprietary quit- 
 rents. So unsatisfactory and costly was the collection of the 
 rents, that at last the proprietors proposed to commute them 
 into a single payment, and then vest the land in fee in the 
 holders.* At this point the proprietors used the same threats 
 and promises which Carteret had employed in 1672 and 
 1674. It was provided that when the people have purchased 
 at least one-half of the quit-rents and paid arrears of rents, 
 
 ' Cf. the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 : " All men, having sufficient 
 evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the 
 community, have the right of suffrage." 
 
 ' Leaming and Spicer, 179-181. 
 
 'Whitehead, East Jersey, 133; 134, note I. 
 
 * Leaming and Spicer, 214-219. 
 
 16 
 
242 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 and the assembly has made provision for support of the gov- 
 ernment, then the governor may agree to a general law for 
 the annual meetings of assembly, and the assembly may have 
 the power to name a double number of candidates for local 
 county offices, the governor selecting a single number for the 
 offices; but if in any county or town a major part of the 
 freeholders do not so commute their rents, then that town 
 or county should not have the privilege of nomination of 
 their officers by assembly, but the governor should appoint 
 all local officers; provided, that such political privileges as 
 were granted under these terms should continue only so long 
 as the assembly made provision for the support of the gov- 
 ernment.^ 
 
 It was but natural that Englishmen should reject such 
 propositions as these ; for, although the payment of the quit- 
 rents may have been a reasonable, or at least a legal, claim 
 of the proprietors, the conditioning of political privileges 
 upon the payment of the rents was vicious in principle. 
 These were the people who in 1680 had told Andros that 
 it is a " right belonging to every free borne Englishman, 
 that there bee a Generall Assembly called once a yeare ;" and 
 now their " birth-right privileges" must be bartered for quit- 
 rents at the rate of a ha'penny an acre. Yet the colonists 
 were ready to pay off the rents if an equitable agreement 
 could be reached, and went so far as to send a special agent 
 to England to confer with the proprietors.^ But in drawing 
 up a statement of the rights of the subjects in 1699, the 
 assembly omitted to give any other qualification of the suf- 
 frage than simple freeholdership,' thereby ignoring all the 
 proprietary claims to rents or new surveys. 
 
 There followed several years of confusion and disorder. 
 The governor appointed sherififs and county officers in ac- 
 cordance with his instructions, but the people refused to obey 
 them and violently attacked the justices and sherififs, and 
 even kept Governor Hamilton in confinement for several 
 
 ' Instructions to Governor Basse, April 14, 1698, Learning and Spicer, 
 214-219. 
 ' Whitehead, East Jersey, 193. 
 ^ Learning and Spicer, 368-372. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 243 
 
 days.^ In these days, called the " Revolution," the governor 
 attempted to dispossess some of the settlers of their lands,'' 
 and at last the people petitioned the king to take the govern- 
 ment into his own hands.^ It was undoubtedly believed at 
 this time that with the overthrow of the proprietary govern- 
 ment would go all the proprietary quit-rents and troubles 
 over the ownership of the soil.* The transfer to the Crown 
 was made in 1702,^ and after that change in authority the 
 suffrage dispute centred about other matters than the abstract 
 title to land. 
 
 We must now retrace our course to the year 1676, in which 
 the division of New Jersey into the two sections. East and 
 West Jersey, was made by the drafting of the quintipartite 
 deed. In the western section, as in the eastern, the subject 
 of land titles was a perennial source of trouble, but there was 
 one difference between the two divisions in favor of West 
 Jersey. In East Jersey the land troubles arose between the 
 settlers and the proprietors, giving rise to strong protests 
 and revolutionary acts against the proprietors on the one 
 hand, and to evictions and political disfranchisement of the 
 settlers on the other. In West Jersey the land disputes were 
 generally among the proprietors or proprietary claimants 
 themselves, and there was no definite arraying of popular 
 classes against the large hereditary owners of the land. And 
 it will be seen also that West Jersey enjoyed a larger measure 
 of local self-government and more freedom from European 
 restraint than was the case in East Jersey. Thus, down to 
 the union of the two divisions and the assumption of control 
 by the Crown in 1702, the history of West Jersey shows less 
 turbulence and violence than is to be found in the eastern 
 section. 
 
 It is, of course, not our purpose to study in detail the land 
 disputes, but clearness demands that a short statement be 
 made of the title changes in West Jersey down to 1702. In 
 
 ^ Whitehead, East Jersey, 215. 
 
 'New Jersey Historical Society Collections, V, 30. 
 'Ibid., 30, 32. 
 
 * Whitehead, East Jersey, 214. 
 
 " Learning and Spicer, 609-617. The transfer papers were signed April 
 IS, 1702, and accepted by the queen on April 17. 
 
244 ^^^ Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 the year 1673 Lord Berkeley had sold his undivided share 
 in New Jersey to John Fenwick in trust for Edward Byl- 
 linge ; and a contest arising between Byllinge and Fenwick, 
 William Penn was appointed arbitrator by a Friends' meet- 
 ing in London, and Penn awarded an undivided tenth of 
 West Jersey to Fenwick and the other undivided nine-tenths 
 to Byllinge. After much pressure, Fenwick accepted this 
 decision, while Byllinge turned over his nine-tenths to Penn, 
 Laurie, and Lucas as trustees for his creditors. Fenwick 
 then mortgaged his one-tenth to Eldridge and Warner on a 
 one thousand-year lease for fiio, and having thus disposed 
 of his land, set sail for America; and, the only one of all 
 the proprietary claimants upon the spot, Fenwick began 
 granting lands without regard to the rights of Byllinge's 
 trustees or his own mortgagees. In the mean time, sales of 
 land having been made in England to so-called proprietors, 
 it was proposed to divide the land into tenths, and a company 
 of proprietors from Yorkshire agreed to settle upon one of 
 these tenths, and a company from London upon another. 
 The proprietors in England then elected Byllinge as gov- 
 ernor and allowed him to appoint a deputy. In 1680, in 
 order to make the title more secure, a new grant was obtained 
 from the Duke of York, but this only complicated matters 
 by granting the lands to the assignees of Fenwick and Byl- 
 linge, but the political power to Byllinge himself. Byllinge's 
 power in the colony was not at first recognized, but later his 
 governor was accepted. In 1683 Fenwick sold all his share 
 in West Jersey except 150,000 acres to William Penn for 
 ten shillings, and thus one of the most disturbing elements 
 of the colony was quieted.^ After Byllinge's death in 1687, 
 Daniel Coxe, of London, already holding a large proprietary 
 interest, bought the rights of Byllinge's heirs and claimed the 
 sole political authority; but in 1692 Coxe transferred his 
 interest to a company of proprietors, who styled themselves 
 the West Jersey Society, and who appointed their first gov- 
 ernor in the same year. This society retained the land and 
 political rights until the surrender to the Crown in 1702, 
 
 " For the interesting personality of John Fenwick, see R. G. Johnson, 
 
 History of Salem (AT. /.) ; Shourds, Fenwick's Colony; N. Y. Col. Doc, 
 XII ; N. J. Archives, I ; Smith, History of N. J., 79 ff. 
 
The Suifrage in New Jersey. 245 
 
 when they yielded their political power, but their title to all 
 unoccupied land is still (1904) valid, and the society keeps 
 up its organization in West Jersey.^ 
 
 Turning now to the subject of the suffrage in West Jer- 
 sey, we need not mention the informal meetings held by 
 Fenwick ^ in his colony, but must notice first of all the suf- 
 frage provisions in the first frame of government for West 
 Jersey, called " The Concessions and Agreements of the 
 Proprietors, Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Province of 
 West New Jersey, in America." » This remarkably liberal 
 constitution was drawn up in England, dated March 3, 
 1676-7, and was signed by one hundred and fifty-one per- 
 sons, among whom were Penn, Laurie, Lucas, Warner, Byl- 
 linge, Olive, and Jennings, all greatly interested in New 
 Jersey history. The Concessions partake of the nature of 
 an agreement between the intending settlers and the English 
 proprietors, and they appear to have been signed by Byllinge 
 and his representatives, by the new purchasing proprietors, 
 and by those about to sail for the colony. 
 
 The Concessions provided for the division of the country 
 into tenths, and each tenth in turn into ten proprietaries, 
 making one hundred proprietaries for the whole province, 
 and determined the amounts of land which should be given 
 to new settlers, tracts which were much smaller than those 
 we have seen were granted to the settlers in East Jersey 
 under the Concessions of 1665. They further provided for a 
 temporary and permanent government by officers elected by 
 the people. The temporary government was composed of 
 commissioners elected by " the proprietors. Freeholders and 
 Inhabitants" of each of the tenths, who were to govern and 
 order the affairs of the province for the good and welfare of 
 the people. The commissioners were to be elected by ballot : 
 
 " And the said Elections shall be made and distinguished by balloting 
 Trunks, to avoid noise and confusion, and not by Voices, holding up of 
 the Hands, or otherwise howsoever." * 
 
 ' See The Surveyor^ Association of West New Jersey, 1 18-144. 
 ^ N. J. Col. Archives, I, 225, 275. 
 
 " Learning and Spicer, 382-411 ; N. J. Archives, I, 240 ff; Smith, New 
 Jersey, 521 ff. 
 * Article III. 
 
246 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 These commissioners were to continue to be elected by annual 
 elections until " distinctions of tribes" occur, and then there 
 was to be a " General, Free and Supream Assembly" com- 
 posed of one member from each of the one hundred proprie- 
 taries, elected by the " inhabitants, freeholders, and proprie- 
 tors." 
 
 The West Jersey Concessions of 1677 were more liberal 
 to the settlers than were the Fundamental Constitutions of 
 East Jersey of 1683. The assembly according to the latter 
 was made up of two houses, one of which was composed 
 solely of those holding definite proprietary interests in the 
 province ; while in West Jersey the proprietors did not retain 
 to themselves any such share in legislation ; for in references 
 to the suffrage the three words, inhabitants, freeholders, and 
 proprietors, are used, and no attempt is made to vest with 
 superior political privileges those who hold title to the unoc- 
 cupied land. The humblest freeholder and the greatest pro- 
 prietor are on a political equality and each may in orderly 
 fashion cast his vote into the " balloting trunk." The repre- 
 sentatives thus elected were called the " trustees" of the 
 people; they were directly responsible to their constituents, 
 who had the power to instruct them upon public measures; 
 and they were to be paid by the people of their several dis- 
 tricts, that thereby each " may be known to be the Servant 
 of the People." 
 
 This elective system was not set in operation until 1681, 
 when Samuel Jennings, deputy governor under Byllinge, 
 called an assembly, which soon showed itself stronger than 
 the governor. Byllinge, under his second grant from the 
 Duke of York of 1680, was claiming sole political authority 
 of the province, and therefore the newly elected representa- 
 tives, fearing perhaps the withdrawal of the old Concessions, 
 drew up a formal set of conditions,^ and refused to recog- 
 nize Jennings as governor until he had accepted these funda- 
 mentals. This agreement provided for annual assemblies 
 elected by the " free people" of the province; it took from 
 the governor any veto upon acts of the assembly, compelling 
 him to accept all acts passed by them ; it forbade the governor 
 
 ^ Learning and Spicer, 423-425. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 247 
 
 to pass any law without the general assembly, and if he did 
 so, he should be esteemed an enemy of the free people of the 
 province and the law should be void; it made all offices 
 elective or appointive by the assembly; it granted liberty of 
 conscience, and no one was to be rendered incapable of hold- 
 ing office on account of faith ; finally, this compact prohibited 
 the raising of any tax by the governor. 
 
 After this first assembly, annual elections took place with 
 considerable, if not complete, regularity until the cession to 
 the Crown in 1702.^ These assemblies exercised very broad 
 powers. They elected the councillors, justices of the peace, 
 land commissioners, constables, and other inferior officers; 
 and in three years, 1683, 1684, 1685, even elected their gov- 
 ernor, and compelled him to take an oath to observe the es- 
 tablished constitution of the province.^ This was self-gov- 
 ernment in practically complete form. The freeholders ^ 
 elected the members of assembly, and the assembly elected 
 all other provincial officers, while town officers were occasion- 
 ally elected or nominated by the localities.* The tenths re- 
 mained the unit of representation until 1694, when the 
 county was substituted, Burlington and Gloucester counties 
 sending twenty representatives each, Salem ten, and Cape 
 May five. In 1699 this number of fifty-five representatives 
 was found " burdensome and superfluous," and accordingly 
 the numbers were changed to ten for Burlington and Glou- 
 cester counties, five for Salem and three for Cape May, all 
 of whom were to be " sufficient freeholders." But in 1701 
 the old numbers were once more adopted.® It is not at all 
 surprising that the number of representatives was felt to be 
 too great, for an almanac of the time estimates that West 
 
 '■ Smith, New Jersey, 154; but Learning and Spicer give no laws be- 
 tween 1685 and 1692. 
 
 'Ibid., 164, 189, 190. 
 
 ' By a law passed at the session of September 26-28, 1682, it was pro- 
 vided that elections for assemblymen should be by the " freeholders ;" 
 while the two other terms, " inhabitants" and " proprietors" are omitted 
 from the clause, and were not reinstated thereafter (Leaming and 
 Spicer, 4SS-6)- 
 
 * Leaming and Spicer, 454, 494, 496. 
 
 " Ihid., 533, 567, 581. 
 
248 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Jersey contained only eight hundred and thirty-two free- 
 holders ; ^ thus giving one representative to every fifteen 
 voters. 
 
 Throughout the whole period of separate organization, the 
 suffrage in West Jersey was exercised by those holding land, 
 but beyond the simple word " freeholder" as used in the 
 laws, no further qualification or explanation was given ; and 
 apparently no disputes occurred which might create the ne- 
 cessity for a clearer definition of terms. 
 
 After years of negotiations, the transfer of the Jerseys to 
 the Crown was accomplished in 1702. As early as the year 
 1699 the proprietors had offered to surrender their govern- 
 mental rights to the Crown, but they demanded many con- 
 ditions and guarantees. Again in 1701 the proprietors of the 
 two sections united in framing the conditions upon which they 
 would yield to the king; and among the guarantees which 
 they asked was one which gave the model for the later repre- 
 sentative system of the royal province of New Jersey. East 
 and West Jersey should be united, and a single assembly for 
 both sections should meet alternately at Perth Amboy and 
 Burlington. This assembly, the proprietors suggested, 
 should be composed of thirty-six members : two elected by 
 the " inhabitants householders" of Perth Amboy, two by 
 those of Burlington, sixteen by the " freeholders" -of East 
 Jersey, and the same number by the freeholders of West 
 Jersey; and membership in the assembly was to be limited 
 to those possessing over one thousand acres of land, and the 
 right of suffrage outside the two towns to those possessing 
 a freehold of one hundred acres.^ The proprietors further 
 asked for a confirmation of their rights to the soil and quit- 
 rents, the right to appoint the first governor, religious liberty 
 for the inhabitants, the regular establishment of courts, and 
 other privileges. But shortly after this the Board of Trade 
 questioned the right of the Duke of York to alienate his 
 rights in government, and advised the king to appoint a 
 governor for the provinces without making terms with the 
 existing proprietors.^ The following spring the proprietors 
 
 'AT. J. Archives, II, 305. 
 
 "Learning and Spicer, 588, S91-3, 599. 
 
 " Ibid., 603-9. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 249 
 
 surrendered their political powers in both provinces to the 
 queen without restriction or qualification. 
 
 After the surrender of the Jerseys to the Crown, we must 
 look for the next constitutional expression in the governor's 
 commission and instructions. Lord Cornbury had already 
 been appointed governor of New York, and in the fall of 
 1702 he was commissioned as governor over the neighboring 
 province of New Jersey. His commission^ and instruc- 
 tions 2 show the influence of the demands made by the pro- 
 prietors, and granted almost everything which they desired. 
 The assembly was not so large as the proprietors had wished, 
 but it was formed upon the plan suggested by them, and the 
 qualifications both of members of the assembly and of voters 
 were similar to those given in the petition of the proprietors. 
 
 The assembly was to be composed of twenty-four mem- 
 bers, ten of whom were chosen by the freeholders of East 
 Jersey and ten by the freeholders of West Jersey, two by the 
 " inhabitants householders" of Perth Amboy and two by 
 those of Burlington.^ No one could act as an elector unless 
 he possessed one hundred acres of land in the section (East 
 or West) in which he desired to vote, nor serve in the assem- 
 bly unless he held one thousand acres in the section. It will 
 be seen that the new organization acted in two ways: en- 
 
 ' December 5, 1702 ; Learning and Spicer, 647-656 ; Smith, History of 
 New Jersey, 220-230. 
 
 ''November i6, 1702; Learning and Spicer, 619-646; Smith, History 
 of New Jersey, 220-261. 
 
 ' The extension of the suffrage in Burlington and Perth Amboy was 
 one of the requests of the proprietors' petition, and was one of the pro- 
 visions of the proposed fundamentals of 1683 in East Jersey. In the 
 town charters (Newark, 1666; Bergen, 1668; Woodbridge, 1669; Mon- 
 mouth, 1672) the word freeholders is always used (see charters in N. J. 
 Hist. Soc. Coll., I, 183, 184, 186; Learning and Spicer, 663-4). In the 
 legislation concerning towns sometimes the word freeholder is used 
 (Laws of May 26 and November 3, 1668) ; sometimes the word " in- 
 habitant" (Ch. VIII of East Jersey Laws of 1686) ; sometimes the word 
 "town" (East Jersey Laws, 1693, Ch. VIII, 1698-9, Ch. V). In Bur- 
 lington (West Jersey Laws, Ch. XIII of 1693) local matters were deter- 
 mined by " actual inhabitants who enjoy the fee simple of a house and 
 land therein.'' In all these there is no reference to " inhabitants house- 
 holders." 
 
250 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 larging the suffrage in the towns by allowing all inhabiting 
 householders to vote, and limiting the suffrage in the coun- 
 try by substituting the new provision of one hundred acres 
 in freehold for the indefinite term " freeholder," unqualified 
 as to amount. No exact figures have been obtained showing 
 the effect of the new qualifications, but there is no doubt that 
 they were very unpopular, both on account of the restriction 
 upon members of the assembly and upon voters in the 
 country.^ 
 
 Governor Cornbury arrived in New York in May, 1702, 
 but his commission and instructions as governor of New 
 Jersey did not reach him until the end of July, 1703.^ 
 Within a few days after the receipt of these papers, the gov- 
 ernor visited New Jersey, and before a month had passed 
 he had issued his writs for the election of members of assem- 
 bly.^ Some inconvenience and injustice were brought on in 
 this first election under the royal government by the omis- 
 sion in the governor's instructions of any districting scheme, 
 and accordingly the ten representatives from the two divi- 
 sions of the province were elected at large, and the polls were 
 held in one place, compelling some voters to travel over a 
 hundred miles to the voting place.* If one were to believe 
 all of Colonel Quarry's accounts to the Board of Trade, there 
 was not a little corruption and undue influence at the polls 
 of this first election. Surely no modern election expert could 
 do better than to return as elected one who received only 
 forty-two votes out of over four hundred ; and the undefined 
 powers of the sheriff of those days permitted him to adjourn 
 the election and compel " several hundred of substantial 
 housekeepers to sleep out of doors in an inclement season of 
 the year" while waiting for their turn to vote.^ 
 
 The assembly, meeting in November, 1703, soon ad- 
 journed till May, 1704, and in the fall a new election took 
 
 ^N. J. Archives, III, 6, 28, 71, 84; N. J. Hist. Soc. Coll., V, 49, 55; 
 MS. Board of Trade Journals in Penna. Historical Society Library, 
 November 20, 1705. 
 
 'Ibid., II, 543, note. 
 
 'Ibid., Ill, s. 
 
 'Ibid., Ill, 16,28; XIII, 306. 
 
 ' Ibid., Ill, IS. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 251 
 
 place. The members of the new assembly at once took up 
 the consideration of the question of suffrage and elections. 
 The governor had already written to the Board of Trade,^ 
 giving three objections to the qualifications as fixed in his 
 instructions: that some were chosen to the assembly, but 
 could not serve because they did not have one thousand acres 
 of land, although possessing more than that value in land and 
 goods; that some of those possessing the required amounts 
 of land had not twenty shillings in money, " drive noe trade, 
 and can neither read nor write, nay they can not answer a 
 question that is asked them ;" and that the instructions were 
 faulty in not providing for elections in the counties instead 
 of in the two divisions at large. Thus the governor pointed 
 the way towards a more liberal policy, holding that property 
 in goods was as sufficient a test of a man's interest in the 
 state as was real estate, and even hinting that land itself was 
 of little value as a suffrage qualification if the elector or 
 elected was unable to read or write. 
 
 While the governor thus showed himself in favor of a 
 personal property qualification as well as a landed require- 
 ment, the other opponents of the proprietary interest in the 
 province were urging that the heavy land qualifications were 
 " an infringement of the naturall right of the other Inhabi- 
 tants and tend to enslave them." ^ Thus governor and anti- 
 proprietary party acted in harmony, and when the second 
 assembly met, in November, 1704, they excluded three per- 
 sons whose qualifications were not clearly shown, and then 
 by a bare majority passed a new law entitled " An Act for 
 altering the present Constitution, and Regulating the Elec- 
 tion of Representatives to serve in general Assembly in this 
 Province." * I have never seen a copy of this law, but it is 
 frequently referred to in the correspondence of the day, in 
 public discussions, and in the journals of the Board of Trade, 
 and from these sources the two principal features of the act 
 are obtained. These features were, first, the repeal of the 
 
 " N. J. Archives, III, 28. 
 
 'Ibid., 27. 
 
 ^Ibid., 72; 88; the act is given by title only in Bradford's Laws 
 
 (edition of 1717). 5- 
 
252 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 clause of the governor's instructions requiring voters to pos- 
 sess one hundred acres, and members of assembly one thou- 
 sand acres, and substituting for that provision the old vague 
 term " freeholder" without any additional qualification; Jind 
 secondly, the introduction of the governor's favorite theory 
 of the equality of land and personal property as the basis 
 for political qualifications.^ The exact method by which the 
 equality of the two forms of property was obtained is not 
 stated in any of the documents of the period. 
 
 The new law attracted attention immediately both in New 
 Jersey and in England. The governor wrote to the Board 
 of Trade that it would be " more advantageous to the 
 Queen's service and the good of the country" than the old 
 method ; ^ and three of the proprietors in England also memo- 
 rialized the Board, protesting against the high requirements 
 of Cornbury's instructions and asking that all freeholders 
 might have a share in elections.^ The Board admitted two 
 of these petitioners personally to its meetings, and upon their 
 advice sent to the queen the draft of new instructions for 
 the governor.* On May 3, 1705, the new instruction was 
 approved by the queen in council. ° It was a virtual com- 
 promise of the suffrage question. The desire of the more 
 popular party that all freeholders should be permitted to vote 
 was not granted, but the governor's proposal that personal 
 property be accepted in lieu of land was incorporated, and 
 the clause was so worded that any freeholder could vote who 
 had 
 
 " icx) Acres of Land of an Estate of Freehold in his own right within 
 the County for which he shall so Vote, or a personal Estate in Money, 
 Goods and Chattels to the Value of £50 Sterling." 
 
 ' See Archives, III, 17, 84, 86-95 ; 126; MS. Board of Trade Journals, 
 April 13, 170S, Vol. 17, 357-8; November 20, 1705, Vol. 18, 108, no, 
 1 14-5, 120; Learning and Spicer, 657-660; N. J. Hist. Soc. Coll. V, 50. 
 
 The act was subsequently disallowed by the queen; see Bradford's 
 Laws (edition of 1732), 7. 
 
 ^Archives, HI, 71. 
 
 ' Ibid., 84. 
 
 * MS. Board of Trade Journals, April 13 and 16, 1705, Vol. 17, 357-8. 
 
 ' Archives, III, 96-98. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 253 
 
 It further gave the suffrage to the inhabiting householders 
 of Salem, Burlington, and Perth Amboy, and changed the 
 method of election of the assemblymen from the general 
 ticket plan to a local election of two representatives for each 
 county and two from each of the three towns. 
 
 But while the authorities in England were determining 
 upon revising Cornbury's instructions and admitting smaller 
 freeholders to the suffrage, action in opposition to the new 
 law was taken by the West Jersey proprietors. On April 16, 
 1705, some of the English proprietors had spoken to the 
 Board of Trade in favor of the new provisions, but on the 
 succeeding day a protest was signed by nineteen of the pro- 
 prietors of West Jersey against any extension of popular 
 powers. These proprietors had been largely responsible for 
 the clause in Cornbury's instructions which had required 
 such large amounts of freehold for voting and holding seats 
 in the assembly,^ and undoubtedly the restriction would work 
 in their interest. It was but natural, therefore, that they 
 should object to a change in qualifications which would 
 throw open these political privileges to irresponsible inhabi- 
 tants. In their protest they give most explicit expression of 
 their theories of government. 
 
 The proprietors urged ^ that the governor and assembly 
 had no right to alter the qualifications established by the gov- 
 ernor's instructions, but that these provisions were to be a 
 " standing and unalterable" part of the constitution. They 
 were, furthermore, perfectly in accord with the constitution 
 of England, " where the electors of the knights of shires 
 must have a certain fixed freehold, and the elected are gen- 
 erally the principal landed men of their respective county's." 
 The new broad suffrage qualifications, too, were inexpe- 
 dient, " for certainly those persons are fittest to be trusted 
 with choosing and being legislators, who have a fixed val- 
 uable and permanent interest in lands, and must stand and 
 fall with their country." " But money is an uncertain inter- 
 mit has already been noted that the qualifications set down in Corn- 
 bury's instructions were copied from the suggestions of the proprietors 
 at the time of surrender. See also N. J. Archives, III, 139. 
 
 ^ Leaming and Spicer, 657-660 ; N. J. Archives, III, 86-95. There are 
 important differences between these two copies of the protest. 
 
254 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 est, and if it be admitted a qualification equal to land, an 
 Assembly may be packed of strangers and .beggars, who will 
 have little regard to the good of the country, from whence 
 they can remove at pleasure, and may oppress the landfed 
 men with heavy taxes." And finally, the protest expresses 
 the alarms of the proprietors that the " Alteration now made 
 was intended to put the election of Representatives into the 
 meanest of the people who being impatient of any Superirs, 
 will never fail to choose such from amongst themselves as 
 may oppose us, and destroy our Rights." 
 
 Although this paper is dated the 17th of April, 1705, it 
 was not received by the Board of Trade until the following 
 September,^ the delay being caused, perhaps, by the difficulty 
 of obtaining signatures to the petition, for the proprietors 
 were scattered through England and Scotland. The delay 
 was costly to the proprietors, and in May the queen sent the 
 new instruction to Cornbury, permitting him to extend the 
 suffrage to all freeholders who possessed either one hundred 
 acres of land or fifty pounds personal estate. In November, 
 1705, the subject again came up for consideration in the 
 Board of Trade, and that indefatigable colonial agitator. 
 Colonel Quarry, was asked for his advice.^ Others of the 
 proprietors were called in,* and in the following February, 
 1705-6, the Board wrote to Cornbury that they had no 
 objections to the bill passed in November, 1704, except that 
 it did not state the quantity of acres necessary to qualify 
 electors and elected,* and they refer him to the new instruc- 
 tion recently sent to him for guidance. 
 
 After much more correspondence upon the subject, the 
 tenor of the instructions was at last carried out by a law 
 passed at a session of the legislature in the spring of 1709, 
 during Governor Lovelace's short administration. This act 
 gave definite legal form to the additional instruction sent to 
 Governor Cornbury in May, 1705. It provided that electors 
 in the counties and members of the assembly should be free- 
 holders; electors possessing at least one hundred acres of 
 
 ' N. J. Archives, III, 86. 
 
 ' MS. Board of Trade Journals, November 20, 1705, Vol. 18, 108- 
 
 'Ibid., no, 114-5, 120. 
 
 *N. J. Archives, III, 126. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 255 
 
 land or fifty pounds value of personal and real estate; and 
 assemblymen one thousand acres of land or five hundred 
 pounds value in lands and personal property.^ This law 
 referred only to voters in the counties, and did not mention 
 the qualifications for town residents ; but in the instructions 
 to the governors down to and including Governor Franklin, 
 in 1762, the town suffrage is extended to " inhabitants house- 
 holders." No further change in the suffrage for the provin- 
 cial assembly was made from 1709 down to the Revolution. 
 Householders in the two towns of Perth Amboy and Bur- 
 lington^ and freeholders in the counties as stated above 
 exercised the suffrage privilege. The qualifications were un- 
 doubtedly liberal in 1709, but as the population of the prov- 
 ince became more dense and a non-landholding class arose, 
 political theories changed also. One of the first results of 
 the revolutionary spirit was the demand for the extension of 
 the suffrage,® and it was not long before this was accom- 
 plished. 
 
 As one passes from the view of the provincial organization 
 to the study of local government, an extension of the suffrage 
 is noticeable. Thus, in Massachusetts and Connecticut the 
 suffrage was much broader in town elections than in the 
 colonial elections, and other colonies as well as old England 
 show the same principle. New Jersey was no exception to 
 this practice. The earliest legislation concerning town activ- 
 ity placed the control of local affairs in the hands of the 
 freeholders, but after the cession of the provinces to the 
 Crown a more liberal policy is apparent. An act of 1709* 
 provided that poor officers should be elected in town meet- 
 ings; and in 1709-10® the representative system of county 
 
 'Bradford's Laws (ed. of 1717), 5- 
 
 ^ For a number of years Salem also had separate representation in the 
 Assembly, but by new instructions to Governor Burnet in 1727, Salem 
 lost its representatives and was united with Salem county (iV. /. Ar- 
 chives, XIV, 336-7). 
 
 ' See Extracts from the Journal of Proceedings of the Provincial Con- 
 gress of New Jersey, Trenton, May, June, and August, 1775. Burling- 
 ton, Isaac Collins, 1775. Reprint by Joseph Sailer, Woodbury, N. J., 
 183s ; PP- 75. 142. 228. 
 
 * Bradford's Laws (ed. of 1717), 3i- 
 
 'N. J. Archives, XIII, 398, note; Bradford's Laws, 17. 
 
256 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 government was established, but changed somewhat in 1714. 
 By the last act " the Inhabitants of each Town and Precinct" 
 within each county were to elect annually two " Freehold- 
 ers," and these " chosen Freeholders" should meet with the 
 justices to fix a county tax rate and appoint certain officers.^ 
 The term " inhabitant" here used occurs almost continuously 
 from this time in the laws relating to local suffrage, although 
 usually combined with the word " freeholder," the phrase 
 " freeholders and inhabitants" being the most common form 
 down to the Revolution.^ 
 
 This phrase is not one peculiar to New Jersey, for it runs 
 throughout a century of New York legislation, and in that 
 province, it is believed, was applied only to inhabiting free- 
 holders.^ Such was not the interpretation, however, which 
 was placed upon it in New Jersey. We have already seen 
 that the governor's instructions granted the provincial suf- 
 frage to householders in three towns, and that the act of 
 1714, while giving local suffrage to " inhabitants," directed 
 that the elected should be " freeholders." An act of 1717 
 expressly stated that the electors should be " freeholders and 
 inhabitants, householders," and thereby accepted the English 
 legal meaning of the word " inhabitants" as one who holds 
 a house. That there were two forms of suffrage is also 
 recognized by the assembly in laws relating to the important 
 matter of the location of the county seats in new counties,* 
 providing that the decision of this question should be left to 
 those who were qualified to vote for representatives. But 
 apart from these several instances, the word inhabitant,® or 
 the phrase freeholder and inhabitant, is always used.* 
 
 It is quite possible, indeed, that the actual suffrage was not 
 
 ' Bradford's Laws, 7. 
 
 'Ibid. (1717). 61. 66, acts of January, 1716-17; Nevill's Laws, I, 420, 
 act of 1749 ; Nevill's Laws, II, 345, act of 1760. 
 
 ° See chapter on New York. 
 
 'County of Cumberland, 1747, Nevill's Laws, I, 361; County of 
 Sussex, 1753, Nevill's Laws, II, 20. 
 
 ' See Nevill's Laws, II, 19. 
 
 ' By the city charters of Burlington and Trenton, householders were 
 permitted to vote in city affairs ; N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, Sec. Series, IX, 
 158. 
 
The Suffrage in New Jersey. 257 
 
 always limited even to householders, but that still less re- 
 sponsible persons occasionally voted in town elections. This 
 must have been the case, else there would have been no reason 
 for the law passed in 1766, which carefully defined the term 
 " inhabitant." ^ This act, which must serve as our strongest 
 clue to the local suffrage qualifications before the Revolution, 
 expressed in clear terms the meaning of the word. It was 
 passed " for the better ascertaining what Persons Shall have 
 a Right to vote at Town-meetings, and the Elections of the 
 Township and Precinct Officers," and it prescribed 
 
 " that no Person or Persons, except in Towns corporate, shall have 
 the Privilege to give his or their Voice or Vote at any Town meeting 
 . . . unless the Person offering such Vote is a Freeholder, a Tenant 
 for Years, or Householder & Resident, in such Township or Precinct; 
 and all Powers given to the Inhabitants of this Colony at their said 
 Meetings by any Act or Acts of the General Assembly of this Colony 
 shall be understood to extend only to the Freeholders, Tenants for 
 Years, or Householders, being Residents in such Township or Precinct, 
 and no others; any Law, Custom or Usage to the contrary thereof in 
 anywise notwithstanding." 
 
 It thus appears certain that non-freeholders voted and had 
 the right to vote in local elections in the colonial period ; and 
 that throughout the whole period of royal government the 
 householders of two towns (for a time also those of a third) 
 had the right to a share in electing the provincial representa- 
 tives from those towns. The usual statement, therefore, that 
 the suffrage in New Jersey was limited to freeholders must 
 be qualified in large measure by the admission of household- 
 ers in certain towns for the provincial suffrage, and house- 
 holders throughout the whole colony in local elections. We 
 have seen that from the first years of the royal administration 
 an effort was made to extend the suffrage to non- freeholders. 
 This movement was unsuccessful so far as the assembly 
 suffrage was concerned, but the advice of the governors and 
 the public agitation led to the cutting down of the freehold 
 
 ^Act of June 28, 1766, "An Act explaining the Right of voting at 
 Town-Meetings, and the Elections of Township Officers;" Allinson's 
 Laws, 287. 
 
 17 
 
258 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 qualification to the lowest degree; for if a man possessed 
 any amount, however small, of land in freehold he could 
 vote for representatives, if he also owned fifty pounds per- 
 sonal property. The local suffrage was still wider; all free- 
 holders, of whatever size holding, could vote ; and the same 
 privilege was open also to all resident householders. By 
 these provisions the suffrage in New Jersey was placed on 
 a broader basis than in the neighboring colony of New York ; 
 while, on the other hand, it was not so liberal as in Pennsyl- 
 
 ^ The Pennsylvania qualification was fifty acres of land, of which 
 twelve were cleared, or fifty pounds personal estate, Statutes at Large, 
 II, 212-221, Act of January 12, 1705-6. But in certain local matters 
 only freeholders could vote. Statutes at Large, IV, 116, Act of May 10, 
 1729, and Pamphlet Laws, 112, Act of 1771, March 9. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 The Suffrage in Delaware. 
 
 A noteworthy fact which becomes apparent in a study of 
 the suffrage in the middle colonies is the weakness or total 
 absence of popular government in those colonies which were 
 founded by the Dutch and Swedes, and in its early develop- 
 ment within the English colonies, both northern and south- 
 ern. That wide territory which later included the colonies 
 of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, 
 has few facts to give to the student of popular political insti- 
 tutions until after its conquest by the English. During the 
 fifty years of occupation of the Hudson Valley and the forty 
 years of settlement on the Delaware there is not as much 
 political activity as is to be seen in the first few years of 
 one of the spontaneous political organizations of English- 
 men. In the insignificant settlements of Maine, in the New 
 Hampshire towns, among the one hundred Englishmen at 
 Plymouth, in the towns of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New 
 Haven, and on Long Island, political organizations appear 
 as surely as the English names and features. 
 
 The search for the conditions of the suffrage in the early 
 years of the middle colonies is, therefore, largely a search 
 for those occasional and irregular elections through which 
 the will of the people may have been expressed. And yet 
 this search is not altogether a waste of time, for, if it does 
 no more, it will aid in an appreciation of those regular politi- 
 cal forms which were later introduced by the English.^ 
 
 The Dutch were the first to settle on the Delaware River, 
 where before 1650 they had established three forts. The 
 fort at Swaanendael, near Cape Henlopen, however, was de- 
 
 * It is not intended to draw the inference that there is nothing of value 
 in the early settlements on the Hudson and the Delaware. There are, 
 of course, many important social, economic or personal facts in connec- 
 tion with these settlements, but for the constitutional historian there is 
 often little to describe beyond an arbitrary military government. 
 
 2S9 
 
26o The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 stroyed by the Indians in 1631; Fort Beversrede was an 
 insignificant trading station within the present limits of 
 Philadelphia, perhaps erected in 1633; and the third one 
 near the present Gloucester, New Jersey, was occupied from 
 1623 to 1 65 1. After the latter date the Dutch destroyed 
 Fort Nassau in New Jersey, and, moving to the west bank 
 of the river, built Fort Casimir, near the present Newcastle, 
 Delaware, and within menacing distance of the Swedish Fort 
 Christina. In these early attempts at Dutch occupation the 
 government appears purely military, and the forts served 
 to protect the few settlers around them and also to furnish 
 a post for the Indian trade. As late as 1648 Fort Beversrede 
 on the Schuylkill had, owing to the encroachments of the 
 Swedes, scarcely land enough for a " little garden," ^ and 
 their trade was similarly hampered by the Swedes. Until 
 the Dutch conquest of the lands on the South River it is 
 impossible to find any political organization among the 
 Dutchmen on the Delaware. 
 
 A similar conclusion will be reached regarding the Eng- 
 lish settlements. Some New Haven men doubtless came to 
 the Delaware and perhaps occupied land in what is now 
 Philadelphia ; ^ but their occupation was of short duration. 
 So, too, the county palatine of Sir Edmund Plowden, in- 
 cluding the Delaware lands, was never organized by its pro- 
 prietor.* 
 
 Turning from the Dutch and the English, therefore, we 
 may examine the political conditions in the Swedish settle- 
 ments. With the intrigues for the formation of the Swedish 
 South Company we are not here concerned,* but its charter, 
 granted in 1626, shows a typical seventeenth century trading 
 company,^ with no recognition of the political rights of the 
 
 " Pa. Archives, Second Series, VII, 467. 
 
 ' 1641-2; Hazard, Annals, 59-64; Pa. Archives, Sec. Series, VII, 462; 
 Brodhead, Hist, of N. Y., I, 322; Scharf and Westcott, History of 
 Philadelphia, I, 67. 
 
 'Hazard, Historical Collections, I, 160-174; Hazard, Annals, 36-39, 
 108-112. 
 
 * See Jameson, William Usselinx. 
 
 "Jameson, Usselinx, 114-117; Hazard, Annals, 16-20; N. Y. Col. 
 Doc, XII, 7-15. 
 
The Suffrage in Delaware. 261 
 
 colonists. An extension of time was granted to this com- 
 pany in 1633,1 and in 1638 some Swedish settlers arrived 
 on the South River and settled within the present limits of 
 Wilmington, Delaware. The early organization of these 
 Swedes is not clearly shown in the few existing documents 
 of this period, but the control of affairs in the colony was 
 apparently vested solely in a governor. By 1642 two such 
 governors had been displaced and a third appointed.^ The 
 instructions and commission of the latter, John Printz, do 
 not show any formal sharing of authority between the gov- 
 ernor and the people, although the governor is cautioned to 
 conduct himself so that he may be able to answer for it 
 before God, the Queen, " and every brave Swede." * Down 
 to the close of the Swedish rule there is apparently no change 
 from the arbitrary rule of the company's governors, and no 
 participation on the part of the settlers in the government of 
 the colony. 
 
 In September, 1655, Governor Stuyvesant, from New 
 Amsterdam, entered the South River with a force of seven 
 hundred men, a greater number, perhaps, than the entire 
 Swedish population on the river. By the terms of the capitu- 
 lation, which followed as a matter of course upon this mili- 
 tary display, those Swedes desiring to remain and taking 
 an oath of allegiance to the Dutch government were to be 
 guaranteed their lives, property, and their religion.* A vice- 
 director was appointed by Stuyvesant to take charge of the 
 Delaware settlements, receiving power to " keep order, do 
 justice, and administer it either in civil or military cases ;" 
 but he should be assisted by a council composed of two named 
 persons, and two sergeants in the trial of military offences, 
 or " two most suitable freemen" in civil cases.^ 
 
 Under the Dutch rule there are indications of occasional 
 
 ^Hazard, 30, 34; Jameson, Usselinx, 161. 
 
 ^ Ibid., Annals, 57, 59, 63. 
 
 " Ibid., 63 ; Hazard, Register of Penna., IV, 200. 
 
 *Ibid., Annals, 185-190; Pa. Archives, Sec. Series, VII, 483-487; 
 N. Y. Col. Doc, I, 607-8; XII, 102-106. 
 
 "Hazard, 205^06; Pa. Archives, Sec. Series, VII, 490-493; JV. Y. 
 Col. Doc, XII, 113. 
 
262 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 popular participation in the colony's aflfairs. Thus, as early 
 as 1656 a local court was established for the Swedes, com- 
 posed of a sherifif (schout) and commissaries,^ and evidently 
 modelled after similar courts erected in the Dutch towns of 
 New Netherland.^ These officials were chosen by Stuyve- 
 sant, but there appears to have been some popular action 
 concerning the selection.^ The friendly attitude of Stuyve- 
 sant towards the Swedes did not meet with the approval of 
 the West India Company, and in 1661, after about five years 
 had passed, the Swedish sheriff was discharged.* 
 
 In the meantime the Dutch vice-director and his council- 
 lors had been holding court at Fort Casimir, directing mili- 
 tary affairs, deciding civil and criminal cases, and occasion- 
 ally calling in the inhabitants to give assistance.^ On 
 November 8, 1656, the " whole community" appeared, and 
 selected four persons from whom the vice-director later chose 
 two proper persons as inspectors of tobacco. After this elec- 
 tion the fencing of their lands was advised by the vice- 
 director, and the community proceeded to elect two persons 
 to serve as overseers and surveyors of fences. Later, the 
 building of a bridge and the cutting of palisades for the fort 
 
 ' N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 151. This court met at Tinicum Island {ibid. 
 159), and its jurisdiction was recognized by the vice-director's court at 
 Fort Casimir. 
 
 ' Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 6-9; Pa. Archives, Sec. Series, VII, S31-2. 
 Military officers were also appointed among the Swedes. The West 
 India Company thought this dangerous, but Stuyvesant wrote, " We have 
 thought the most suitable [form of government] would be a lenient 
 method of governing them and proceeding with them, to win their hearts 
 and divert their thoughts from a hard and tyrannical form of govern- 
 ment, and considering this we granted to the Swedish nation, at their re- 
 quest, some officers, that in time of necessity, against the savages and 
 other enemies, in case of defence, they might keep order, but we gave 
 them no written document or commission, much less were any arms dis- 
 tributed among them;" Pa. Arch., Sec. Series, VII, 571. 
 
 = Compare Pa. Arch., Sec. Series, VII, 511, with N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 
 iSi- 
 
 ^N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 233, 271, 338, 345; Pa. Archives, Sec. Series, 
 
 VII, sss. 
 
 " See Minutes of Administration of Jean Paul Jacquet, N. Y. Col. 
 Doc, XII, 133-162. 
 
The Suffrage in Delaware. 263 
 
 were agreed upon.^ A similar meeting was held about two 
 months later, on January 10, 1657, at which the attention 
 of the inhabitants was drawn to the high prices which some 
 traders had been giving to the Indians for skins ; and after- 
 wards the community set a fixed price in wampum upon furs, 
 and agreed mutually not to give more than this amount; 
 and those violating the promise were to be considered per- 
 jurers.^ In these two meetings the people took a part in 
 election and in legislation in a way which does not differ 
 materially from the New England town meeting, except 
 that the meetings were called at irregular intervals, records 
 of these two meetings alone remaining, and they did not, 
 consequently, form an integral part of the local govern- 
 ment.^ 
 
 Another change in the control of the Delaware settlements 
 was under consideration while these events were happening. 
 In December, 1656, the Directors of the Dutch West India 
 Company informed Stuyvesant that the company had ceded 
 Fort Casimir, thereafter to be called New Amstel, and the 
 land below it to the mouth of the river to the city of Amster- 
 dam, and that the city would soon take steps to enlarge the 
 colony and send over a director to govern it.* To encourage 
 emigration to the new colony, the city published a set of con- 
 ditions under which settlers could enter the colony." In 
 addition to many economic inducements, these conditions 
 also promised very favorable political privileges; there 
 should be a " schout" or " head of justice" appointed by the 
 director at New Amsterdam, three burgomasters appointed 
 
 ^N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, IS4-S- 
 
 'Ibid., 157. 
 
 ' The government of the Company's colony at Altona (Wilmington) 
 was mainly under the control of the vice-director. On April 28, 1660, 
 an inhabitant came before this officer and said, " that we ought to make 
 new Commissaries every year, pursuant to the custom of Holland;'' he 
 inquired " whether he and other freemen were to be treated forever as 
 boys," and declared " that they should not always be ruled by such 
 clowns," etc. (N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 308.) 
 
 ^N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 131-33- 
 
 'Laws of New Netherlands, 239-248, 269-288; N. Y. Col. Doc, 1, 630- 
 636; Hazard, Annals, 220 ff. 
 
264 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 by the common burghers from among the " honestest, fittest 
 and richest," and five or seven schepens (magistrates) se- 
 lected by the director from a double number nominated by 
 the " body of the burghers." ^ After the colony numbered 
 two hundred families, it was to elect a common council, and 
 the popular elections were to give place to a close corpora- 
 tion. 
 
 The officers were chosen by the people for the first time 
 in 1657,^ and subsequently there must have been other elec- 
 tions, for in June, 1660, we learn of a meeting of the " com- 
 munity," and an election of commissaries;* and in 1664, 
 at the surrender of the New Amstel authorities to the Eng- 
 lish, a number of " burgomasters" signed the articles of 
 capitulation for themselves and " all the Dutch and Swedes 
 inhabiting in Delaware Bay and Delaware River."* But 
 promises of free land, free seed corn, exemption from taxes, 
 and the grant of political power did not make the New 
 Amstel colony a success. The colonists deserted and went 
 to neighboring English settlements, and the city was un- 
 able to get any return for its invested capital.' Conflicts 
 of authority also occurred between the representatives of the 
 city of Amsterdam and those of the West India Company ; ^ 
 and in addition to these internal difficulties, the English in 
 Maryland claimed the whole territory and threatened to use 
 force against the occupants.'' 
 
 Further inducements to settlers were offered by the city 
 in 1 66 1 and 1663 by throwing open the trade with the 
 colony to all persons, by promising independence of the New 
 Amsterdam authorities, and by giving greater freedom in 
 local affairs.® This policy of local independence did not con- 
 form to Stuyvesant's ideas of government. He thought it 
 
 * One election is noted by Hazard, Annals, 239 ; N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 
 319. 
 
 ^ Hazard, Annals, 239. 
 'N. Y. Co/. Doc, XII, 319. 
 
 * Pa. Archives, Sec. Series, V, 544. 
 
 ''N. Y. Col. Doc, II, 202; XII, 271, 408. 
 
 " Ibid., XII, 197-199, 232-4, 287, 314, 326, 408, etc. 
 
 ' Ibid., 261. 
 
 ^ Ibid., II, 173-175; Laws of New Netherlands, 388, 447. 
 
The Suffrage in Delaware. 265 
 
 would encourage the officials in the city's colony in their 
 past usurpations of authority; further, it would lead the 
 other villages and colonies to demand like privilege, and, 
 under the early exemptions, these could not be denied, for 
 each colony was to possess as great privileges as any single 
 one obtained.^ 
 
 Shortly after this the West India Company transferred to 
 the city of Amsterdam all its possessions on the South River, 
 and in October, 1663, Stuyvesant at New Amsterdam signed 
 the deed of cession.^ The English conquest of 1664 pre- 
 vented a further development of the city's schemes of coloni- 
 zation. Amsterdam, from the first, had offered greater 
 inducements to settlers than those advertised by the West 
 India Company. The colony was treated as a business 
 venture, for the success of which all means must be used. 
 In addition to granting religious liberty, trade privileges, and 
 free land, a further promise of political privileges was made ; 
 and as the failure of the colony became apparent, the con- 
 cessions to settlers were made more extensive. But neither 
 a commercial company nor a single city could secure the 
 colony against foreign attack, and the States-General of the 
 Netherlands would not give the necessary protection. 
 
 After New Amsterdam had surrendered to the English 
 in 1664, Sir Robert Carre was sent to the Delaware to re- 
 duce the Dutch settlements on that river. The terms of 
 surrender were similar to those granted to the inhabitants 
 of New Amsterdam and the Hudson Valley.* The Dutch 
 and Swedes had their property rights secured to them ; they 
 were permitted to leave the region within six months, and 
 if remaining and taking the oath of allegiance, they were 
 entitled to enjoy commercial and religious liberty, and their 
 officers and magistrates were to " exercise their Customary 
 Power in Adminiso" of Justice w* in their precincts, for 
 Six Months or until his Mamies pleasure" be known.* 
 
 '■N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 374- 
 
 ^ Ibid., II, 199 ; XII, 449. For reasons for this transfer see N. Y. Col. 
 Doc, II, 201 ; XII, 440-442, and Brodhead, Hist, of N. Y., I, 714-716. 
 VWd., Ill, 71-73; Pa. Arch., Sec. Series, V, 544; Hazard, Annals, 
 
 364- 
 */6»U 
 
266 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 For several years after this surrender, a dual form of 
 government existed within the Delaware settlements; an 
 English military commander with a force of twenty soldiers 
 possessed superior authority on the River ; but the civil gov- 
 ernment in the respective plantations was continued, and 
 only in cases of dispute was the commander to call to his 
 assistance five named inhabitants to act as councillors. The 
 council, in which the commander had a double vote in case 
 of a tie, could decide civil suits, give advice concerning the 
 Indian trade, and supervise the military protection of the 
 several plantations.^ But the commander did not often inter- 
 fere with the Dutch officers, and as late as 1670 and 1671 
 we find references to schouts and commissaries, who have 
 the duties of the old Dutch officers.^ 
 
 In the spring of 1665 Col. Nicholls had issued his code of 
 laws known as the " Duke's Laws," but the operation of 
 these was limited for a time to Long Island, and they were 
 only gradually extended to the Delaware lands, where they 
 were never fully in force. In 1668 the first step towards the 
 establishment of the laws was taken,' and in 1671 the militia 
 provisions of the Laws were extended to the Delaware.* The 
 following year, the governor at New York, in commissioning 
 a justice of the peace for the Delaware lands, directed him to 
 observe the laws established for the Duke's territories,® and 
 at last the final step in the establishment of English laws on 
 the Delaware came by an order from Governor Andros, dated 
 September 22, 1676.* It provided 
 
 " I. That the booke of lawes Established by his Royall Highnesse, and 
 practiced in New Yorke, Long Island, and Dependences bee likewise in 
 force, and practiced in this River and Precincts, Except the Constables 
 Courts, Country Rates, and some other things peculiar to Long Island, 
 and the Millitia as now Ordered to remaine in the King, but that a Con- 
 stable in each place bee yearely chosen for the Preservacon of his Mat'es 
 Peace with all other Power as directed by the law." 
 
 ' N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 461^ ; Pa. Arch., Sec. Series, VII, 722-3. 
 
 ' Hazard, Annals, 380, 383. 
 
 ' N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 462. 
 
 'Ibid., 487. 
 
 'Ibid., 495- 
 
 ' Ibid., 561-63 ; Pa. Archives, Sec. Series, VII, 783-785. 
 
The Suffrage in Delaware. 267 
 
 The order recognized three courts, at Whorekill, Newcastle, 
 and Upland, to be composed of justices of the peace, having 
 limited criminal and civil jurisdiction, and possessing the 
 power to make by-laws for their respective territories, not 
 repugnant to the laws of the government. Taxes could not 
 be levied, except in extraordinary cases, without the consent 
 of the governor. A sheriff was to be appointed by the gov- 
 ernor for the whole Delaware region. 
 
 The democratic features of the laws as they were put in 
 force in Long Island were not introduced by this order into 
 the Delaware settlements.^ There were no town meetings 
 or constables' courts, and it is believed that there were no 
 regular popular elections. The order of Andros did, indeed, 
 provide for the election of constables, but these officials, as 
 well as other local officers, were actually appointed by the 
 courts. The three courts furnish the most distinctive feature 
 of political organization on the Delaware down to Penn's 
 time, and they gave a model for the later county government 
 of Pennsylvania and Delaware, Before the English con- 
 quest, there had been three Dutch local courts on the Dela- 
 ware, one for New Amstel (Newcastle),^ another at Chris- 
 tina (later called Altona, now Wilmington),^ and the third 
 near the mouth of the Schuylkill on Tinicura Island.* When 
 the city of Amsterdam obtained control of the entire Dela- 
 ware region it is believed that the separate court at Altona 
 was incorporated with that of Newcastle, while a rudimen- 
 tary form of government was established for certain new 
 plantations near the Cape called the Whorekill settlement.^ 
 These courts with their schouts and commissaries must 
 have been the " inferiour Magistrates" mentioned in the 
 articles of capitulation in 1664, and they may have existed 
 continuously from that time until the order of September 
 22, 1676, formally adopted their organization as the basis 
 of government for the river, although the occasional refer- 
 
 '■ See Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 718-723. 
 ' N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, passim. 
 ^ Ihid., passim. 
 '•Ibid., 211, 310. 
 'Ihid., 229-230, 450. 
 
2.68 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 ences in the records do not' furnish absolute proof of their 
 continuous action.^ 
 
 An inspection of the records of two of these courts furnishes 
 no evidence of popular elections.^ Both at Newcastle and 
 at Upland the court appointed constables, overseers of high- 
 ways, under-sheriffs, church-wardens, church-elders, attor- 
 neys, viewers of tobacco, vendu-masters, and perhaps other 
 officers.^ The commissions of the justices of the several 
 courts were stated to run for one year or until superseded, 
 but often a new commission was not issued until considerably 
 longer than a year.* The courts appear to have been per- 
 mitted, like the old Dutch courts, to nominate a list of per- 
 sons from whom the governor might choose the new jus- 
 tices.^ In all this political and administrative activity of 
 the local courts there is nothing to remind one of the town 
 meetings and popular elections which were carried on 
 under the Duke's laws on Long Island.® With the pos- 
 sible exception of the town officers of Newcastle,^ it seems 
 
 '■ In 1660 we find a record of the Court at Tinicum Island (AT. Y. Col. 
 Doc, XII, 311), and in 1672 a similar court was being held on the neigh- 
 boring mainland at Upland (Chester). It is believed that the latter 
 was a continuation of the previous Dutch court, with its place of meet- 
 ing changed between 1660-1672, from Tinicum Island to Upland. In 
 1669-70, January 25, an officer to preserve the peace was provided for 
 Whorekill (iV. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 472), and in 1672 there had been in 
 existence for some time a schout and commissaries (Ibid., 496). 
 
 ^The records of the court at Upland from 1672 until Penn's occupa- 
 tion have been printed in volume seven of the Memoirs of the Hist. 
 Soc. of Penna. A transcript of the Newcastle records, beginning in 
 October, 1676, and continuing until 1681, has been made from the orig- 
 inals and deposited in the Hist. Soc. of Penna. The copy has been used 
 by the writer. 
 
 ° See Newcastle Court Records (Pa. Hist. Soc. copy), I, 54, 74, 109, 
 136, 14s, 163, 217, 28s, 302-3, 460; II, 31, 32, 99, 165-68, 224, 328, 349; 
 Upland Court Records, 57, 104, 184, 194. 
 
 * Newcastle Court Records, I, 3-7, 189-193, 250-252, 416-417 ; II, 265- 
 266 ; Upland Court Records, 37, 165. 
 
 " Newcastle Court Records, I, 403 ; N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 606, 650. 
 
 ' Even the popular election of militia officers was apparently forbidden, 
 for the militia was " to remain in the King." (N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 
 S6i.) 
 
 ' N. Y. Col. Doc, XII, 496. 
 
The Suffrage in Delaware. 269 
 
 probable that no elections by the people were held on the 
 South River under the government of the Duke of York. 
 
 With the cession of the Delaware lands to Penn the his- 
 tory of the lower settlements is for a time overshadowed 
 by that of their more prosperous neighbors in Pennsyl- 
 vania. It is probable that the local government, both of 
 Delaware and Pennsylvania, was largely influenced by the 
 previous powers of the three courts on the Delaware, for 
 Penn's frames and laws, while singularly explicit regarding 
 a general representative system, were almost silent upon 
 the subject of local government, and it is quite likely, al- 
 though perhaps not demonstrable, that he drew upon the 
 existing forms for his county government.^ 
 
 It is not necessary here to review the various sufifrage 
 provisions of the Pennsylvania legislation from 1682 to 
 1702, for the province and the territories were under the 
 same government during this time. But jealousies between 
 the two sections soon arose, and in 1699 some of the lower 
 counties refused to elect representatives ; and during Penn's 
 second visit the conflict of interests continued, until in the 
 charter of privileges of 1701 he inserted a provision per- 
 mitting the legislative separation of the province and terri- 
 tories. Renewed contests between the two sections took 
 place after the proprietor's departure for England, and in 
 1702 the lower counties, as in 1699, neglected to elect rep- 
 resentatives under the charter of 1701.^ This was taken 
 by the Pennsylvania delegates to mean a separation, and 
 when in 1704 the three counties again asked for representa- 
 tion they were refused admission to the Pennsylvania as- 
 sembly.^ From this time, therefore, may be dated the legis- 
 lative separation of the " Three Lower Counties" from the 
 province. 
 
 * The records during the Duke of York's control at first speak of the 
 three " courts," avoiding the word county, even going so far as to de- 
 scribe the physical bounds of the courts ; but the word county came 
 in, either accidentally or intentionally, about 1679 or 1680. {Newcastle 
 Court Records, II, 129-130, 188, 199-202; Upland Court Records, 165.) 
 
 " Votes of Assembly of Penna., I, I, Appendix, xiv-xxv ; Col. Rec. of 
 Pa., II, 72-84, 128-140. 
 
 ' Ibid., I, U, 4- 
 
270 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Access to the early laws of Delaware has not been had, 
 and the first election law examined is that of 7 George II. 
 (1734).^ This act, entitled "An Act for regulating Elec- 
 tions, and ascertaining the Number of the Members of 
 Assembly," was passed, as its preamble states, because the 
 existing election laws were " uncertain and deficient." It 
 provided for an annual assembly composed of at least six 
 persons from each county, and stated the qualifications of 
 electors and elected in similar form to those of Pennsyl- 
 vania. A voter must be ( i ) a natural born subject of Great 
 Britain, or have been naturalized in England, in this prov- 
 ince, or in Pennsylvania; (2) of the male sex; (3) of 
 twenty-one years of age; (4) be a freeholder within this 
 government holding fifty acres of land, with twelve acres 
 cleared and improved, or be otherwise worth forty pounds 
 lawful money; (5) a resident for the term of two years. 
 The law imposed a fine of five pounds upon persons voting 
 without proper qualification, and a fine of twenty shillings 
 upon those neglecting to vote when possessing the qualifi- 
 cations, unless detained by sickness or other unavoidable 
 accident. Giving or receiving bribes were punishable by 
 a fine of five pounds, as was also the offering to serve for 
 nothing or less than the legal allowance of representatives.* 
 The act required the use of paper ballots except in the case 
 of illiterate persons, who were permitted to vote " verbally ;" 
 it provided for election inspectors, the giving of certain 
 oaths to electors, and for the continuance of the polls from 
 day to day until all those present were polled ; and it gave 
 in full the several oaths of allegiance and adjuration which 
 must be taken by members of the assembly. Subsequent 
 acts of 1766^ and 1772* slightly changed the mode of 
 choosing election inspectors, but the principal features of the 
 act of 1734 continued without material change until the 
 Revolution. 
 
 ' Printed code of 1741, p. 76; code of 1752, p. 118. 
 
 ' A person so elected was disqualified for office for the year in which 
 the election took place. 
 
 ' November i, 1766, Adams' Laws, I, 429. 
 
 * June 13, 1772, Adams' Laws, I, 500 ; made perpetual by act of Sep- 
 tember 2, 177s. 
 
The Suffrage in Delaware. 271 
 
 An idea of a colonial election can be drawn from the 
 words of the act of June 13, 1772. The sheriff of each 
 county was required to furnish a ballot-box for each hun- 
 dred, with the name of the hundred painted on the outside 
 of the box. On election day the sheriff delivered these boxes 
 to the inspectors for the respective hundreds, who evidently 
 sat together in some convenient place in the county town. 
 The elector presented his ballot to the inspector of the hun- 
 dred in which he dwelt, and the inspector called aloud the 
 name of the voter presenting his ballot, and then deposited 
 it in the proper box. After the election was completed, and 
 it might last several days, the sheriff must open each box 
 separately and compare the number of ballots it contained 
 with the number of persons who had been announced as 
 voting in that hundred. When these were made to tally 
 all the ballots were placed in one box and counted by the elec- 
 tion clerks. There was a penalty of twenty shillings for vot- 
 ing more than once or even offering to do so.^ 
 
 An early act ^ changed the term of sheriffs and coroners 
 from three years to one year and provided for the election 
 of a double number, from whom the governor should choose 
 one to serve, or, if he neglected the duty, at the end of six 
 days the person having the highest number of votes was to 
 fill the office. The act of 13 George 11.^ shows in its pre- 
 amble that in Delaware, as in Pennsylvania, the office of 
 sheriff was much sought after. Candidates are said to 
 " make it their frequent Practice to engage Persons to vote 
 for them, by giving them strong Drink, and using other 
 Means, inconsistent with the Design of free Voting at Elec- 
 tions; by Means whereof many unguarded Persons are 
 drunk and disorderly more particularly at the Time of Elec- 
 tions; whereby great Confusions and Mischiefs arise." 
 Steps were taken to prevent such evils by disqualifying the 
 sheriff for three years after he had served three terms in 
 succession ; and by imposing a fine of ten pounds for giving 
 any reward or promise of reward, and five pounds for re- 
 ceiving any such bribe. 
 
 ' Adams' Laws, I, 500. 
 
 'Code of 1752, p. 29 (date not given). 
 
 •Code of 1741, p. 108; code of 1752, p. i33- 
 
272 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Many of the local officials were appointed by the county 
 courts/ and in the few cases of election, the qualifications 
 of the provincial suffrage are prescribed for local electors.^ 
 One exception to this rule existed in the borough suffrage 
 ot Wilmington as determined by its charter of November 
 16, 1739.® The borough charter provided for two burgesses, 
 six assistants, one high constable, and one town clerk, all of 
 whom were to be annually elected by ballot by the inhabi- 
 tants. The suffrage was extended to all freeholders and to 
 those housekeepers who had resided one year in the borough 
 and hired a house and ground of the yearly value of at least 
 five pounds. The inhabitants were permitted to appoint 
 other necessary officers and in town meetings to make con- 
 venient rules and ordinances, provided they were not repug- 
 nant to the laws of the " territories." * 
 
 Although the Delaware territories had a greatly varied 
 history from the Swedish and Dutch settlements down to 
 the Revolution, yet their population was small and economi- 
 cally homogeneous. Racial differences existed, but these 
 apparently did not influence politics. Thus the suffrage 
 question was never a vital one in this province as it was in 
 New England or Maryland. For fifty years of the early 
 settlements there were no regular elections, and not until 
 the act of 1734 was the subject carefully defined; but the 
 act of that year remained almost unchanged down to the 
 Revolution. In local matters, while the levy court and the 
 hundred organization are interesting forms of local govern- 
 ment, they do not furnish anything of interest to a study of 
 the suffrage. Delaware's franchise laws followed closely 
 those of Pennsylvania, with compulsory voting, and fines 
 for neglect, as a most striking innovation. 
 
 ' See acts of 15 Geo. II (code of 1752, pp. 200, 214, 220) ; 25 Geo. II 
 (Adams, I, 316) ; November i, 1766 (ibid., 429) ; November 25, 1775 
 (ibid., 544) ■ 
 
 'Act of 16 Geo. II (code of 1752, p. 231). 
 
 " See The Ordinances of the City of Wilmington, Delaware, to which 
 are prefixed the Original Borough Charter and the Acts of the Legis- 
 lature, now in force, relating to the City, Wilmington, 1872. 
 
 'This charter is closely similar to those granted to Chester, Bristol, 
 and Lancaster in Pennsylvania, see post, 296-297. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 
 
 Before King Charles's grant to William Penn, the Dela- 
 ware lands were described as an " appendage of New York," 
 and while a number of Dutch, Swedish, and English set- 
 tlers had established themselves upon the soil of the present 
 Pennsylvania before Penn's assumption of control, yet they 
 had always been subject to some distant authority, — ^the 
 Swedish governor at Christina, the Dutch director at New 
 Amsterdam, or the Duke of York's deputy at New York. 
 Among these early diverse racial elements there were no 
 closely settled towns as in New England, few common in- 
 terests, and consequently little common political activity. 
 The court at Upland, in existence only a few years before 
 Penn's grant, was the most dignified political body, which, 
 throughout the first forty years and more of European set- 
 tlement, met within the present limits of Pennsylvania. 
 Popular suffrage was rarely exercised during this period, 
 and never was permanently established. The few instances 
 in which it occurred will be found mentioned in the articles 
 upon the colonies of Delaware and New York. 
 
 Penn's charter from the king, therefore, furnishes us with 
 a logical starting-point for a view of the suffrage in Pennsyl- 
 vania. Within this charter distinct provision is made for 
 popular legislative assemblies in which the inhabitants may 
 join with the proprietor in the making of laws : 
 
 " Wee . . . Doe grant free, full & absolute power, by vertue of these 
 presents to him & his heires ... to ordeyne, make, Enact & vnder his 
 and their Seales to publish any Laws whatsoever, for the raising of 
 money for the publick vse of the said province, or for any other End 
 appertayning either vnto the publick state, peace, or safety of the said 
 Countrey, or vnto the private vtility of perticular persons, according 
 vnto their best discretions, by and with the advice, assent and appro- 
 bacon of the freemen of the said Countrey, or the greater part of them, 
 or of their Delegates or Deputies . . " ' 
 
 ^ Charter and Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania, 1682-1700, 81. 
 
 18 273 
 
274 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 The proprietor fully approved of this clause of the char- 
 ter, and shortly after obtaining the legal title to the land 
 he wrote a letter to the inhabitants promising them broad 
 powers in self-government : 
 
 "... I hope you will not be troubled at your change, and the king's 
 choice, for you are now fixed at the mercy of no governor that comes to 
 make his fortune great; you shall be governed by laws of your own 
 making, and live a free, and, if you will, a sober and industrious people. 
 I shall not usurp the right of any, or oppress his person. God has fur- 
 nished me with a better resolution, and has given me his grace to keep 
 it. In short, whatever sober and free men can reasonably desire for the 
 security and improvement of their own happiness, I shall heartily com- 
 ply with, and in five months resolve, if it please God, to see you. . . ." ' 
 
 The same faith in popular government is also to be seen 
 in the promise made in Penn's Proposals to Adventurers 
 that even the matter of the division of lots and land tracts 
 shall be left " to the majority of votes amon|^ the adven- 
 turers." ^ But it was his intention that he should be on the 
 ground before the calling of the assemblies, for in his com- 
 mission to his deputy, Markham, he expressly forbids his 
 representative to call the people in assemblies.^ 
 
 In the months immediately following the receipt of his 
 grant, Penn and his friends were engaged in outlining a 
 plan of government for the new colony. After many drafts * 
 a " frame" of government was issued on April 25, 1682, 
 comprising 24 numbered sections.^ The frame enacted that 
 " the government of this province shall, according to the 
 powers of the patent, consist of the Governor and freemen 
 of the said province; in form of a Provincial Council and 
 General Assembly, by whom all laws shall be made, officers 
 chosen and publick affairs transacted." The council was to 
 consist of seventy-two members, and the assembly of two 
 hundred members elected by the freemen; but the first 
 assembly should be composed of all the freemen. The elec- 
 
 ' Hazard, Annals of Pennsylvania, 502. 
 'Ibid., sn. 
 
 ' Charter and Laws, idSz-ijoo, Appendix, 470. 
 
 * See Shepperd, Proprietary Government in Pa., 225-250, for a de- 
 scription of the extant manuscripts of these frames. 
 ° Charter and Laws, 1682-1700, 91-99. 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 275 
 
 tion of councillors and assemblymen was to be by ballot, 
 but the Frame did not give the qualifications of electors. 
 This was added in a code of forty numbered sections called 
 " The Laws agreed upon in England." ^ It is here that we 
 first find a definition of the word freeman. That the royal 
 charter had used it synonymously with freeholder is proved 
 by the fact that the assembly is spoken of in one instance 
 as made up of the freemen and in another case as composed 
 of the freeholders.^ The Frame had used only the word 
 freemen, but by the Laws a freeman is declared to be one 
 who (a) has purchased one hundred acres of land, or the 
 heir of such an one; or (6) who has paid his passage 
 across the Atlantic and taken up one hundred acres at the 
 rent of one penny an acre, and cultivated ten acres thereof; 
 or (c) who has been a servant and becoming free, has taken 
 up fifty acres and cultivated twenty; or (d) who is an 
 inhabitant, artificer, or other resident paying scot and lot 
 to the government. All such freemen could vote for or 
 serve in the Council or Assembly. 
 
 The qualifications in this clause may have been intended 
 to distinguish between the county and the town suffrage. 
 Scot and lot is a vague term, but its use here might mean 
 a tax paid only in the towns; so that in the country dis- 
 tricts of Pennsylvania where nearly every reputable citizen 
 would be a freeholder the holding of land was to be a requi- 
 site to voting ; while in the towns, where intelligent " ar- 
 tificers" might live and pay taxes, but frequently hold no 
 land, the qualification of electors was changed to fit their 
 conditions. In some of the other colonies a similar provi- 
 sion was made in order to meet the difference between the 
 economic conditions of the towns and the country.^ The 
 clause,- however, was never enacted in this form in Pennsyl- 
 vania. 
 
 Another of the laws made in England added further re- 
 strictions upon the elector by requiring him to be twenty- 
 one years of age, not convicted of ill-fame or of unsober or 
 dishonest conversation, but professing faith in Jesus Christ. 
 
 ' May S, 1682, Charter and Laws, 99-103. 
 
 ' Compare the phraseology of Lord Baltimore's patent. 
 
 » See N. Y., N. J., Va., etc. 
 
276 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 When Penn arrived in the province he issued writs for 
 the first assembly, not calling all the freemen, but directing 
 the " freeholders" of the counties to elect seven representa- 
 tives for each county.^ This was a departure from the pri- 
 mary assembly of all the freemen which the frame directed 
 should be first called, and also at variance with the repre- 
 sentative organization as laid down in the frame. The mo- 
 tives of Penn in calling a representative body instead of a 
 gathering of all of the freemen do not appear. 
 
 Foremost among the acts of the first assembly appears 
 " An Act for Naturalization." ^ This had a marked bear- 
 ing upon the suffrage, since it determined the manner in 
 which a large number of foreigners might obtain freeman- 
 ship. It was provided that all foreigners over twenty-one 
 years of age holding land in fee should be held as freemen, if 
 within three months they would solemnly promise allegi- 
 ance to the king and fidelity to the proprietor. The assem- 
 bly also went on to debate " what Persons are fit to be 
 elected, as also who are fit to make Election." ^ The fruit 
 of this debate is seen in a few changes which the Great Law * 
 made in the laws agreed upon in England. Both electors 
 and elected must now believe in " Jesus Christ to be the son 
 of God, the Saviour of the World;" but they were freed 
 from the clause requiring a definite part of their lands to 
 be cultivated. All freeholders must indeed have their lands 
 " seated" or settled, but no longer need they have ten or 
 twenty acres under cultivation. Those paying scot and 
 lot retained their right to vote. These provisions — one hun- 
 dred acres of land seated, or fifty acres for freed servants, 
 and the payment of scot and lot — continued in force until 
 all the proprietary legislation was set aside by Governor 
 Fletcher in 1693. 
 
 ' Charter and Laws, 472. The preface to Vol. I of the Votes of As- 
 sembly says that this first assembly was attended by " so many of the 
 Freemen as thought fit to attend" {Votes^ I, p. iii) ; but the writ proves 
 that the assembly was a representative and not a primary organization ; 
 and the Votes themselves on the first page record an undue election for 
 one of the Newcastle members. 
 
 " Ihid., 105 ; Votes, I, I, 4. " Votes, I, I, 4. 
 
 * Chapters II and LVII, Charter and Laws, 108, 121. 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 277 
 
 While there was no change in the legal qualifications 
 of the suffrage ^ in the period of ten years, yet several 
 interesting administrative facts may be mentioned. Both 
 the frame of 1682 and that of 1683 required the election 
 of representatives by ballot, but this appears not always 
 to have been carried out, and we are unfamiliar with the 
 actual details of the process when the balloting-box was 
 used. 
 
 As early as March, 1682-3, ^ question in the assembly 
 was settled by a bean ballot, which is described in the fol- 
 lowing words : " the Number of Votes was decided by 
 Beans, put into the Balloting-Box ; and by the major Votes, 
 it was carried in the Affirmative." ^ A contested election 
 case in Philadelphia in 1689 shows a lack of uniformity 
 existing in election procedure. There appears no objection 
 to ascertaining the election upon the " view" of the sheriff, 
 by the acclamation of the electors, except, as in this case, 
 where a number of unqualified persons mingled with the 
 electors and by acclamation carried the election of their can- 
 didate. The petitioners to the council aver that fifty or 
 sixty " Welsh men" and persons " out of Jarsey" had elected 
 a councillor who would not have received a majority of 
 legal votes had a poll or ballot been taken. Yet in the new 
 election which was ordered the sheriff stated in his return 
 that the freemen were not willing to vote by ballot, prefer- 
 ring by voice to elect their councillors.^ The second elec- 
 tion was questioned also when the returns were sent to the 
 council, because it was not taken by ballot. And again 
 there appeared great confusion of thought and practice. 
 One member said that the ballot was only used when doubt 
 existed as to the candidate receiving the majority of votes 
 (voices) ; another stated that the ballot was used only in 
 Philadelphia County, while in other places " we are elected 
 by vote." But this was denied by a third member who said 
 that at Upland (Chester) and all the lower counties the 
 election was made by putting black and white beans into 
 
 ^ The frame of April 2, 1683, did not change the suffrage conditions, 
 although it greatly modified the organization of the legislature. 
 = Votes, I, I, 8. ' Col. Rec, I, 268, 279, 281-2. 
 
278 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 a hat, " which is a ballotting in his sense." * Among the 
 patent reasons for neglect of the ballot was the desire to 
 finish the elections in a short time in order that the farmers, 
 who often travelled many miles to vote, might return home 
 in good season. Another reason without doubt was the fact 
 that many of the electors could not write out their ballots, 
 and must either have the ballot written for them or, by 
 voting viva voce, proclaim to the other electors their inability 
 to write. 
 
 In 1692 Penn was dispossessed of his government, and 
 Governor Fletcher, of New York, was commissioned royal 
 governor of Pennsylvania and the " Countrey of Newcas- 
 tle," with as great powers as those he possessed in New 
 York,^ including the power to call assemblies elected by the 
 majority of the freeholders. The sole change in the suf- 
 frage by this royal assumption of control is found in the 
 omission of the scot and lot inhabitants and in the removing 
 the requirement of a definite size of freehold. Fletcher ap- 
 pears unwilling to enlarge or limit the terms of his commis- 
 sion in this respect, and although in the " Petition of Right" 
 he agreed to eighty-six chapters of the statutes passed be- 
 fore his time, yet Chapter II of the Great Law of 1682, 
 giving the property qualifications of voters, was omitted, 
 while Chapter LVII, containing the religious qualification, 
 was retained. The natural inference to be drawn from this 
 omission is that Fletcher did not care to add the scot and 
 lot payers to the freeholders of his commission nor to re- 
 strict the latter word to those possessing one hundred acres 
 or more of settled land. There can be no doubt, however, 
 that little actual change in the suffrage was made by the 
 omission of the previous qualifications. The scot and lot 
 voters must have been few in number and confined to Phila- 
 delphia County, where the city of Philadelphia and the bor- 
 
 ' West Jersey had advanced to a more definite method, for as early as 
 September, 1683, it was provided that votes were to be given in writing 
 upon pieces of paper {Learning and Spicer, 478). Compare also the 
 corn and bean ballot in Mass. and Conn., and the ballot in South Caro- 
 lina. 
 
 ^October 21, 1692, Pennsylvania Col. Rec, I, 352-7; New York Col. 
 Doc, III, 856-860. 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 279 
 
 ough of Germantown, the only incorporated places in the 
 province/ were situated. 
 
 Penn's province was restored to him by the Crown on 
 August 20, 1694,2 and shortly afterwards Penn commis- 
 sioned William Markham as his governor. After a long 
 contest with the assembly,^ Markham issued a new frame 
 of government, the third which the province had received.* 
 Markham's frame restored the term freeman, which had 
 been changed by Fletcher's commission to freeholder, and 
 defined the term in a manner which was but slightly changed 
 down to the Revolution : 
 
 " 3. And to the end. It may be known who those that in this Province 
 & territories have riglit of, or be deemed freemen to Choose or to be 
 Chosen to serve in Council and assembly as aforesaid : 
 
 " Be it Enacted by the authority aforesaid. That no Inhabitant of this 
 Province or Territories, shall have right of electing or being elected as 
 aforesaid, Unless they be free Denizens of this government and are of 
 the age of Twenty-one years or upwards, and have fifty acres of land, 
 ten acres whereof being seated and cleared, or be otherwise worth fifty 
 pounds lawful money of this government Clear estate, and have been 
 Resident within this government for the space of two years next be- 
 fore such election." 
 
 Here for the first time we have a definite suffrage pro- 
 vision clothed in a modern phraseology and adapted to the 
 needs of a community which was receiving large numbers 
 of foreign immigrants into its midst. The voter must be 
 a free denizen of the government; that is, if foreign-born 
 he must have become naturalized and taken the oaths or 
 affirmations of allegiance to the Crown and fidelity to the 
 proprietor; he must be twenty-one years of age and have 
 resided in the province at least two years. The old mediaeval 
 
 'The charter of 1691 to Philadelphia, may or may not have been in 
 force in 1693. The exact status of affairs under this charter has not 
 yet been determined by local historians. Germantown received the first 
 borough charter granted in the province, in 1689. Penna. Archives, I, 
 lii-iiS; Holcomb, Johns Hopkins University Studies, IV, 158. 
 
 ' Charter and Laws, 245. 
 
 ' See Shepperd, Proprietary Government in Pa., 278-283. 
 
 * During session of assembly, October 26-NovemDer 7, 1696. 
 
28o The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 alternative to the freehold — ^the scot and lot — ^was changed 
 to a definite personal property qualification. 
 
 Three years after the granting of Markham's frame a 
 most interesting contest arose over the neglect of the suf- 
 frage by certain counties. Fines for refusal to hold office 
 and perform political duties were common in the early his- 
 tory of almost all the colonies, and in a number there existed 
 punishments for individual neglect of the suffrage/ while 
 Massachusetts fined towns refusing to elect representatives ; 
 but it was left for the Pennsylvania legislature of 1699 to 
 exceed all other legislation of this nature. The three lower 
 Delaware counties were growing restive under the increase 
 of wealth and population in the three Pennsylvania coun- 
 ties, and feared an early increase in the number of counties 
 in the province, with a consequent breaking down of the 
 equality of representation between the province and the 
 territories.^ In 1699 the freemen of Newcastle County, duly 
 warned by the sheriff, met for purposes of election, but ut- 
 terly refused to make any selection of representatives. This 
 refusal was termed by the assembly a great contempt of 
 the governor and the authority of the government and " a 
 most manifold Slight of that inestimable priviledge of being 
 represented in Legislation by reason of their owne choice."* 
 The assembly then proceeded to force the " inestimable 
 priviledge" upon the people by placing a penalty of one hun- 
 dred pounds fine upon any county refusing to elect repre- 
 sentatives, and providing that the sum could be levied by 
 distress and sale of the goods of any four or more inhabi- 
 tants of the county, who should be reimbursed by a county 
 tax upon all property. Heavy fines were also imposed upon 
 individual sheriffs neglecting their duties in elections, and 
 upon representatives refusing to serve when elected.* 
 
 The Delaware members attended the sessions of the next 
 two assemblies, but their attendance must have been due 
 more largely to the presence of the proprietor than to the 
 threats contained in the law of 1699. Penn, himself, recog- 
 
 ' Early Md., Mass., Del., Va., etc. 
 
 ' Votes, I, I, 130. 
 
 * Charter and Laws, 278. 
 
 ' Ibid., 279. 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 281 
 
 nized the dififerences between the two sections in his charter 
 of 1 70 1, and made provision for the legislative separation 
 of the territories from the province, a permission taken ad- 
 vantage of by the lower counties in 1702. 
 
 The assembly meeting in the fall of 1700, under the 
 direction of Penn, revised and re-enacted the laws of the 
 province/ making little change in the suffrage conditions. 
 Fifty acres of freehold or fifty pounds of personal estate 
 were retained as stated by Markham's frame, but it was 
 now required that twelve acres of the freehold, instead of 
 ten, should be cleared and improved.^ An act for naturali- 
 zation, passed at the same session, put this power into the 
 hands of the proprietor or his governor.^ Penn's new frame 
 of government, signed October 28, 1701, did not specify 
 the qualifications of electors, but referred to the act of No- 
 vember 2'/, 1700. It reinstated, however, the former relig- 
 ious qualification for office-holders, requiring their belief 
 in Christ as the Saviour of the world.* This test was 
 strengthened beyond the terms of the charter by later action. 
 As early as 1703 ® the members of assembly took the vari- 
 ous English tests, either by oath or affirmation, against the 
 political or spiritual control of the Pope, denying the doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation, and denouncing the adoration 
 of the Virgin and the practice of the mass. 
 
 For several years after Penn's departure for England,, 
 the subject of the suffrage does not appear in any of the 
 records. The attention of the legislature, however, was 
 called to the conduct of elections in 1705 through a petition 
 from Philadelphia County, setting forth how an election had 
 been determined first by the " vote" (viva voce), and, as the 
 
 '^Statutes at Large, II, 3-141. 
 
 'Ibid., 24. 
 
 ' Ibid., 29. Both of these acts were repealed by the Queen in Council, 
 February 7, 1705-6. The reason given for repealing the election act was 
 that it provided for advertisement of elections on trees or houses as well 
 as court houses. " It ought to have been ' churches, chapels, and public 
 meeting-houses !' " (Statutes at Large, II, Appendix, 465.) 
 
 'A Collection of Charters and other Publick Acts Relating to the 
 Province of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, B. Franklin, 1740. 
 
 ' Votes, I, II, I. 
 
282 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 time grew late, the country people set out for their homes, 
 but that afterwards the ballot-box was called for, and by the 
 votes of servants and unqualified persons, the candidate of 
 the country people was set aside.^ The episode led to a new 
 and comprehensive election law, the terms of which appear 
 to have called forth considerable debate in the assembly. 
 Among the questions discussed was that of allowing the 
 qualified inhabitants of the city of Philadelphia to vote for 
 the two city members and for the eight county members 
 as well, thus giving them a double vote.^ A proposal to 
 require fifty pounds value of real estate in the counties and 
 fifty pounds of personal property in the city was voted 
 down,* and the qualifications as laid down in the act of 
 1700 were adopted.* The act itself, consequently, is of more 
 value.in the making, and as showing new administrative pro- 
 visions to protect the suffrage than because it introduces new 
 qualifications.^ 
 
 It is not our part to analyze the election laws of the col- 
 ony, but reference may be made to some of the important 
 provisions of this first general election law. The legislature 
 is composed of eight members from each county and two 
 from the city of Philadelphia. Electors are to be native 
 or naturalized citizens, twenty-one years of age, residents 
 of the province for two years, and possessing fifty acres 
 of freehold, twelve of which is cleared, or fifty pounds 
 personal property. Fines are imposed upon those voting 
 who do not possess these qualifications, as also for bribery 
 or voting more than once. Elections are to be by written 
 ballots deposited in boxes, with the polls open from ten in 
 the morning till two in the afternoon, and adjourning from 
 day to day. Provision is made for judges, inspectors, and 
 
 * Penna. Magazine of History and Biography, II. 452. 
 ' Votes, I, II, 69. 
 
 ' Ibid., 76. A requirement of iso value of real estate would have been 
 almost prohibitive, for as late as 1775, in Philadelphia County (outside 
 the city), the wealthiest and most populous county in the colony, there 
 were only 147 persons assessed at over £50 out of a total rateable popu- 
 lation of 6941 persons. 
 
 * Ibid., 70. 
 
 "Statutes at Large, II, 212-221 ; Act of January 12, 1705-6. 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 283 
 
 clerks of election; for returns by indenture to the governor 
 and the assembly, and for fines upon those refusing to serve 
 after election. The provisions of this act furnished the out- 
 line for all subsequent laws upon the subject in the colony. 
 There were frequent changes in the method of selecting the 
 election officials, particularly after the counties were divided 
 into voting precincts, but the main provisions of the act of 
 1706 remained unchanged. 
 
 At the same session of assembly an act was passed regu- 
 lating the elections of sheriffs and coroners,^ which soon 
 became a source of trouble. The act prescribed the method 
 of electing these officers, but it did not state exactly the 
 qualifications of electors at such elections. It was doubt- 
 less understood that the body of electors was the same for 
 sheriffs and coroners as for representatives, since the former 
 officers were to be elected in a double number after the 
 election of assemblymen had taken place. From this double 
 list of nominees the governor should choose one for each 
 office, or, if he neglected this duty, then the person having 
 the highest number of votes should assume the position.^ 
 The voters in this act were described as " freemen and 
 electors," " freemen and inhabitants," and " freemen or 
 electors," apparently making a distinction between the words 
 freeman and elector. It was this ambiguity which led to 
 disorders at elections and to the participation of many 
 poorer people in the balloting for sheriffs and coroners. In 
 January, 1 713-14, a petition from Philadelphia called atten- 
 tion to the defects of the law,^ but the assembly gave no 
 redress. The following year the assembly was compelled 
 to set aside both the persons receiving an apparent major- 
 ity,* and two years later they passed an act limiting the suf- 
 frage for sheriffs and coroners to those qualified to vote for 
 representatives.® 
 
 ^ Act of January 12, 1705-6, Statutes at Large, II, 272-5. 
 
 ° Compare the common Dutch practice of double and triple nomina- 
 tions {American Historical Review, VI, 712-713). 
 
 " Votes, II, 146 ; Statutes at Large, III, 138. 
 
 *Ibid., 159, 166. 
 
 'Ibid., 213; Statutes at Large, III, 138-140; act of August 24, I7I7- 
 This act required each voter to present on one piece of paper the names 
 
284 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Exactly the same misinterpretation was made regarding 
 the choice of election inspectors under the act of 1706, by 
 the mingling of unqualified persons among the electors and 
 their taking part in the viva voce vote for inspectors.^ Peti- 
 tioners from Chester County first called the attention of the 
 assembly to the abuse in 1726, and although a supplement- 
 ary act was passed the following year,^ yet great disorders 
 occurred in 1739,^ and the machinery of election was there- 
 after frequently changed in detail in order to adjust it to 
 these conditions.* 
 
 From 1706 onward the interest in the suffrage in Penn- 
 sylvania centres not in the electors but in the masses of 
 non-voters, who, legally disqualified, used every possible 
 means to influence the elections. One sees them frequently 
 in the background of the election picture with sticks or 
 stones or even " billets of wood," instead of the forbidden 
 ballots, trying by physical means to express their opinions. 
 From the point of view of the ruling class they are " ser- 
 vants," or " great numbers of disorderly persons," or " an 
 outrageous Multitude," who, by " their rude and disorderly 
 behaviour" disturb the elections, or who " presumed to vote 
 when they did not have the right so to do." Mention has 
 already been made of their place in the city election of 1705, 
 and how their interference in other elections compelled 
 greater and greater stringency and accuracy of statement in 
 the election laws. 
 
 of eight persons for representatives, two names for coroner, and six 
 names for assessors of the county. The act of March 20, 1724-5 changed 
 this from one piece to three distinct papers, one for each of the three 
 classes of officers voted for. {Votes, II, 309; Statutes at Large, IV, 
 10.) 
 
 '■ Statutes at Large, IV, 331. 
 
 "^ Votes, III, 8, 9, 14, 25, 31 ; Statutes at Large, IV, 77 ; Col. Rec, III, 
 277-8. 
 
 'Ibid., 324, 337; Statutes at Large, IV, 331. 
 
 ' Statutes at Large, IV, 37s ; V, 16, 153, 465 ; and Pamphlet Laws, acts 
 of March 4, 1763, February, 1766, February 26, 1773. In one of these 
 laws occurs the only instance known of the application of the term 
 "hundred" to a political unit in Pennsylvania history (Statutes at 
 Large, IV, 331) ; the hundred being a subdivision of the county for pur- 
 pose of choosing election inspectors. 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 285 
 
 If our space permitted, it would be interesting to note the 
 part played by these persons in a number of later contested 
 elections. In 1739 Chester County sends up its protest 
 against them;^ and in 1742 it is Philadelphia which ob- 
 jects to its " bloody election" and the interference of a band 
 of "strange sailors."^ In 1749 Lancaster County has a 
 great scandal, unqualified persons and even boys voting, 
 some casting three, five, or ten ballots, and the total of votes 
 cast perhaps more than doubling the number of voters at 
 the election.* The following year, York County has its 
 turn, and recounts a sorry story of the sheriff driven from 
 the ballot-box and the polling place by a " multitude of Peo- 
 ple, chiefly Germans."* In 1752 Bucks County sent its 
 petition against " able Freeholders greatly questioned, and 
 others (perhaps making a better Figure) though insufficient, 
 accepted" as electors ; and York County again had a protest, 
 this time against candidates " laying open the Public Houses 
 at the Time of Election." ® In almost every one of these 
 cases the assembly tried to patch up the election law at 
 the point where its weakness had admitted the unqualified 
 persons. After 1752, frequent changes were made in the law 
 for the choice of inspectors of election,® and at last these 
 officers were required to use the constables' lists of taxables 
 to aid them in judging of the qualifications of voters.'' This 
 machinery of election must have become more closely adapted 
 to the wishes of the legislators, for in the later years there 
 is little record of election disputes, and Acrelius, in 1758, 
 in describing the method of election in the province, makes 
 no reference to the excluded classes, although he gives a 
 circumstantial and detailed account of elections.® 
 
 That the disqualified class was a large one is a patent 
 
 ^ Votes, III, 324, 337; Col. Rec, IV, 335; Statutes at Large, IV, 331. 
 
 'Ibid., 497^506, 521 and appendix; Col. Rec, IV, 620-638; Stat- 
 utes at Large, IV, 375; Penna. Mag. of Hist., V, 11. 
 
 'Ibid., IV, 117-126; Mombert, History of Lancaster County, 150. 
 
 ^Ibid., ISO, 152; Col. Rec, V, 468. 
 
 ° Ibid., 204-5 ; Statutes at Large, V, 159. 
 
 •Acts of March 11, 1752; September 29, I7S9; March 4, 1763; Feb- 
 ruary 8, 1766 ; February 26, 1773. 
 
 ' Acts of March 11, 1752, and February 8, 1766. 
 
 'Memoirs, Penna. Historical Society, XI, 119-121. 
 
286 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 fact; but it is difficult to arrive at any definite conclusion 
 concerning the proportion which the voting class bore to the 
 whole male population. An inspection of assessment lists may 
 give some clue to the size of the class exercising the suf- 
 frage. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania has three 
 tax-lists in its general collections — one for the county of 
 Philadelphia for 1693/ another for Chestnut, South, and 
 Middle wards of the city for 1754,^ and the third for Chest- 
 nut, Lower Delaware, and Walnut wards of the city for 
 1767.* 
 
 In 1693 t'^^ suffrage was based on the instructions to 
 Governor Fletcher, which limited the franchise to free- 
 holders. Unfortunately, the tax-list of that year does not 
 show the property upon which the assessment was made, 
 and hence does not give the exact number of freeholders.* 
 The list shows one hundred and eighty-six persons paying 
 
 ' " By Virtue of a Law made at Philadelphia by a Gen>l Assembly 
 held the isth May, 1693. For Granting One penny per pound To King 
 William & Queen Marey, etc." 
 
 ^ " A Tax of two pence in the pound and six shillings per head Laid 
 on the Estates of the Freeholders & Inhabitants of the City of Phila- 
 delphia. . . Assessed the 20th day of Aug. 1754.'' 
 
 ° " We the subscribers Overseers of the poor have laid the following 
 Tax of two pence in the pound and six shillings p. head on the Estates 
 and Inhabitants of the City of Philadelphia." 
 
 Dated December 12, 1767. 
 
 Total. 
 
 ' City 3S6 
 
 Northern Liberties 61 
 
 Oxford Township 32 
 
 Cheltenham 23 
 
 Bristol Township 16 
 
 Germantown Township 51 
 
 Plimouth Township 2 
 
 Byberry 18 
 
 Upper Precinct 5 
 
 Dublin 27 
 
 Passiunk, Wiccaco, Moyamensing 27 
 
 Beyond Schuykill 18 
 
 Welsh tract 69 
 
 Men. 
 
 Women. 
 
 Poll tax 
 
 342 
 
 14 
 
 77 
 
 59 
 
 2 
 
 28 
 
 31 
 
 I 
 
 9 
 
 23 
 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 
 5 
 
 SO 
 
 
 II 
 
 2 
 
 
 I 
 
 18 
 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 
 I 
 
 27 
 
 
 I 
 
 27 
 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 
 I 
 
 67 
 
 2 
 
 24 
 
 Total 
 
 70s 
 
 685 
 
 186 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 287 
 
 poll-tax out of a total male taxable population of six hun- 
 dred and eighty-five; but even this does not give us a clue 
 to the suffrage, for- the least amount of property assessed 
 was thirty pounds; those having less than that being taxed 
 on the head, among whom must have been many small free- 
 holders. We are forced to turn from this to the second one 
 of 1754. 
 
 At this time, under the act of 1706, those inhabitants had 
 the right to vote who held fifty acres of land or fifty pounds 
 value of property, real or personal. The tax-list gives us 
 the taxables for Chestnut, South, and Middle wards of the 
 city of Philadelphia. It may be taken for granted that no 
 one held fifty or more acres in any of these wards, ^ and that 
 the distinction between the voting and non-voting classes 
 can be based upon the value of the property held.^ The list 
 shows a total of four hundred and eighty-six male taxables, 
 of whom sixty-three, or about 13 per cent., were assessed 
 for fifty pounds or over. The list of 1 767 * shows fifty-three 
 out of three hundred and sixty-four male taxables possessing 
 fifty pounds or over ; a proportion of nearly 1 5 per cent. 
 
 It is difficult to determine at this late day what relation 
 the assessed value of property bore to its market value, and 
 
 * Penn's final plan of division of city lots gave two acres in the city 
 to each purchaser of one hundred acres in the country. 
 
 'Summary of Philadelphia City taxables for 1754: 
 
 T A ^^ Males 
 Men. Women, '^^p'n assessed 
 ^°"- over £so. 
 
 Chestnut Ward 99 I4 I9 22 
 
 South Ward 142 10 22 17 
 
 Middle Ward 245 22 30 24 
 
 Total 486 46 71 63 
 
 • Summary of Philadelphia City taxables for 1767 : 
 
 Men. Women. ^ p„,, assessed 
 
 Taxed on 
 
 Males 
 
 Poll. 
 
 over ;i^5o. 
 
 Chestnut Ward 114 " 3^ 20 
 
 Lower Delaware i39 i3 43 20 
 
 Walnut Ward m 21 32 13 
 
 Total 364 45 I" S3 
 
288 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 it is not clear whether the assessment hsts were made the sole 
 basis for the voting privileges, since the laws of 1752 and 
 1766 stated that the tax-lists were to be given to the election 
 inspectors to enable them " the better to judge of the quali- 
 fications of the electors." ^ But making all possible allow- 
 ances for these elements of error, the fact is apparent that 
 only a small minority of the male inhabitants of the city of 
 Philadelphia were legally qualified for exercising the elec- 
 toral franchise. 
 
 Access has also been gained to two other assessment lists, 
 from which some valuable deductions may be made. One 
 of these is for certain farming districts in Philadelphia 
 County, showing not only the value of the estates but also 
 the exact number of acres of land owned by each freeholder 
 in the spring of 1776. Another is a list of the taxable in- 
 habitants for the whole city and county of Philadelphia for 
 the year 1775.^ From these lists a valuable comparison can 
 be made showing the extent of the suffrage in a populous 
 farming community and in the city of Philadelphia. 
 
 The list for 1776 gives us the taxable inhabitants of twelve 
 townships in the northwestern part of Philadelphia County,^ 
 showing the nature and amount of each taxable's estate. 
 By a count of the names and estates here given, it appears 
 that among fourteen hundred and fifty-five male taxable in- 
 habitants, seven hundred and forty-three, or a little over 
 50 per cent., owned fifty or more acres of land. It must be 
 remembered, too, that this was a populous district, near the 
 city of Philadelphia, where, if anjrwhere in the colony, farms 
 would be small. In the back counties where land was cheap 
 and farms large, the proportion of voters to the whole male 
 population may have been even higher. Such a proportion, 
 making one person in every two taxable males a voter, would 
 
 ^ Statutes at Large, V, 156 ; VII, 37. 
 
 ' " A tax of three Pence in the Pound and Nine shillings per Head 
 laid on the Estates of the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the City and 
 County of Philadelphia for paying Assembly Mens Wages, Building and 
 Repairing of Bridges, Destroying Wolves, Foxes and Crows, and other 
 Exigencies of the County for the ensuing Year. 
 
 Assessed the 31st day of March, 1775." 
 
 ' The following table gives a summary of the taxable inhabitants of 
 these townships according to the assessment of 1776: 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 
 
 289 
 
 give us perhaps one elector in every ten or twelve of the 
 population. 
 
 On the other hand, those who were qualified to vote under 
 the fifty pounds clause in the country must have been very 
 few in number. In 1775 the twelve townships mentioned 
 contained only fourteen persons who were assessed for fifty 
 pounds or over. In places more distant from the centre of 
 wealth and population, the proportion owning that amount 
 was even smaller. An assessment list of Berks County for 
 1774 shows only twenty-nine taxables assessed for fifty 
 pounds or over out of a total taxable population of three 
 thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, or not one in a hun- 
 dred ! Evidently, if the assessment lists were used as the law 
 directed to determine a man's qualification for the suffrage, 
 very few received that privilege under the fifty pounds pro- 
 vision.^ 
 
 Tax of 1776. 
 
 ■< f> 
 H n 
 
 Male Taxables. 
 
 
 
 .3 
 
 
 2% 
 
 Frankford and New Hanover. . 
 
 Douglas township 
 
 Upper Hanover township 
 
 Limerick township 
 
 Upper Salford township 
 
 Lower Salford " 
 
 Frederick " 
 
 Perkiomen and Skeipack town- 
 ship 
 
 Franconia township 
 
 Bristol " 
 
 Norriton " 
 
 Providence " 
 
 183 
 159 
 130 
 139 
 108 
 
 79 
 71 
 
 97 
 
 78 
 
 88 
 
 120 
 
 232 
 
 98 
 77 
 74 
 76 
 
 52 
 
 42 
 33 
 
 61 
 
 47 
 28 
 
 39 
 116 
 
 74 
 66 
 
 35 
 40 
 
 31 
 23 
 28 
 
 23 
 15 
 44 
 58 
 85 
 
 7 
 12 
 20 
 19 
 23 
 13 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 13 
 13 
 23 
 36 
 
 179 
 156 
 129 
 
 135 
 106 
 
 78 
 68 
 
 97 
 
 75 
 
 85 
 
 120 
 
 227 
 
 1484 
 
 29 
 
 743 520 
 
 199 
 
 1455 
 
 14 
 
 * The figures of last column are taken from the list of preceding year (1775). 
 unlikely that any considerable change took place. 
 
 It is 
 
 ^"A Register of the Eighteenth 18 Penny Provincial Tax and a 
 County Tax, Assessed and Laid on the Inhabitants of the County of 
 Berks, in the Month of December, A. D. I774-" 
 transcript in the Pennsylvania Historical Society. 
 
 19 
 
 I have used the MS. 
 
290 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 While, however, the fifty acres requirement was met by 
 nearly one-half of the adult male population in the country 
 districts, it would be almost prohibitive in the city and bor- 
 oughs, where the franchise would of necessity be based upon 
 the value of estates rather than their area. The tax-lists lead 
 to the belief that fifty acres of land and fifty pounds estate 
 were by no means equivalent terms ; and the franchise was 
 more widely extended in the country than in the city of Phil- 
 adelphia or the boroughs.^ 
 
 A tax-list for 1 775 gives the value, but not the size of the 
 estates of all taxable inhabitants of the city and county. Tak- 
 ing the figures from this list,^ it is clear that the suffrage was 
 
 ' The restriction of the suffrage in the city has been ascribed to the 
 desire of the ruling party to keep control of the government, by limiting 
 the voters in Philadelphia and the number of representatives in the 
 western counties. (C. H. Lincoln, The Revolutionary Movement in 
 Penna., 1760-1776, 45 ; and Penna. Mag. of Hist., XXIII, 27 note.) 
 
 ' The following table gives a summary of this tax-list. 
 
 
 i 
 
 Si! 
 H 
 
 Female 
 Taxables. 
 
 Male Taxables. 
 
 City. 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 K 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 Dock Ward 
 
 891 
 96 
 
 362 
 103 
 132 
 161 
 410 
 II2I 
 196 
 
 9 
 2 
 
 5 
 7 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 6 
 6 
 
 
 29 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 19 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 36 
 5 
 
 87 
 10 
 16 
 43 
 14 
 15 
 18 
 46 
 65 
 21 
 
 97 
 225 
 68 
 80 
 109 
 262 
 916 
 140 
 
 169 
 15 
 33 
 68 
 
 14 
 31 
 22 
 76 
 98 
 30 
 
 853 
 146 
 
 126 
 149 
 
 384 
 
 1079 
 
 191 
 
 Walnut Ward 
 
 South Ward 
 
 Middle Ward 
 
 Chestnut Ward 
 
 Lower Delaware Ward 
 
 High Street Ward 
 
 North Ward 
 
 Mulberry Ward 
 
 Upper Delaware Ward 
 
 Total for city 
 
 3625 
 6941 
 
 44 
 
 129 
 
 335, 
 147* 
 
 2561 
 5789* 
 
 556 
 IOCS 
 
 3452 
 
 County outside city 
 
 
 ■ ' 
 
 Entire city and county 
 
 10566 
 
 44 
 
 129 
 
 482 
 
 8350 
 
 1561 
 
 
 * Female taxpayers have not been distinguished in the county ; but the number is so 
 small as to be insignificant. 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 
 
 291 
 
 far more restricted in the urban than in the suburban and rural 
 districts. In the city for the year 1775 out of a total of three 
 thousand four hundred and fifty-two male taxables, there 
 were only three hundred and thirty-five persons who were 
 
 Taxables, County outside City. 
 
 Township. 
 
 Over 
 /■so- 
 
 under 
 ;f50. 
 
 Polls. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Abington 
 
 Blockley 
 
 Bristol 
 
 Byberry 
 
 Cheltenham ' 
 
 Douglas 
 
 Frederick 
 
 Franconia , 
 
 Frankford and New Hanover . 
 
 Germantown 
 
 Gwinedth 
 
 Hatfield 
 
 Harsham 
 
 Kingsessing 
 
 Lower Merion 
 
 Lower Dublin , 
 
 Lower Salford 
 
 Limrick 
 
 Moyamensing 
 
 Montgomery 
 
 Manor of Moreland 
 
 Marlborough 
 
 Norriton 
 
 Northern Liberties, West Part, 
 Northern Liberties, East Part . 
 
 Oxford 
 
 Plymouth 
 
 Providence 
 
 Passyunk 
 
 Perkiomen and Skippack 
 
 Roxborough 
 
 Southwark 
 
 Springfield 
 
 Tonamencin 
 
 Upper Hanover 
 
 Upper Salford 
 
 Upper Merion 
 
 Upper Dublin 
 
 Whitemarsh 
 
 Whitpain 
 
 Worcester 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 o 
 2 
 2 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 12 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 I 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 6 
 
 I 
 3 
 4 
 3 
 5 
 24 
 I 
 
 147 
 
 "3 
 107 
 
 74 
 76 
 
 85 
 
 152 
 
 90 
 
 68 
 
 165 
 
 391 
 
 III 
 
 73 
 
 93 
 
 66 
 
 136 
 153 
 
 S8 
 127 
 
 69 
 
 73 
 
 236 
 
 78 
 
 96 
 
 430 
 498 
 118 
 
 74 
 .197 
 
 82 
 
 85 
 
 83 
 
 680 
 
 74 
 
 66 
 
 102 
 
 87 
 82 
 
 94 
 135 
 
 99 
 "3 
 
 5789 
 
 18 
 26 
 16 
 16 
 22 
 9 
 7 
 12 
 16 
 
 79 
 27 
 
 9 
 31 
 
 9 
 54 
 46 
 20 
 19 
 
 7 
 12 
 
 51 
 12 
 20 
 41 
 52 
 17 
 26 
 
 30 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 67 
 12 
 
 23 
 22 
 21 
 21 
 23 
 38 
 13 
 15 
 
 IOCS 
 
 134 
 
 134 
 
 94 
 
 92 
 
 109 
 
 163 
 
 97 
 
 80 
 
 181 
 
 482 
 
 138 
 
 82 
 
 125 
 
 85 
 
 192 
 
 202 
 
 78 
 
 147 
 
 78 
 
 86 
 
 287 
 
 91 
 117 
 
 489 
 575 
 141 
 lol 
 230 
 
 106 
 107 
 771 
 
 87 
 89 
 124 
 108 
 104 
 119 
 179 
 112 
 130 
 
 6941 
 
292 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 assessed for fifty pounds or more; or scarcely one taxable 
 male in ten by this assessment had the proper qualification 
 for the suffrage. It is recognized that there may be some 
 elements of error in this list; the property may have been 
 purposely undervalued, some of the city inhabitants may have 
 owned fifty acres or more in the country, and some personal 
 property may not have been assessed at all. But making 
 allowance for such errors, it is still believed that the pro- 
 portion of voters to non-voters in the city is relatively small. 
 Looking over all of these assessment lists, it would ap- 
 pear that one man in every two taxables had the right to vote 
 in the country districts ; and estimating the taxables at one- 
 fifth of the total population, we would find the franchise 
 conferred upon one person in ten of the entire population 
 of the farming communities. In the city of Philadelphia, 
 on the other hand, where the fifty pounds clause would be 
 the only qualification, but one taxable in ten possessed the 
 requisite amount of property ; or, using the same proportion 
 of taxables to the whole population, only one person in fifty 
 of the city population was shown by the tax assessments to 
 be qualified for the sufifrage. There is thus a remarkable 
 difference between the number of legal voters in the country 
 and in the city in Pennsylvania. It may be further noted 
 that the limited suffrage in Philadelphia does not compare 
 favorably with the municipal franchise in New York, where 
 the voting class, owing to the admission of inhabitants as 
 voters, must have been several times larger than that in 
 Philadelphia. The laws of Pennsylvania undoubtedly 
 worked to the disadvantage of the mechanics and artisans 
 of the city. 
 
 We have hitherto been discussing the suffrage for the 
 colonial legislature, but we may glance rapidly at a few in- 
 stances in which the local suffrage qualifications varied from 
 the provincial requirements. 
 
 The early history of local institutions in Pennsylvania is 
 still involved in considerable obscurity, although some short 
 studies of the subject have been made.^ Setting aside the 
 
 'E. R. L. Gould, /. H. Univ. Studies, I; W. P. Holcomb, Penm. 
 Boroughs, J. H. Univ. Studies, IV; Howard, Local Const. Hist, in 
 U. S.: .4lKnson and Penrose, Phila., xv-xliii. 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 293 
 
 conditions in the Swedish and Dutch days, and even those 
 under the Duke of York's government, there still remain 
 several problems in connection with the early history of 
 institutions. Prominent among these is the question of 
 the origin and functions of the Pennsylvania township. 
 There is a strong contrast between the sturdy and com- 
 pact New England town corporation and the vague and 
 indefinite township in Pennsylvania in the seventeenth 
 and eighteenth centuries. In New England the town is 
 usually erected in a definite way, has precise boundaries, 
 fixed powers, and distinct individuality. In Pennsylvania 
 it is difficult to determine how the township began, and 
 often we learn it is in existence in an accidental way by occa- 
 sional references, rather than see its beginning in a formal 
 act of incorporation. In a similar manner the functions of 
 the early township, and even the titles of its officials, are lost 
 in a fog of ambiguity which the light of occasional statutory 
 provisions renders the more confusing. It is much to be 
 desired that a comprehensive review of all the extant material 
 on the subject should be made.^ 
 
 Somewhat less obscurity surrounds the erection of the 
 counties and the early years of Germantown borough,^ but 
 the political history of Philadelphia from 1682 to 1701 is 
 
 ^ It cannot be denied that some features of a democratic town organi- 
 zation did exist in Pennsylvania. A town book of Darby, 1682-1804, is 
 extant, which shows a communal activity in the election of officials and 
 the making of by-laws which savors strongly of New England practice. 
 (See transcript of this volume in the Historical Society of Pennsyl- 
 vania.) The phrase town meeting was sometimes used with reference 
 to the gathering of the people for elective purposes. Certain returns of 
 elections of town constables and overseers of the poor made to the Lan- 
 caster County court show this use of the words. The township of Bartt 
 elected their candidates "by a towns meeting;" in another case the 
 wording is " The township of derry Being met they chuse Adam Bame 
 and John fleming or either of them to serve as Constabel for the En- 
 suing year Chosen by us." In other returns the election is said to be 
 by the "freeholders," or by the "inhabitants." (See the MS. returns 
 bound up with "Lancaster County Court Papers, 1752-1782," folios 
 141-171, in Historical Society of Pennsylvania.) 
 
 ' 1689-1691. 
 
294 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 almost a blank. ^ In glancing at some variations of the local 
 suffrage from the normal we cannot make a study of local 
 institutions, but must content ourselves with a few references 
 to the statutory provisions on the franchise. 
 
 By the king's charter to Penn the proprietor was given 
 
 " free and absolute power to Divide the said Countrey, and Islands, 
 into To'wnes, Hundreds and Counties, and to erect and incorporate 
 Townes into Borroughs, and Borroughs into Citties, and to make and 
 Constitute ffaires and Markets therein, with all other convenient privil- 
 ledges and immunities according to the merit of the inhabitants and the 
 ffitness of the places." 
 
 It further provided that Penn should have authority to erect 
 manors and establish upon them courts-baron and view of 
 frankpledge. 
 
 We need not here examine the details of the survey of 
 Penn's " great town," ^ for these early acts are of an agra- 
 rian rather than a political nature. On March 24, 168 1-2, 
 Penn gave a charter to a " Free Society of Traders" who 
 were privileged upon their lands to establish a manor by the 
 name of Frank, and to hold courts of general sessions, courts- 
 baron and -leet and view of frankpledge.^ According to 
 the constitution adopted by this society, a plural system of 
 voting was to be put in force.* Penn's frame of 1682, the 
 laws made in England, and the Great Law of December, 
 1682, neglect the whole subject of local government, with 
 the exception of provisions for court procedure. Apparently, 
 the counties of Philadelphia, Chester, and Bucks in the prov- 
 ince, and of Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex in the territories 
 were erected shortly after Penn's arrival in the province;® 
 for we see the county organization sufficient by November 
 18, 1682, to warrant the proprietor in sending writs to sher- 
 iffs in six counties directing the election of seven assembly- 
 men in each county.^ 
 
 * See AUinson and Penrose, Phila., xlv-7 ; Penna. Magazine of History 
 and Biography, yi^, 344; XVIII, 419. 
 
 'Hazard, Annals, 528, 594, etc. "Ibid., 541-550. 
 
 * Ihid., 552 ; Hazard, Register of Penna., 1, 394. 
 " Ibid., 605. 
 
 ' Ibid., 603 ; but see also Charter and Laws, Appendix, 472-3 ; Votes, 
 I, I, 1-3- 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 295 
 
 In the somewhat voluminous legislation of March, 1682-3, 
 and the two succeeding years, many details of local adminis- 
 tration were given over to the county courts, including the 
 levying of county taxes, the laying out of roads to public 
 landings, and the appointment of viewers of pipe-staves, 
 overseers of highways, and viewers of fences.^ There is 
 only one provision for the election of local officers, which 
 is in Chapter 88 of the laws of 1692-3, requiring each 
 town to choose one or two able persons to weigh bread ex- 
 posed for sale.^ No definition is given of the word town, 
 nor of electors therein. It may be that town meant no more 
 than a populous locality, and the subsequent use of the term 
 would seem to justify this theory.^ 
 
 The sheriffs and coroners by the frame of 1682 were to 
 be appointed by the proprietor in the first instance;* but 
 by the frame of 1683, sheriffs, coroners, and justices of the 
 peace were to be appointed by the governor from a double 
 nomination made by the assembly.* The new charter of 
 1 70 1 placed the election of the sheriffs and coroners in the 
 hands of the freemen of the respective counties, who should 
 select a double number of candidates for those offices.® From 
 this time down to the Revolution, county officials were 
 elected by those qualified to vote for representatives,^ and 
 although attempts at voting were occasionally made by per- 
 
 ' Charter and Laws, 133, 136, 139, 146, 178. 
 
 'Ibid., 135. 
 
 ' See the use of the word in acts of May lO, 1698, Charter and Laws, 
 276, and of November 27, 1700, Statutes at Large, II, 65-68. Seven 
 towns are named: Bristol, Philadelphia, Germantown, Darby, Chester, 
 Newcastle, and Lewes ; of which it is believed that only two, Philadel- 
 phia and Germantown, had received any corporate power at this time. 
 Yet Darby was holding regular meetings. 
 
 ' Charter and Laws, 97. 
 
 'Ibid., 159. 
 
 • Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II, 1538. 
 
 ' Charters and Laws, 256 ; Statutes at Large, II, 34. 272 ; III, 138 ; 
 IV, 10, 77, 331. An act of March 9, 1771 {Pam. Laws. p. 112), permitted 
 all freeholders to vote for freeholders to audit the accounts of the over- 
 seers of the poor. This may have been an extension of the suffrage 
 similar to that mentioned in the townships, since it neglected the fifty 
 acres limitation. 
 
296 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 sons not so qualified, yet the legislature by increasingly strict 
 laws prevented their interference. 
 
 In the townships the officers were often appointed by the 
 county court, or, where elective, the suffrage qualifications 
 were apparently the same as those for electors of higher offi- 
 cers. Only one case has been found where the township 
 suffrage differed expressly from the provincial suffrage. 
 This is in a law providing for the erection of pounds in each 
 township which directed that the election of a pound-keeper 
 should be by those who are " owners or possessors of land" 
 in each township.^ This law, like the case mentioned in a 
 previous note, by removing the fifty acres qualification, must 
 have given the suffrage to small freeholders. 
 
 Pennsylvania, like many other colonies, possessed the local 
 unit called the borough. Four places received borough char- 
 ters during the colonial period, namely, Germantown, 1689; 
 Chester, 1701; Bristol, 1720; Lancaster, 1742.^ Of these, 
 Germantown alone was constituted a close corporation with- 
 out any popular elections ; a reason, perhaps, why the char- 
 ter was permitted to lapse by non-user in 1706.* The char- 
 ters of Chester, Bristol, and Lancaster show strong similari- 
 ties to one another, and all of them contain provisions for 
 popular elections, and even seem to permit popular town 
 meetings.* These charters established a new class of voters 
 
 '^Statutes at Large, IV, 116, May 10, 1729. 
 
 ^ There is some proof that Philadelphia had a borough organization 
 before 1691, but almost nothing is known of this government ; AUinson 
 and Penrose, Philadelphia, 4. 
 
 'See charter in Pa. Archives, I, 111-115. For description, see W. P. 
 Holcomb, Pennsylvania Boroughs, J. H. Univ. Studies, IV, 158. 
 
 * See Chester charter in J. H. Martin, History of Chester, 111-113; 
 Bristol, in Hazard, Register of Penna., Ill, 312-314; Lancaster, in 
 Mombert, History of Lancaster County, Appendix, 141-146. For bor- 
 oughs in general, see Holcomb, op. cit. The following extracts will give 
 an idea of the provisions for popular elections and town meetings : 
 " And we do grant full power and authority for the Bur- 
 
 gesses, Constables, assistants and freeholders, together with 
 such inhabitants, housekeepers within the said borough, as shall 
 have resided therein at least for the space of one whole year 
 next preceding any such election as is herein after directed, and 
 hired a house and ground within the said borough of the yearly 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 297 
 
 in borough elections by extending the suffrage to house- 
 holders as well as freeholders. In the first two charters, 
 those of Chester and Bristol, the word householder is un- 
 defined and unlimited; but in Lancaster the power of par- 
 ticipation in elections was given to the freeholders, and to 
 the " inhabitants, housekeepers within the said borough," 
 who had resided in the borough one year before the election 
 and who rented a house and ground of the annual rental 
 of five pounds or upwards. 
 
 A similar advance in definition was made in the term 
 town meeting, which in Chester and Bristol passed without 
 comment, but in Lancaster is to be composed of the " inhabi- 
 tants." These provisions of the borough charters are of 
 interest because they give us the closest approximation to 
 democracy which was made by the province of Pennsylvania. 
 Mr. Holcomb has written of the political activities of one 
 of these boroughs,^ but the part of the town meeting in all 
 three might with profit be made the subject of further study. 
 The town meeting feature reminds us of New England prac- 
 tice, while the householder suffrage is remarkably similar 
 to that in use in many of the English boroughs. 
 
 Philadelphia possessed a more restricted suffrage than the 
 boroughs, and she lacked altogether the town meeting which 
 was their peculiar political feature. The charter of 1691,^ 
 of somewhat doubtful authenticity, and that of 1701 ^ both 
 erected a municipality in which popular suffrage played no 
 part. The mayor, recorder, eight aldermen, and twelve com- 
 mon councilmen formed a close corporation, with power to 
 
 value of five pounds or upwards" to hold annual election on 
 September 15 for above ofKcers. 
 
 " And it shall and may be lawful for the said burgesses, high 
 constables and assistants for the time being to assemble town 
 meetings as often as they shall find occasion : At which meet- 
 ings they may make such ordinances and rules, not repugnant 
 to, or inconsistent with the laws of the said province, as to the 
 greatest part of the inhabitants shall seem necessary and con- 
 venient for the good government of the said Borough." 
 
 ' Bristol, op. cit. 
 
 'Allinson and Penrose, Phila., xlvii-lii. 
 
 'A Collection of Charters and Other Puhlick Acts relating to the 
 Province of Pennsylvania. B. Franklin, Philadelphia, 1740, 35-42. 
 
298 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 fill vacancies in their own number and to elect annually a 
 mayor from among themselves.^ Although the charter men- 
 tioned no popular election except for the county officers and 
 coroner, yet it stated the qualification of electors and elected 
 as laid down in the law of 1700. Subsequently, when the 
 functions of the municipal authorities were found inade- 
 quate, the legislature, instead of increasing their authority, 
 diverted a portion of municipal administration to elective 
 or appointive boards. In the cases where these officials were 
 elective, it is believed that the qualification was always iden- 
 tical with that for electors of representatives,'' the description 
 usually being " those of the inhabitants and freeholders of 
 the said city who are qualified to elect and be elected to the 
 assembly." 
 
 Still another type of municipality starting in the colonial 
 period of Pennsylvania history was to furnish a model for a 
 number of strange municipal corporations which grew up 
 around the city of Philadelphia. Penn's plot for the city 
 contained only eighteen hundred and twenty acres, which 
 was laid out with about a mile on the Delaware front and 
 over two and a half miles back to the Schuylkill. Population 
 centred in the early years along the Delaware and soon out- 
 grew the narrow limits set by the proprietor, while the back 
 lots of the city were undeveloped. A large population thus 
 settled to the northward and southward of the old city, and 
 in these places there developed that abnormal municipality, 
 the incorporated district. The district had greater powers 
 than a township, it was somewhat greater and somewhat less 
 than a borough, and it was inferior to the city in dignity, 
 although often its political activities almost paralleled those 
 of the city — Philadelphia. Nine of these districts, in addi- 
 tion to six boroughs and thirteen townships, were consoli- 
 dated in 1854, when the bounds of the city were extended 
 
 ^ This charter is even less popular in its terms than that granted by 
 Dongan to New York. See ante; also Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 702; 
 N. Y. Col. Laws, I, 181-195. 
 
 ^See acts of June 7, 1712; May 10, 1729; May i, 1739; January 3, 
 1742-3; February 9, 1750-51; August 16, 1756; February 17, 1762; 
 March 26, 1762; May 30, 1764; February 18, 1769; March 9, 1771. 
 
The Suffrage in Pennsylvania. 299 
 
 to those of the county.^ Only two of the districts, South- 
 wark and Northern Liberties, were erected by the legislature 
 in colonial times. The act of March 26, 1762, gave the 
 bounds of the district of Southwark and provided for the 
 election of certain officers — regulators of streets, assessors, 
 and supervisors of streets — ^by the freeholders and other in- 
 habitants of the district who were qualified by law to elect 
 assemblymen. The act of March 9, 1771, provided for 
 regulators of streets in the Northern Liberties, but it re- 
 quired their appointment by the county commissioners instead 
 of by popular election. The subsequent history of these dis- 
 tricts belongs to the commonwealth period, and must be put 
 aside for the present.^ 
 
 In conclusion, it may be said that the local suffrage varied 
 but slightly from the colonial franchise. In Philadelphia 
 apparently there was no variation whatever; in the towns 
 and counties there was an infrequent substitution of the gen- 
 eral term freeholder for the fifty acres or fifty pounds clause, 
 while in the three boroughs occurred the greatest deviation 
 by the inclusion of the householders within the voting class. 
 There was no clear demarcation in Pennsylvania between 
 the rural and the urban population as in New York, nor 
 the distinction between the voting class in town affairs and 
 that in provincial affairs as seen in the New England cor- 
 porations. Pennsylvania was content with practically one 
 test of the suffrage for all elections, and that, as already 
 shown, was the holding of fifty acres of land or of fifty 
 pounds estate; while outside of Philadelphia the latter was 
 so infrequently held that we may declare the suffrage, ex- 
 cept in the city, to be based practically on fifty acres of free- 
 hold. 
 
 'These districts were Southwark, Northern Liberties, Kensington, 
 Spring Garden, Moyamensing, Penn, Richmond, West Philadelphia, ariH 
 Belmont. 
 
 'No study of the incorporated districts of Philadelphia County has, 
 so far as known, ever been made. Their organization, powers, and 
 growth were remarkable, and deserve a place in the history of our in- 
 stitutions. The material for such a study is extant, see Report on the 
 Public Archives of the City and County of Philadelphia, by Herman V. 
 Ames and A. E. McKinley, Report of American Historical Association, 
 1901, Vol. II, 231-344- 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 
 I. The Colony of Massachusetts Bay. 
 
 The colony of Massachusetts Bay, while in English theory 
 only the settlement of a trading company, was in reality a 
 great Puritan commonwealth. Its legal basis is to be found 
 in the royal charter of 1628-9; its practical strength lay 
 in the solidarity of feeling among the Puritans. These two 
 factors, so diverse in their nature, and exercising such a 
 determining influence upon the church and state of the Puri- 
 tans, were united in the fixing of the qualifications for the 
 suffrage franchise. The English corporation principle of 
 freemanship, established by the charter, proved admirably 
 adapted to the religious exclusiveness which the Puritans 
 deemed necessary to the success of their state. Under no 
 other form of organization could their religious and eccle- 
 siastical ideals have approached so close to realization ; and 
 this organization, unwittingly, the Puritan-hater, Charles I., 
 had prepared for them. It will be well, therefore, before 
 investigating the suffrage conditions of the colony, to notice 
 the aims of the founders in making their settlement, and the 
 terms of that charter which they forced to do service for a 
 state instead of a business company. 
 
 There can be little doubt to-day that the religious motive 
 was the principal force in the establishment of the colony. 
 The " Conclusions for New England," probably the work 
 of John Wiiithrop, circulated after May, 1629, state that 
 
 " All other churches of Europe are brought to desolation, & o"" sinnes, 
 for wcb the Lord beginnes allreaddy to frowne upon us & to cutte us 
 short, doe threatne evill times to be comminge upon us, and whoe 
 knowes, but that God hath provided this place to be a refuge for many 
 whome he meanes to save out of the generall callamity, & seeinge the 
 Church hath noe place lefte to flie into but the wildernesse, what better 
 300 
 
The Suffrage in Massachtisetts. 301 
 
 worke can there be, then to goe & provide tabernacles & foode for her 
 against she comes thether." ' 
 
 The failure of other colonies, it was said, came about because 
 their " mayne end was carnall and not religious." ^ Win- 
 throp again, in his " Model of Christian Charity," written 
 on board the Arbella, says, — 
 
 " For the worke wee have in hand, it is by a mutuall consent, through 
 a special overvaluing providence and a more than ordinary approbation 
 of ye Churches of Christ, to seek out a place of cohabitation and Con- 
 sorteshipp under a due form of Government both civill and ecclesiasti- 
 call." ' 
 
 Said Francis Higginson, the famous Puritan minister, — 
 
 " We do not go to New England as Separatists from the Church of 
 England, though we cannot but separate from the corruptions of it; 
 but we go to practise the positive part of the Church reformation, and 
 to propagate the Gospel in America." * 
 
 From their words at this early stage, as well as their acts 
 later, it is plain that the establishment of a church discipline 
 and organization according to the prevalent principles of 
 Puritanism was the dominant motive for the founding of 
 the colony. 
 
 To the group of persons thus imbued with religious zeal 
 for their peculiar faith, Charles I. gave added strength and 
 definite legal standing by the grant of a charter of incor- 
 poration. The king, " for divers good Causes and consid- 
 eracons," on March 4, 1628-9, erected twenty-six named 
 persons, and " all such others as shall hereafter be admitted 
 and made free of the Company," into a corporation by the 
 name of " The Governor and Company of the Mattachu- 
 setts Bay in Newe-England." ^ The officers, " elected and 
 
 '■ Winsor, Memorial History of Boston, I, 105. 
 
 ' Ellis, The Puritan Age in Massachusetts, 48. 
 
 ' Winsor, Boston, I, 142. 
 
 * Ellis, op. cit., 55. 
 
 ' Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I, 932-942. The king confirmed 
 the land grant previously made by the Council for New England to six 
 of the incorporators. 
 
302 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 chosen out of the freemen of the saide Company" annually, 
 were to be a governor, a deputy-governor, and eighteen 
 assistants. The officers might meet monthly, and every 
 quarter there was to be " one greate generall and solempe 
 assemblie" of the company. These meetings, called general 
 courts, were empowered to admit new freemen ; they could 
 elect and constitute fit officers for the management of the 
 concerns of the company; and could make laws and ordi- 
 nances " for the Good and Welfare of the saide Company, 
 and for the Government and ordering of the saide Landes 
 and Plantacons, and the People inhabiting and to inhabite 
 the same," with the restriction that such laws should not be 
 contrary to the laws of England. One further feature of the 
 charter transformed these rules for the organization of a 
 trading company and its colony, otherwise so unimportant, 
 into terms of the highest political significance. The absence 
 of any stated meeting place for the company is now believed 
 to have been the result of conscious endeavor upon the part 
 of the petitioners for a charter.^ The omission of any place 
 of meeting in England made possible the holding of com- 
 pany meetings in New England, and brought about the 
 identification of the company and the colony. 
 
 Connecting these unintentionally broad terms of the char- 
 ter with the determined group of men who were to admin- 
 ister them, it is apparent that the charter gives abundant 
 foundation for the establishment of a political common- 
 wealth. Furthermore, the principle of freemanship, and 
 the grant to the company of the power of admitting new 
 freemen, made the leaders of the enterprise hope to restrict 
 its membership to persons who were in religious accord with 
 themselves. Thus the Puritan theocracy was nurtured under 
 the very terms of the royal charter. 
 
 After the decision to remove the charter and the company 
 was reached in the summer of 1629; after the new and 
 more determined officers had been elected in the fall ; after 
 the Arhella with the charter and the new officers had ar- 
 rived in New England; — after these steps had been taken 
 there arose the question of the relation of the settlers in 
 America to the recently arrived governor and company. 
 
 ' Ellis, Puritan Age, 47 ; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 1869-1870, 172-175. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 303 
 
 Up to this time the colony had been governed by officers 
 chosen by the company in England, and the settlers had as 
 yet no voice in their government. But they did not intend 
 long to remain disfranchised.^ ■ 
 
 The first meeting of the company in America, held on 
 October 19, 1630, was made up of the freemen, not number- 
 ing more than fifteen persons, and the settlers of the colony, 
 who attended as a matter of privilege and not of right. 
 At this meeting two distinct influences appear to be at work. 
 The first of these was an efifort to open the freemanship of 
 the company to many of the settlers; and the second, an 
 opposite tendency upon the part of the leaders of the enter- 
 prise to make the government more aristocratic than the 
 terms of the charter provided. The two movements may 
 have been connected with one another, for the immediate 
 acceptance into the freemanship of the one hundred and 
 more persons who expressed a desire for it^ would have 
 outweighed in voting power the small number — only fifteen 
 or twenty — of company freemen who had actually come to 
 America.* The extension of the freemanship was appar- 
 ently not granted at this time, and the less than a score of 
 freemen kept their rare dignity until the following spring. 
 But evidently in fear of a sudden extension of the fran- 
 chise, it was propounded at the October meeting that the 
 freemen elect the assistants only, the latter elect the governor 
 and deputy-governor, and that these officers with the assist- 
 ants make laws and choose all other officers. The matter 
 was submitted, not to the few freemen alone, but to all the 
 people assembled to witness the first general court of the 
 company : "This was fully assented vnto by the genall vote 
 of the people, and ereccon of hands." * Thus there began 
 
 ' Were they familiar with the lenient course pursued in Plymouth for 
 the admission of partners? 
 
 ' Palfrey, History of New England, I, 322 ; Hutchinson, History of 
 the Colony of Massachuset's Bay (London, 1765), I, 25, says 109 free- 
 men were admitted at this court ; but I have followed the inference of 
 Palfrey that they only asked for admission, and did not receive it at 
 this time. 
 
 ' Palfrey, I, 313, 323. 
 
 ^Records of The Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay 
 in New England, I, 79 (quoted hereafter as Mass. Col. Rec.) 
 
304 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 that aristocratic tendency which later developed into the 
 attempt to retain the assistants for life; ^ which could speak 
 of an office as a freehold,^ and lead to the establishment of 
 a standing life council.® " Democracy," said Cotton, " I do 
 not conceive that God ever did ordain as a fit Government 
 either for Church or Commonwealth." * 
 
 In the spring of 163 1 occurred the first annual meeting 
 of the court for elective purposes, and, it is believed, the 
 first admissions of freemen upon this side of the Atlantic. 
 At the meeting of May 18 the freemanship was conferred 
 upon one hundred and eighteen persons.^ But by far the 
 most noted action of the court at this session was the adop- 
 tion of a rule requiring all persons admitted to the freeman- 
 ship in the future to be church members. Of the more than 
 a hundred new freemen made at this court, it has been esti- 
 mated that at least one-half — ^perhaps three-quarters — were 
 members of some church.® But, not satisfied with this pro- 
 portion, the leaders of the Puritan experiment adopted for 
 the future a definite religious test : 
 
 " And to the end the body of the comons may be pserued [pre- 
 served] of honest & good men, it was likewise ordered and agreed that 
 for time to come noe man shalbe admitted to the freedome of this body 
 polliticke, but such as are members of some of the churches within the 
 lymitts of the same." ' 
 
 It is likely that the recent demands for admission to the 
 freemanship had aroused the founders of the movement to 
 the danger which might come to their ecclesiastical ideals 
 if those who were not church members should get a voice 
 
 ' Mass. Col. Rec, I, 87. 
 
 "Winthrop, The History of New England from 1630 to 1649 (ed. 
 Savage, 1853), I. 132. 
 
 "Mass. Col. Rec, I, 167, 264; Winthrop, I, 302. 
 
 ' Winsor, Memorial History of Boston, I, 161. For estimates of this 
 aristocratic spirit see Doyle, Puritan Colonies, I, 103-104; Palfrey, I, 
 322, 349 ; Hayne^, Representation and Suffrage in Massachusetts, Johns 
 Hopkins University Studies, XII, 383-385. 
 
 ° Mass. Col. Rec, I, 366. 
 
 ° Palfrey, I, 348, note. 
 
 ''Mass. Col. Rec, I, 87. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 305 
 
 in the government. The picture of the narrow company 
 freemanship blossoming out into a democratic government 
 was one that does not appear to have come to the originators 
 of the plan for the emigration to America.^ But the recent 
 applications for freemanship showed a breadth of political 
 desire which argued ill for the ideals of the company unless 
 they were well guarded; and in what better way could 
 this be done than by limiting the political power to members 
 of the churches ? Cotton believed that " None are so fit to 
 be trusted with the liberties of the commonwealth as church- 
 members ; for the liberties of the freemen of this common- 
 wealth are such as require men of faithful integrity to God 
 a,nd the state to preserve the same." ^ The two principal 
 liberties of the freemen, he states, are the election of magis- 
 trates and the choice of deputies. " Now both these liberties 
 are such as carry along much power with them, either to 
 establish or subvert the commonwealth." The Massachu- 
 setts Company as originally established had been a Puritan 
 enterprise, and when its charter became the frame of gov- 
 ernment of a state, the integrity of the new controlling 
 forces could be maintained only by the exclusion of non- 
 Puritans. " The franchise was not one dependent upon 
 social rank, nor upon pecuniary means, but upon hearty 
 sympathy and accord in the religious intent of the enter- 
 prise." ^ 
 
 Aside from the inequality inflicted upon open dissenters, 
 there were, as Mr. Ellis has pointed out,* evident evil con- 
 sequences of the religious qualification: the exclusion of 
 many persons of upright lives who refused to rise before the 
 congregation and make that public description of religious 
 experience which was a prerequisite of church-membership, 
 and the absence of any means for excluding hypocrites who 
 entered the church for selfish and political reasons. Another 
 and more practical source of irritation lay in the difficulty 
 of determining what constituted church-membership. Con- 
 
 ' Compare Winsor, Memorial History of Boston, I, 161. 
 ' Palfrey, I, 345, note. 
 ' Winsor, Boston, I, 150. 
 *Ibid., 151. 
 
 20 
 
3o6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 troversies arose both over the meaning of the word church 
 and of the word member. 
 
 The early extreme Congregationalism ^ led to the intro- 
 duction of beliefs which differed greatly, or appeared to 
 differ, from those of the founders of the colony. Heresies, 
 more or less pronounced, arose in many congregations, until 
 the churches appeared more corrupt than the state.^ The 
 church consequently, as the source of citizenship, must be 
 guarded and purged by the authority of the state; in self- 
 protection the civil authority was compelled to define ortho- 
 doxy and make provision for the punishment of heresy. 
 Such a position was but the logical outcome of the religious 
 qualification upon the suffrage.^ As early as March 3, 
 1635-6, the general court had found " by sad experience 
 that much trouble and disturbance hath happened both to 
 the church & civill state by the officers & members of some 
 churches, w<=h have bene gathered within the limitts of this 
 jurisdiccon in a vndue manner, & not with such publique 
 approbacon as were meete." * To avoid such troubles in 
 the future the court ordered that no company of persons 
 should be recognized as a church unless the approval of the 
 magistrates and of the elders of the greater part of the 
 churches in the colony had first been obtained. The political 
 effect of the restriction ^ is seen in the further provision 
 
 " that noe p'son, being a member of any churche which shall hereafter 
 be gathered without the approbacon of the magistrates, & the greater 
 
 ^ The early doctrine of the settlers was that seven or more Christians 
 could by covenant enter into church association, taking for their guide 
 in faith and organization the Bible, and selecting their own ministers, 
 who, although owing their authority to God, obtained their official posi- 
 tion by the choice of the congregation {ibid., 163). 
 
 ' Winthrop said in 1637, " Whereas the way of God hath always been 
 to gather his churches out of ye world, now ye world, or civill state, 
 must be raised out of ye churches," quoted in Winsor, Boston, I, 165. 
 
 ° Palfrey, I, 432. 
 
 'Mass. Col. Rec, I, 168. 
 
 ° On the other hand, the religious side of the controversies of the 
 time is found in the eighty-two erroneous opinions declared heretical 
 by the gathering of the clergy in 1637 at Cambridge (Winthrop, I, 
 284). 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 307 
 
 pte of the said churches, shalbe admitted to the ffreedome of this com- 
 onwealthe." 
 
 Not content with the refusal, for the future, to admit 
 members of irregular churches, the dominant party desired 
 to exclude at once the members of such churches who were 
 already freemen. Williams was exiled and Salem punished 
 for accepting him as minister, but the Wheelwright affair 
 led to a much wider forfeiture of political rights. Win- 
 throp says the general court found " upon consultation, that 
 two so opposite parties could not contain in the same body, 
 without apparent hazard of ruin to the whole ;" ^ and accord- 
 ingly, seizing a slight pretext, the court proceeded to banish, 
 disfranchise, or disarm the principal persons connected with 
 the movement.^ And to prevent any further petitions or 
 discussions upon the matter, the court ordered that the pun- 
 ishment of disfranchisement, fine, imprisonment, or banish- 
 ment could be inflicted upon any person " openly or will- 
 ingly" defaming any court of justice or its proceedings or 
 magistrates.^ Temporarily, at least, the measures for at- 
 taining religious conformity were successful ; * the state had 
 purified the ecclesiastical source of citizenship; it had exer- 
 cised its " power and libertie to see the peace, ordinances and 
 Rules of Christ observed in every church according to his 
 word."^ A definition of the word church was thus ob- 
 tained, which was made more precise later by the action of 
 the Cambridge Synod of 1646 and 1647.® The meaning 
 of church-membership, however, was not determined until 
 1662, when the Half-way Covenant was adopted.'^ 
 
 Membership in the church was not the only formal requi- 
 site for admission to the freemanship, although it was, 
 indeed, the greatest practical limitation upon the suffrage. 
 The church-member who desired to participate in the politi- 
 
 ' I, 244- 
 
 'Mass. Col. Rec, I, 205-211. 
 "Ibid., 212-213. 
 
 'See Palfrey, I, 505-511, for a justification of the course of Massa- 
 chusetts towards the Antinomians. 
 ^Mass. Body of Liberties of 1641, section 58. 
 • Winthrop, 11, 264, 269, etc. ; Palfrey, II, 170-187. 
 ' See post. 
 
3o8 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 cal life of town or colony must be proposed to the general 
 court or some special court, and by that body be formally 
 admitted as a freeman,^ and before acceptance he was com- 
 pelled to take an oath of fidelity to the Company. Freeman- 
 ship did not follow ex officio from the relation of church- 
 membership. Indeed, it is quite apparent that many mem- 
 bers of the church did not desire the freemanship; being 
 willing, perhaps, to forfeit their political rights in order to 
 be freed from the duties of freemen. In 1643 the churches 
 were instructed to deal with their members who refused to 
 " take their freedom;" ^ a few months later we learn of such 
 a "defect" of freemen at Marblehead that the general court 
 authorized the choice of a non-freeman for constable.® In 
 1647 the court found that there were " many membrs of 
 churches, who, to exempt ymselves from all publike service 
 in ye comon wealth, will not come in to be made freemen." * 
 Accordingly, all church-members, non-freemen as well as 
 freemen, were rendered liable for service in town offices and 
 as jurymen, and placed under the penalty of a fine for 
 refusing to accept such positions. It is thus quite apparent 
 that many churchmen were not members of the political 
 corporation. 
 
 Not always was the formal process of admitting freemen 
 retained by the general court. In 1641 the right was given 
 to " every Court within this Jurisdiction where two Magis- 
 trates are present," to admit as freemen " any Church Mem- 
 bers, that are fit to be Freemen," giving them the oath and 
 certifying their names to the secretary at the next general 
 court.® For about twenty years the county courts exercised 
 this right; but in 1664 the power was revoked and admis- 
 sions for the future were to be made by the general court 
 alone.® In addition to granting this authority for a time 
 
 "■Mass. Col. Rec, I, 117. 'Ibid., II, 38. 
 
 '/&iU, II, 57. '/6jrf., 208. 
 
 " The General Laws and Liberties of the Massachusetts Colony (1672), 
 38; Ernst, Constitutional History of Boston, 16. 
 
 "Code of 1672, 56; Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Part II, ii8. It is to be 
 noted, however, that the revisers of the laws in 1672, although printing 
 the repealing act of 1664, yet permitted the clause of 1641 to stand on 
 another page of their revised code. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 309 
 
 to county courts, the general courts occasionally delegated 
 to individuals the right of accepting freemen and adminis- 
 tering to them the oath of fidelity. In 1647 " ^"^ Pinchin" 
 was authorized " to make freemen in the towne of Spring- 
 feild, of those that are in covenant & live according to their 
 p'fession ;" ^ and in the same manner the commissioners 
 sent by the court to obtain the submission of the Maine set- 
 tlements were empowered to admit freemen and give the 
 necessary oaths.^ These settlements were so distant from 
 Boston that there could be no hope of having the inhabitants 
 appear personally before the general court. In all other 
 cases, except during the period 1641 to 1664, the general 
 court alone exercised the right of admitting freemen to the 
 company. 
 
 An oath to be administered to all freemen had been pre- 
 scribed before 1634;* in April of that year the assistants 
 ordained an inhabitants' oath to be taken by all residents 
 not enfranchised, but who were above the age of twenty 
 years and either householders or sojourners in the colony.* 
 In May a new freeman's oath was established, and the obli- 
 gation of those who had taken the former oath was made to 
 conform with the obligations imposed by the new one.* It 
 
 ^ Mass. Col. Rec, II, 224. 
 
 'Ibid., IV, Pt. I, 122 ff. ; 128; 157; Williamson, History of the State 
 of Maine, I, 334-357, 391- 
 
 " The date of the first form of freeman's oath is uncertain, Mass. Col. 
 Rec, I, 353- 
 
 '■Ibid., lis. 
 
 'Ibid., 117- 
 
 " The Oath of a Freeman. 
 
 " I, A. B., being by Gods providence, an inhabitant & ff ree- 
 man within the jurisdiccon of this comonweale, doe freely ac- 
 knowledge my selfe to be subiect to the goverm* thereof, & 
 therefore doe heere sweare, by the greate & dreadfull name 
 of the euerlyving God, that I wilbe true & faithfuU to the same, 
 & will accordingly yielde assistance & support therevnto, with 
 my p'son & estate, as in equity I am bound, and will also truely 
 indeayr to mainetaine & preserue all the libertyes & previlidges 
 thereof, submitting my selfe to the wholesome lawes & orders 
 made & established by the same; and furthr, that I will not 
 plott nor practise any evill against it, nor consent to any that 
 
3IO The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 seems probable that from the first also an age require- 
 ment was established according to English precedent. In 
 1 641 the Body of Liberties made one and twenty years 
 " the age for giving of votes, verdicts, or Sentence in any 
 Civill courts." ^ Admission to the freemanship at this time, 
 therefore, was dependent (i) upon age, (2) church-mem- 
 bership, (3) formal proposition to the general court, (4) 
 acceptance by that body or some delegated authority, (5) 
 the taking of a freeman's oath. 
 
 It is regretted that the demands of space will not allow an 
 examination of the representative system, as it was through 
 the growth of this system that the suffrage was given 
 a practical value to the outlying settlements ; but the omis- 
 sion may be pardoned in view of the many accounts of the 
 system which have been written by local and general his- 
 torians.^ Reference should be made, however, to the method 
 of balloting. At the outset the Massachusetts Company did 
 not adopt the ballot in its elections, as we have seen that 
 the London Company did many years earlier,^ but held its 
 elections in London by " erection of hands." * As early as 
 1629 the ballot was used in the church at Salem, and shortly 
 after the transmission of the charter to New England it 
 was adopted in the Company's elections. It was originally 
 used in the election of governor, the first occasion probably 
 being the election of May, 1634; ^ and in September, 1635, 
 
 shall soe doe, but will timely discover & reveale the same to 
 lawful! authority nowe here established, for the speedy pre- 
 venting thereof. Moreouer, I doe solemnely bynde my selfe, in 
 the sight of God, that when I shalbe called to giue my voice 
 touching any such matter of this state, wherein flfreemen are 
 to deale, I will giue my vote & suffrage, as I shall iudge in 
 myne owne conscience may best conduce & tend to the publique 
 weale of the body, without respect of p'sons, or fav"-' of any 
 man. Soe helpe mee God, in the Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 ' Body of Liberties, Sect. 53. 
 
 ' See particularly G. H. Haynes, Representation and Suffrage in 
 Massachusetts, 1620-16Q1, J. H. U. Studies, XII, 374-460. 
 
 ' See ante, pp. 18, 22. 
 
 'Lechford, Plain Dealing, 23. 
 
 " In the margin of the account of this election in Winthrop's history 
 occur the words ''chosen by papers" (I, 132). 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 311 
 
 was extended to the elections of deputies to the general 
 court. Up to this point the ballot only served the purpose 
 of keeping the freeman's vote a secret from his fellows ; it 
 did not relieve him from the necessity of journeying to the 
 capital city to cast his ballot. In a few months, however, 
 the natural step was taken of permitting the freemen to cast 
 their votes for company officers in their own towns, and 
 transmit the ballots to the general court at Boston. This 
 is what the men of the times called proxy voting, and 
 it dififered from the system adopted in most of the colonies 
 outside of New England by requiring the transmission of 
 the actual ballots to the general returning body, instead of 
 forwarding a mere statement of the votes cast. In March, 
 1635-6, it was first applied to six frontier towns to enable 
 them to retain their freemen at home " for the safty of their 
 towne." ^ In a contemplated special election in the follow- 
 ing December, this privilege was extended to any of the 
 freemen " if they thinke not fit to come in p'son." * In 
 March, 1636-7, the court, considering " the greate danger 
 & damage that may accrue to the state by all the freemens 
 leaveing their plantations to come to the place of elections," 
 made this a permanent order, each freeman having the 
 liberty to send his vote " by proxie," and the town deputies 
 were. directed to carry the ballots (proxies) to the meeting 
 of the general court.* In 1640 and the following year a 
 somewhat reactionary spirit is seen from the democratic 
 method of " proxing." The candidates for magistrates were 
 to be nominated by the deputies and the freemen merely 
 given the right to choose among the nominees;* but this 
 order was limited to one year and apparently was not ex- 
 tended. In 1641 the court proposed a. true proxy system 
 of indirect voting, according to which the several towns 
 were to choose one elector for each ten freemen, and these 
 electors in turn were to make the elections ; ® but this was 
 
 ^ Mass. Col. Rec, I, 166. 
 
 ' Ibid., 185. Vane having been prevailed upon to remain in the colony, 
 the election did not take place (Winthrop, I, 207-208). 
 
 °/6iU, 188. In 1639 the freeman's choice in election between "per- 
 son or by proxie" was more definitely stated {ibid., 277). 
 
 * Ibid., 293. "Ibid., 333- 
 
312 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 not satisfactory to the freemen, and no action was taken 
 upon it. The method of sending to Boston the ballots or 
 proxies of those who did not attend the court of elections 
 in person was continued thereafter with but slight change 
 until the surrender of the charter. After 1643 the votes 
 for assistants,^ but not for the other ofificers, were given in 
 " Indian beanes, the white beanes to manifest election, the 
 black for blanks." ^ Later, an attempt was made to do away 
 altogether with the personal attendance of freemen at the 
 election, and permit the voting only by papers and corn and 
 beans in the several towns. This proved unpopular,^ and 
 in November, 1647, it was changed slightly so that none 
 should " deliver in their votes at ye dores" of the general 
 court except those who were made free upon election day.* 
 In 1663, when the admission of freemen upon election day 
 was prohibited, it was again ordered that none should cast 
 their votes personally at Boston except members of the 
 general court.^ But again the freemen showed their desire 
 to attend personally, and within a year the law was repealed.' 
 From this time onward the freeman could attend the general 
 court of election in person or he could send his paper ballot 
 for the officers, and corn and beans for the assistants.'^ 
 
 We must now notice the size of the disfranchised class 
 under the church-membership restriction, and shall trace 
 the agitation for an extended suffrage until that question 
 was taken up by the king himself, and English authority 
 was brought to bear upon obstinate Massachusetts. Among 
 
 ' Many different plans for the nomination and election of assistants 
 were tried (see Haynes, op. cit., 400-405). 
 
 ^ Mass. Col. Rec, II, 42. The code of 1660 (p. 29) provided that " the 
 freemen shall use Indian Corn & Beanes, the Indian Corn to manifest 
 Election, the Beanes contrary.'' 
 
 " Winthrop, II, 311. 
 
 * Mass. Col. Rec, II, 220. 
 
 ''Ibid., IV, Pt. II, 86. 
 
 'Ibid., 134. 
 
 ' The order of 1663 is interesting also because it permitted a freeman 
 to vote in his town without attending personally at the election. He 
 could " send his vote, sealed vp, in a note directed to the deputy or 
 tounsmen." An act of 1738 required personal attendance {Session Laws, 
 681-683). 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 313 
 
 the one hundred and eighteen admitted at the first court 
 of election in 1631 we have noticed that fully one-half were 
 members of the church ; but the new religious qualification 
 soon led to the exclusion of more than one-half of the adult 
 males. Among recent writers we have such expressions as, 
 " At no period were the freemen any considerable proportion 
 of the population ;" ^ and " the number of freemen appears 
 to have been from one-twentieth to one-tenth of the popula- 
 tion." ^ Lechford, writing as early as 1640, asserts that 
 three-fourths of the people were not members of the church 
 and consequently not eligible for the freemanship.^ A better 
 idea of the extent of the franchise can be gained by com- 
 paring the number of arrivals in the colony with the actual 
 admissions to the freedom of the company. Hutchinson* 
 estimates that by the year 1640 the immigrants numbered 
 about 21,200 persons. During the same period 11 48 per- 
 sons were admitted as freemen,^ or about one person in every 
 twenty who entered the limits of the colony. Taking the 
 adult males at one-fifth of the population, these figures 
 would seem to bear out Lechford's estimate previously 
 given. Naturally such a restriction, in a new country where 
 actual social and economic equality was more closely ap- 
 proximated than in England, would lead to discontent 
 among the disfranchised and agitation for an extension of 
 the suffrage. The disfranchised classes at first appear 
 through their occasional illegal action at elections. At 
 times they cast ballots in the elections ; ^ at other times they 
 were even chosen by the freemen to serve as deputies ; '' and 
 in 1643 th^ general court was compelled to order the inflic- 
 tion of a fine of ten pounds upon non-freemen who took 
 part in elections, as well as upon freemen who cast more 
 
 'Weeden, in Amer. Antiquarian Society Proceedings, 2d Series, IX, 
 
 348. 
 
 'Ernst, Constitutional History of Boston, 17. 
 
 ' Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 3d Series, III, 72- 
 
 * History, I, 93. 
 
 "See lists of freemen in Mass. Col. Rec, I, 366-379; New England 
 Historical and Genealogical Register, III, passim. 
 
 ' Mass. Col. Rec, I, 221 ; IV, Pt. I, 93 ; I47- 
 
 'Ibid., I, 174; IV, Pt. I, 263. 
 
314 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 than the legal number of ballots.^ By 1640 Lechford in 
 his ex parte statements could claim that " the most of the 
 persons at New-England are not admitted of their Church 
 and therefore are not Freemen ;" ^ " the people begin to 
 complain, they are ruled like slaves ;" ^ and " it is feared, 
 that Elections cannot be safe there long, either in Church or 
 Common-wealth." The growing strength of the feeling in 
 favor of the disfranchised class is seen in the proposition 
 made in the general court in March, 1643-4, " for yielding 
 some more of the freeman's privileges to such as were no 
 church members that should join in this government." * 
 But the proposal came to naught " for want of opportunity 
 of meeting, etc." ^ Later in the same year the opposition 
 of the ruling parties to the non-freemen is seen in the 
 strange refusal of the magistrates to publish their reasons 
 for opposing a standing council proposed by the deputies.® 
 Rather than gain popularity among the disfranchised 
 classes, although they were largely in the majority, the 
 magistrates were willing to have their actions misunder- 
 stood by the whole community. 
 
 Two years later, in 1646, the claims of the non-free were 
 taken up by a group of agitators who desired to overthrow 
 the ecclesiastical basis of the state and the extreme Congre- 
 gationalism of the churches, and be " wholly governed by 
 the laws of England." '^ A plan was laid for the presenta- 
 tion of petitions to the general courts both of Plymouth and 
 Massachusetts,* and for an appeal to the houses of Parlia- 
 ment if the demands should not be granted in New England. 
 
 ' Mass. Coll. Rec, II, 48. 
 
 ^ Plain Dealing, p. 23, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 3d Series, III. 
 
 ^Ibid., 39. 
 
 *Winthrop, II, 160. 
 
 'Ibid. Unfortunately, we are not informed what were the reasons 
 included in the " etc." 
 
 ° They feared that such a publication " would cause a public breach 
 throughout the country," and that the " non-members would certainly 
 take part with the magistrates (we should not be able to avoid it), and 
 this would make us and our cause, though never so just, obnoxious to 
 the common sort of freemen" (Winthrop, II, 170-171). 
 
 ' Winthrop, II, 261. ' Hutchinson, History, I, 145. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 315 
 
 The petitioners to the Massachusetts court in May, 1646, 
 while expressing their desire for a government according 
 to the laws of England, yet aver that they cannot discern 
 such a form to be in existence in Massachusetts in spite of 
 the terms of the charter and the character of the settlers as 
 Englishmen. They continue, — 
 
 " Whereas there are many thousands in these plantations, of the 
 English nation, freeborne, quiett and peaceable men, righteous in their 
 dealings, forward with hand, heart and purse, to advance the publick 
 good, knowne friends to the honorable and victorious Houses of Parlia- 
 ment, lovers of their nation, &c., who are debarred from all civill im- 
 ployments (without any just cause that we know) not being permitted 
 to bear the least office (though it cannot be denyed but some are well 
 qualifyed) no not so much as to have any vote in choosing magistrates, 
 captains or other civill and military officers ; notwithstanding they have 
 here expended their youth, borne the burden of the day, wasted much 
 of their estates for the subsistence of these poore plantations, paid all 
 assessments, taxes, rates, at least equall, if not exceeding others." 
 
 Therefore the petitioners request that 
 
 " civil liberty and freedom be forthwith granted to all truly English, 
 equall to the rest of their countrymen, as in all plantations is accus- 
 tomed to be done, and as all freeborne enjoy in our native country."' 
 
 The petitioners, most of whom were Presbyterians, also 
 desired that members of the Church of England ^ or Scot- 
 land should be admitted to the communion of the New Eng- 
 land churches; or, if these civil and religious privileges 
 were refused them, that they should be freed from the 
 heavy taxes imposed upon them. Should they fail of redress 
 in America, the signers of the petition threatened to appeal 
 to Parliament, who would, they hoped, "take their sad 
 condition into consideration." Their closing sentiments, 
 together with this threat, were not likely to gain for the 
 
 'Hutchinson, A Collection of Original Papers Relative to the His- 
 tory of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay, Prince Society Reprint, I, 
 218-219; Hutchinson, History, I, 145-147. 
 
 ' It will be remembered that at this time Presbyterianism was by act 
 of Parliament the lawful religion of England. 
 
3i6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 petitioners the desired rights; in case their prayer should 
 be granted, they expressed the hope of seeing 
 
 "the then contemned ordinances of God highly prized; the gospel, 
 then dark, break forth as the sun; christian charity, then frozen, wax 
 warm; jealousy of arbitrary government banished; strife and con- 
 tention abated; and all business in church and state, which for many 
 years had gone backward, successfully thriving." ^ 
 
 Means were taken by the leaders of the movement to 
 spread copies of their petition throughout the colony, in 
 neighboring provinces, and even to as distant places as the 
 Dutch settlements, Virginia, and the Bermudas.^ Support 
 was found, we are told, mainly among the weaker classes. 
 Young men and women " are taken with it," ^ and those 
 " of a linsey-woolsey disposition ; some for prelacy, some 
 for Presbytery, and some for Plebsbytery, but all joined 
 together in the thing they would, which was to stir up the 
 people to dislike of the present government." * Later a 
 petition addressed to Parliament was drawn up and signed 
 by twenty-five non-freemen for themselves and " many 
 thousands more." ^ 
 
 In a community where such severe measures had been 
 taken against the Antinomians and other dissenters ; within 
 a body of men who had so boldly transferred their charter 
 from England, and who had recently refused to relinquish 
 that charter upon the demand of Charles I., — in such a 
 community the attitude of the ruling classes towards the 
 petitioners was a foregone conclusion. Formal considera- 
 tion of the demands of the petition was denied at the time, 
 and a law, already drawn up and about to pass, for allow- 
 ing non-freemen equal participation with freemen in all 
 town affairs, and perhaps imposing a property qualifica- 
 tion upon voters in colonial elections, was also deferred 
 
 ^ Hutchinson, History, I, 147. 
 ' Palfrey, II, 168. 
 
 ° Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Soc), I, 249. 
 
 * Palfrey, II, 169, note 2, quoting Johnson's Wonder-Working Provi- 
 dence, 202. 
 ° Hutchinson, History, I, 147. 
 
The SufFrage in Massachusetts. 317 
 
 until the next session of the general court.^ A synod of the 
 clergy, however, was called to give more definite form to 
 the congregational system.^ In the meantime the petition- 
 ers continued their popular agitation, and when the court 
 met in the fall of 1646 it was in a mood for the thorough 
 suppression of the movement. 
 
 The court drew up a long reply to the charges made in 
 the petition, showing by parallel columns the similarity 
 between the English laws and those of Massachusetts ; * 
 and pointing out twelve false charges made in the petition. 
 The petitioners were arraigned as authors of " diverse false 
 and scandalous passages in a certain paper . . . against 
 the churches of Christ and the civil government here estab- 
 lished, derogating from the honor and authority of the same 
 and tending to sedition." * Later the petitioners were fined 
 and prevented from sailing to England * with petitions from 
 the non-freemen. After this the movement gradually sub- 
 sided; the leaders were disgraced and soon were scattered 
 in England or America.^ At the election in May, 1647, 
 " great laboring there had been by the friends of the peti- 
 tioners to have one chosen govemour, who favored their 
 cause. . . . but the mind of the country appeared clearly, 
 for the old govemour was chosen again, with two or three 
 hundred votes more than any other." '' 
 
 But the olive-branch was linked with the sword of com- 
 pulsion ; the measure which had been postponed in the pre- 
 vious year was taken up again, and while no change was 
 made in the colony elections, the proposed extension of the 
 suffrage in town affairs was now adopted by the general 
 court. An order of September, 1635, had directed that none 
 but freemen should have a voice in town affairs, such as the 
 receiving of inhabitants and the laying out of town-lots ; ^ 
 
 ' Winthrop, II, 262 ; the language is slightly ambiguous. 
 
 'Palfrey, II, 170-174. 
 
 "Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Soc), I, 223-247; Winthrop, II, 284. 
 
 * Palfrey, II, 17s. 
 
 = Winthrop, II, 291 ff. ; Palfrey, II, 176-178. 
 
 ' Palfrey, II, 179. 
 
 'Thus modestly does Winthrop refer to his re-election (II, 307). 
 
 'Mass. Coll. Rec, I, 161. 
 
3i8 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 but the court now took into its consideration " ye useful! 
 ptes & abilities of diva's inhabitants amongst us, w^h are not 
 freemen." ^ Accordingly the freemen of the towns were 
 empowered to admit any inhabitants, being non-freemen, to 
 the privileges of voting and jury service, if such inhabitants 
 had taken the oath of fidelity to the government, had 
 reached the age of twenty-four years, and were not under 
 conviction of evil carriage against the government or the 
 churches.^ It is difficult to tell how far the agitation played 
 a part in securing this concession to the non-freemen. Win- 
 throp mentions an apparently wider reform than this which 
 was set aside in May, 1646, because of the popular petition,' 
 and it seems probable that the cause of an extended suffrage 
 was injured rather than advanced by the popular appeal 
 which had been made. However, the liberty which was 
 granted, united with the severe measures against the peti- 
 tioners, appears to have quieted for a time the popular 
 clamor. 
 
 For ten years the records do not show any determined 
 effort to extend the franchise, and when a new interest was 
 shown the attack on the exclusiveness of the freemanship 
 was not made upon the political side, as it had been in 1646, 
 but upon the ecclesiastical side. We have noticed the at- 
 tempt, about 1636, to extend the suffrage by the organiza- 
 tion of new churches composed of those who, on account 
 of dissentient views, could not enter the regular churches. 
 The movement was met by a severe method of regulation 
 of new churches and by the exclusion from the franchise 
 of members of irregularly organized churches. About 1657 
 a new attack upon the stronghold of privilege was made 
 through the effort to extend the meaning of the term church- 
 member. From Hartford, in Connecticut, there spread to 
 the other colonies a controversy as to whether those who 
 had been baptized and still recognized the obligations of 
 baptism were to be accounted members of the church, or, if 
 church-membership came only after evidence of regenera- 
 tion, acceptance of the applicant by the congregation, and 
 
 '■Mass. Coll. Rec, II, 197 (general court of May 26, 1647). 
 'Ihid. ^ Ibid., II, 262. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 319 
 
 continuance in full communion with the church.^ A sjrnod 
 of Massachusetts and Connecticut ministers meeting in Bos- 
 ton in June, 1657, permitted what was called the Half- Way 
 Covenant. Baptized persons, recognizing their obligations 
 and being of good character, were permitted to bring their 
 children to baptism ; but the baptized were not admitted to 
 full communion, nor, apparently, were they allowed to have 
 a voice in the choice of church officers nor in civil elections 
 in Massachusetts.^ 
 
 This solution of the religious question might have intro- 
 duced a broader basis for the suffrage in Massachusetts had 
 a political interpretation been given to the synod's decision. 
 This was not done, however, and when, upon the proposal 
 of some inhabitants of the county of Middlesex, the general 
 court was compelled to decide the question, it gave its 
 authority to the narrower interpretation of the franchise : 
 
 " No Man whatsoever, shall be admitted to the Freedome of this 
 Body Politick, but such as are Members of some Church of Christ and 
 in full Communion, which they declare to be the true intent of the 
 ancient Law."' 
 
 Thus the matter of the suffrage stood when the colony 
 entered upon its contest with Charles II. shortly after his 
 accession to the throne.* 
 
 ^ Palfrey, II, 487 ; Doyle, Puritan Colonies, II, 192. 
 
 'Ibid., II, 489. Cp. Haynes, Representation and Suffrage in Mass., 
 J. H. U. Studies, XII, 424, with Lauer, Church and State in New Eng- 
 land, ibid., X, 140-142. 
 
 ' Code of 1672, 56 ; Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. I, 420. It is interesting 
 to notice the retention of this clause in the code of 1672 after the nomi- 
 nal extension of the suffrage in 1664. Randolph bases his charge that 
 none but church-members can be freemen upon this and another clause, 
 both of which were directly opposed to the act of 1664 admitting non- 
 church-members {Randolph Papers, Prince Society, II, 293, III, 35). 
 
 * Besides requiring the voter to be a communicant of the church, the 
 general court, in 1654, had ordered that no man, even a freeman, should 
 serve as deputy in the court if he be "unsound in judgment, concerning 
 the main points of christian religion as they have been held forth and 
 acknowledged by the generality of the Protestant Orthodox writers, 
 or that is Scandalous in his conversation, or that is unfaithfull to this 
 Government." A fine of five pounds was to be levied upon every free- 
 man knowingly making choice of any such person (Code of 1660, 25). 
 
320 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 There were, however, two cases in which the attitude of 
 the Massachusetts general court differed from its uniform 
 pohcy towards dissenters; one showing greater leniency, 
 and the other more harshness than was its usual custom. 
 Instances of the first arise out of political considerations in 
 connection with the Massachusetts claims to the territory 
 of New Hampshire and Maine. Under the colonial inter- 
 pretation of the charter of 1629 the Massachusetts jurisdic- 
 tion included practically all the scattered settlements to the 
 northward, but the inhabitants of these places were Episco- 
 palians, or even religious exiles from Massachusetts.^ It 
 would be unwise as well as hazardous to the claims of Mas- 
 sachusetts to attempt to reduce these distant settlements to 
 religious conformity as well as political subjection. The 
 general court in 1642 accordingly admitted to the freedom 
 of the colony all those in the New Hampshire settlements 
 who had " liberty of freemen in their severall townes," and 
 gave them the privilege of sending a deputy to the court, 
 " though they bee not at p'sent church members." ^ About 
 ten years later, when the Maine settlements were brought 
 under the Massachusetts jurisdiction, the inhabitants were 
 given the freedom, although they did not belong to any 
 orthodox church.* 
 
 On the other hand, a strict policy of repression was 
 adopted towards Quakers and Baptists, which while ex- 
 cluding them from the suffrage as a matter of course, also 
 inflicted upon them more severe penalties. In 1647 Jesuits 
 found within the province after being banished were to be 
 subject to the death penalty;* and in 1653 the penalty of 
 disfranchisement was inflicted upon a freeman because he 
 
 ^Winthrop {History, II, 100) says the inhabitants of Gorges' prov- 
 ince were not admitted to the New England Confederation because 
 " they ran a different course from us both in their ministry and civil 
 administration." 
 
 'Mass. Col. Rec, II, 29; see for negotiations with the New Hamp- 
 shire people, ibid., I, 276, 324-5, 332, 342; II, 5, 41, 43; Palfrey, I, 
 587-594. 
 
 ' Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. I, 122, 128, 157 ff. ; Hutchinson, History, I, 
 177. 
 
 * Mass. Col. Rec, II, 193. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 321 
 
 had criticised certain ecclesiastical laws.^ In the fall of 
 1656 the court imposed penalties of whipping, imprison- 
 ment, hard labor, and banishment upon Quakers, and almost 
 as severe punishments upon those who should defend their 
 heretical opinions.^ In 1663 a more general rule was 
 enacted, after experience had proved that there were in the 
 colony many enemies " to all government, civil and eccle- 
 siasticall, who will not yield obedience to authority, but 
 make it much of theire religion to be in opposition thereto." ^ 
 Accordingly the church-membership provision was extended 
 by requiring all freemen to be not only members of the 
 church, but also regular attendants upon the public woi;ghip : 
 
 " All persons, Quakers or others, w<=l^ refuse to attend vpon the pub- 
 lick worship of God established here, that all such persons, whither 
 freemen or others, acting as aforesayd, shall & hereby are made vncapa- 
 ble of voting in all civil assemblyes during theire obstinate persisting 
 in such wicked wayes & courses, & vntill certifBcate be given of theire 
 reformation." 
 
 From this time onward church attendance was required 
 of all freemen, and it is significant that the clause disfran- 
 chising those who refused to attend the church was retained 
 in the legal code as late as 1672,* and was not repealed 
 down to the time of the forfeiture of the charter. The 
 action against the Baptists, while not leading to the extreme 
 of the death penalty, was almost as rigorous as that directed 
 against the Quakers. As early as 1644 the sentence of ban- 
 ishment was passed against the Baptists,^ and in 1665 five 
 persons were disfranchised for professing the doctrines of 
 the Anabaptists.® 
 
 "■Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Ft. I, iSS. 194- 
 
 '76jU, 277; the death penalty clause came two years later {ibid., 
 346). 
 
 'Ibid., IV, Pt. II, 88-89. 
 
 * Code of 1672, 48. This was one of the bases of Randolph's claim 
 that none but church-members could be freemen (^Randolph Papers, II, 
 
 293; III, 3S)- 
 
 "Mass. Col. Rec, II, 85. 
 
 'Ibid., IV, Pt. II, 290-291. Later they were ordered to leave the 
 colony iibid., 373) ; but the order was not enforced and the sect shortly 
 came to be tolerated (Palfrey, II, 486). 
 
322 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Upon the restoration of the Stuart monarchy the Mas-, 
 sachusetts General Court had written, in December, 1660, 
 to King Charles II. praying for a continuance of their 
 charter.^ To this address the king sent a favorable reply, 
 promising the inhabitants that he would not come behind 
 any of his predecessors in a just encouragement of the 
 colony, and that they should be partakers in his late prom- 
 ises of liberty towards tender consciences.^ In spite of a 
 second and still more humble and supplicatory letter from 
 the general court,^ the king, June 28, 1662, was ready to 
 suggest changes in the government of New England by 
 which members of the Church of England at least should 
 be granted political and ecclesiastical privileges. In a letter 
 of that date, while again promising protection and grant- 
 ing pardon for all offences against himself committed 
 in the colony, Charles required and charged the people 
 of Massachusetts to grant liberty of conscience to those 
 who desired the use of the Book of Common Prayer; he 
 directed the colonists to take the oath of allegiance, ordered 
 that all justice should be administered in his name, and 
 that laws repugnant to his authority should be repealed. 
 He then ordered the abolition of the religious qualification 
 upon the suffrage. 
 
 " Wee assuring ourself, & obleiging & comanding all persons 
 concerned, that, in the election of the Gouernor or Asistants, there be 
 only consideration had of the wisdome, virtue, & integrity of the per- 
 sons to be chosen, & not of any affection w*'' refference to their opin- 
 ions & outward professions, & that all the freeholders of competent 
 estates, not vitious in conversacon & orthodoxe in religion, (though of 
 different persuasions concerning church gouerment,) may haue their 
 votes in the election of all officers, both ciuill & military." * 
 
 The royal letter caused great disappointment in the colony," 
 where the kind words of the king's first letter had led the 
 colonists to hope for freedom from any English inter- 
 
 '■Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. I, 450. 
 
 ' Palfrey, II, 494-495- 
 
 'Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 32. 
 
 *Ibid., 164; Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Soc), II, 100-104. 
 
 " Palfrey, II, 528. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 323 
 
 ference. To carry out the king's commands would mean 
 the overthrow of the Puritan theocracy; and the authori- 
 ties, not openly refusing to obey, temporized with the mat- 
 ter. Beyond directing that writs should run in the king's 
 name none of the royal orders was immediately executed 
 by the general court.^ 
 
 The four royal commissioners sent to New England in 
 1664, besides their other duties,^ were directed to confer 
 with the Massachusetts government on the king's letter of 
 1662 and to obtain a more reasonable compliance with its 
 demands.^ The commissioners' instructions were explicit 
 upon this point.* The king deemed it "very scandalous" 
 that any man should be debarred from the practice of re- 
 ligion according to English laws by those who had been 
 given liberty to adopt what profession they pleased in re- 
 ligion ; he now demanded, 
 
 " in a word, that persons of good & honest conversation who have lived 
 long there may enjoy all ye priviledges ecclesiasticall & civill wcl» are 
 due to them, and wcli are enjoyed by oth's, as to choose and be chosen 
 into places of government & the like; and that differences in opinion 
 doe not lessen their charity to each other, since charity is a fundamental 
 in all religion." 
 
 With these instructions upon the suffrage question the com- 
 missioners arrived in Boston in July, 1664.® 
 
 * In May, 1663, however, a committee of magistrates, deputies, and 
 elders was appointed to " consider the perticulars relating to extending 
 the liberty of certeine of the inhabitants in point of elections;" and 
 any of the elders or freemen were privileged to hand to the committee 
 their advice in writing upon the subject, in order that something might 
 be agreed upon " if it be the will of God, that may be satisfactory and 
 safe, as best conducing to his glory and this peoples felicity." No action 
 appears to have been taken by this committee, and Massachusetts had 
 made no further compliance with the king's commands when the royal 
 commissioners reached Boston in the summer of 1664 (Mass. Col. Rec, 
 IV, Pt. II, 74). 
 
 'For general accounts of the commission see Palfrey, II, 574-634; 
 Doyle, Puritan Colonies, II, 140-152; Deane, The Puritan Age, 502- 
 
 520. 
 
 • New York Colonial Documents, III, 61-63. 
 
 'Ibid., Si; 57-61- = Palfrey, II, 579. 
 
324 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 A few days after their arrival the general court met in 
 special session and, at last alive to the necessity of some 
 compliance with the royal demands, passed an act for the 
 extension of the suffrage to non-church-members. This 
 law, so famous for its formal compliance with the king's 
 letter, and for its practical disobedience of his commands, 
 is as follows : 
 
 " This Court doth Declare, That the Law prohibiting all persons, 
 except Members of Churches, and that also for allowance of them, in 
 any County Court, are hereby Repealed. 
 
 " And do also Order and Enact, That from henceforth all English 
 men, presenting a Certificate under the hands of the Ministers or Min- 
 ister of the place where they dwell, that they are Orthodox in Religion, 
 and not vicious in their lives, and also a Certificate under the hands of 
 the Select Men of the place, or of the major part of them, that they are 
 Free holders, and are for their own proper Estate (without heads of 
 persons) rateable to the Country in a single Country Rate, after the 
 usual manner of valuation in the place where they live, to the full value 
 of ten shillings, or that they are in full Communion with some church 
 among us; It shall be in the liberty of all and every such person or 
 persons, being twenty-four years of age. Householders and settled 
 Inhabitants in this Jurisdiction, from time to time to present them- 
 selves and their desires to this Court for their admittance to the Free- 
 dome of this Common-wealth, and shall be allowed the privilidge to 
 have such their desire propounded, and put to vote in the General 
 Court, for acceptance to the Freedome of the Body politick, by the 
 sufferage of the major part, according to the Rules of our Patent." ' 
 
 By this act the church-membership restriction was tech- 
 nically abolished, but a mere list of the requirements im- 
 posed upon those who desired admission under the terms 
 of the act, and not being in communion with some church, 
 shows how very slightly was the door to the freemanship 
 left ajar. The applicant must be ( i ) twenty-four years of 
 age, (2) a settled inhabitant (regularly admitted by some 
 town), (3) a householder, (4) a freeholder, (5) a payer 
 of taxes upon property, (6) orthodox in religion, (7) not 
 vicious in life; (8) he must present a certificate from all 
 the ministers of his town proving his religious and moral 
 qualifications, (9) and a certificate from the majority of 
 
 ^Code of 1672, 56; Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 118. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 325 
 
 the selectmen of his town that he was a freeholder and a tax- 
 payer to the amount of ten shillings, not including his poll- 
 tax; and (10) finally, he must be accepted by the vote of 
 the majority of the general court. Yet, said the court, in a 
 letter to the king in October, 1664, this was the "utmost" 
 they could do to satisfy his majesty and still retain con- 
 sistency " with conscience of our duty towards God, & the 
 just libertyes & priviledges of our patent."^ Even after 
 several persons had been admitted to the freedom under this 
 plan, it was but natural that the royal commissioners should 
 consider it merely a subterfuge by which "they might 
 evade the King's letter in that poynt." ^ 
 
 Finding that the law of 1664 would not give the exten- 
 sion of the suffrage which they had expected, in February, 
 1664-5, the commissioners asked the general court to invite 
 all the inhabitants of the colony to come up to the annual 
 elections in the following May.' When the court refused to 
 call the people together, the commissioners even resorted to 
 the means of writing letters to non- freemen in the country, 
 asking them to attend the election.* In spite of all their 
 efforts, the commissioners were unsuccessful in arousing 
 the popular clamor which they hoped would overawe the 
 oligarchy. The assembly did not change its attitude except, 
 if anything, to become more independent. In the corre- 
 spondence between the court and the commissioners the 
 former asserted that the oath of allegiance was adminis- 
 tered, and that justice ran in the king's name. They quietly, 
 but firmly, refused to grant the use of the Prayer-Book or 
 " haue the same set vp here: we conceive it is apparent that 
 it will disturbe our peace in our present enjoyments." * 
 They even had the audacity to declare that they had con- 
 formed to the king's request in the matter of the suffrage : 
 
 " Touching civil liberties. 
 " To elect or be elected, vnto civil offices, the quallifications men- 
 tioned in his majesties letter, being orderly euidenced to us, are ac- 
 cepted, as may appeare by our late lawe & practise therevpon." 
 
 ' Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 129. • ' 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 84. 'Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, i73- 
 
 'Ibid., 174. ' "Ibid., 200. 
 
326 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 This reply called forth a sarcastic rejoinder from the com- 
 missioners, in which they expressed admiration for those 
 who came to America to establish liberty of conscience, and 
 later denied it to others, in order that their own enjoyments 
 might not be disturbed.* Their opinions upon the new 
 f reemanship law were not hidden in sarcasm : 
 
 " You have so tentered the kings quallifications as in making him 
 only who payeth ten shillings to a single rate to be of competent estate, 
 that when the king shall be enformed, as the trueth is, that not one 
 church member in an hundred payes so much, & yt in a towne of an 
 hundred inhabitants, scarse three such men are to be found, wee feare 
 the king will rather finde himself deluded then satisfied by your late 
 act." 
 
 The commissioners now took up the printed law-book of 
 1660 and advised over a score of changes in it. In these 
 suggestions they no longer speak for the whole body of dis- 
 senters or non-church-members, but they are content to ask 
 that the restriction upon freemen be so changed that it will 
 comprehend members of the Church of England.^ The 
 last features of the controversy are the report of the com- 
 missioners concerning Massachusetts' and a narrative 
 drawn up by the general court recounting the facts of their 
 intercourse with the commissioners.* Neither of these adds 
 anything to the suffrage controversy; the court claimed it 
 had repealed the obnoxious freemanship law, while the com- 
 missioners again alleged that the new act was of no value, 
 its practical effect being to retain the old religious limitation. 
 
 Having seen the controversy between the commissioners 
 and the court about the act of 1664, we may now look at 
 such facts as illustrate the administration of this law. The 
 terms of the law seem designed to keep out rather than admit 
 to the suffrage those who were not members of some regu- 
 lar church. Bearing in mind the uncompromising character 
 of the New England ministers, it would seem to be almost 
 
 '^Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 204-205. 
 ^ Ibid., 210 ff. 
 
 'N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 110-113; Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Soc), 
 II, 146-147. 
 *Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 218 fif. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 327 
 
 impossible for a person not belonging to the church to 
 obtain a certificate of orthodoxy in religion from the min- 
 isters of his town. But even if this were possible, there were 
 still the inhabitancy, the householder, the freeholder, and the 
 tax-paying qualifications to be met by the applicant, in addi- 
 tion to the age requirement of twenty-four years. Of these 
 qualifications the most difficult, next to the religious one, 
 was that requiring the candidate for the freemanship to pay 
 at least ten shillings, besides the poll-tax, in a single country 
 rate. It is not easy to-day to catch the meaning of this tax 
 qualification. The unit of taxation was a levy of one penny 
 on the pound of all real and personal property,^ and this 
 was called a rate; when one rate did not yield a sufficient 
 income, several, even twenty, might be laid.^ A man paying 
 ten shillings taxes at the rate of one penny on the pound 
 would possess one hundred and twenty pounds value of 
 taxable property. Such an amount was an unusual pos- 
 session at that time and for many years afterwards, and in 
 the colony at large the statement of the royal commission- 
 ers may have been near the truth, that " not one church 
 member in an hundred payes so much," and " in a towne 
 of an hundred inhabitants, scarce three such men are to be 
 found." 3 
 
 Several tax-lists for the town of Boston are extant for 
 the years 1674, 1676, and 1687,* which throw some light 
 upon the amount of assessed property held by citizens of that 
 town. The list of 1674® shows ninety-nine persons out 
 of six hundred and seventy-four as paying ten shillings or 
 more upon a single country rate. An incomplete list for 
 1676" gives forty out of one hundred and ninety-seven 
 male taxables as possessing one hundred and twenty pounds 
 
 ^The Book of the General Lavves and Libertyes, 1660, 14; Code of 
 1672, 22-26. The laws, unfortunately, do not give a fixed valuation of 
 land as was the case in Connecticut, but only of domestic animals. 
 
 'Laws of New Hampshire (1904), I. Province Period, 1679^1702, 
 
 335. 367, 433. 450. 
 
 " Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 204-205. 
 
 * First Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston, 
 1876, 22-133. 
 
 ' Ibid., 22-59. ' Ibid., 66-67. 
 
328 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 or more of taxable property. These lists show a far larger 
 proportion of people possessing the property qualification 
 than the commissioners claimed ; one person in five or seven 
 is very different from the three in a hundred claimed by the 
 commissioners' report.^ The list for 1687,^ however, varies 
 considerably from the earlier one, and shows a general 
 lowering of the assessment values. Out of twelve hundred 
 and thirty male tax-payers in that year, only thirty-four 
 persons were rated for ten shillings or over. This brings 
 up quite close to the commissioners' estimate of one in 
 thirty-three of the population. The facts given in these lists 
 show that the tax-paying qualification at best would have 
 included only a small proportion of the population of Boston. 
 But the best testimony to the strictness of the new law 
 is to be seen in the few cases of freemen admitted upon 
 certificate. In the fall of 1664 six persons were given their 
 freedom upon presenting certificates that they were qualified 
 according to the law ; * but this comparatively good begin- 
 ning was not maintained, and from 1665 to 1680 inclusive 
 only fourteen cases of such admissions have been noted.* 
 It is not, of course, certain that the records have expressly 
 stated all the cases where certificates were presented, and it 
 is possible that others of the recorded admissions may have 
 been upon certificate and no mention made of the fact. But, 
 looking no farther than the face of the records, it is apparent 
 that only about twenty persons were admitted to the free- 
 manship under the new law.^ Had the number of persons 
 
 ^ Allowance must be made for the wealth of Boston and also for the 
 fact that these lists very likely did not include all those taxed on the 
 polls alone; probably the country districts would show a much lower 
 proportion of qualified persons than these lists give for Boston. 
 
 ^ First Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston, 
 1876, 91-133. 
 
 ^Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 134. 
 
 *Ibid., 14s, 146, 28s, 408; V, 264, 279. 
 
 " One of these certificates has been preserved in Mass. Hist. Soc. 
 Proc, 1st Series, XII, 105 : 
 
 " Certificate of John Wilson and Hezekiah Usher. 
 " These do testifie vnto the honoured Gen. Court y* mr John 
 Tuttle, William Hasie, and Benjamin Muzzie of Boston — 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 329 
 
 so admitted been much greater, it is inconceivable that the 
 Massachusetts agents later, in justifying their course before 
 the Committee of Trade and Plantations, would have used 
 no stronger word than " several" in describing the number 
 of non-church-members who had been made free.^ It seems 
 highly probable that the new qualification was used only as 
 a means of evading the king's instructions,^ and did not 
 result in any appreciable extension of the suffrage.* 
 
 After the contest with the royal commissioners the colony 
 entered upon a period of ten years of political peace and 
 
 Rumnie marsh, are vpon Good testimony of others, and my 
 owne knowledge or experience both orthodox in the Christian 
 Religion, and of unblameable conversation, as I do believe, and 
 doe humbly comend them therefore vnto the Acceptance of the 
 hon. Court, into the Society and Companie of our freemen, 
 according as they expresse their desires therevnto, and Aymes 
 at the Common Good therein. j^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ 
 
 "2d d. of the 3m. 65. 
 
 " Mr John Tuttle, William Hasie and Benjamin Muzzie, are 
 raiteable acording to the Law made for admitance of Free- 
 men: 2.: May 166s. Hezekiah VsHER." 
 
 ' Randolph Papers, Prince Society, II, 283, III, 8. 
 
 'jv. y. Col. Doc, 111,84. 
 
 " It must be noted, however, that the total number of admissions 
 to the freemanship — ^presumably all church-members except the twenty 
 already mentioned — was considerably greater in the years succeeding 
 1664 than in those immediately preceding, as the following figures 
 show: 
 
 1645-1649 admissions were 230 
 
 1650-1654 " " 146 
 
 1655-1659 " " 64 
 
 1660-1664 " " 48 
 
 1665-1669 " " 305 
 
 1670-1674 " " 415 
 
 1675-1679 " " 271 
 
 1680-1684 " " 397 
 
 The writer at first supposed that this increase in freemen was due to 
 the new law, but later investigation disclosed no connection between 
 this number of freemen and the law of 1664. 
 
330 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 ecclesiastical quiet. The attitude towards the Quakers and 
 other dissenters had changed somewhat, so far as religious 
 tolerance was concerned, but this lessening severity did not 
 extend to the admission of the non-conformists to the free- 
 manship. When, in 1670, a request came from the county 
 of York (Maine), — one of the places whose freemen had 
 been admitted without reference to church-membership, — 
 that the number of their freemen be increased, they received 
 the reply, — 
 
 " this Court declares, yt it is the best expedient to obteine the ends de- 
 sired that those parts furnish themselves wtli an able, pious, & ortho- 
 dox minister, & commend that to them, according to the order of the 
 County Court." ' 
 
 Such language gives slight evidence of a compliance with 
 the king's desires, and it shows that the only practical way 
 of making freemen was still that established by the law of 
 163I. A similar vigilance is seen in the attempt to abolish 
 election mistakes, frauds, and deceits in 1673,^ and in the 
 order of the same year that those who were desirous of 
 becoming freemen under the act of 1664 should be proposed 
 at one annual court of election and the question of their 
 admission not put to a vote until the following year.* 
 
 After ten years of comparative quiet upon the suffrage 
 question, the matter was taken up anew by the English 
 government, and the interference from England was aided 
 by the vehemence and persistency of the English agent in 
 the colonies. Edward Randolph was not a man of states- 
 manlike character, nor, indeed, was his mission one which 
 required such qualities; he was rather a political detective, 
 who, for the use of the English authorities, ferreted out the 
 political irregularities of the Massachusetts commonwealth. 
 With the many topics of dispute — the Maine and New 
 Hampshire question, the enforcement of the navigation acts, 
 the judicial and oath controversies — we are not here con- 
 
 ' Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 452. 
 "lUd., 553. 
 
 'Ibid., 562. This act was repealed ten years later {,ihid., V, 385). I 
 have found no evidence in the records to show the reason for the act. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 331 
 
 cerned ; and our account of Randolph must be limited to his 
 attitude towards the suffrage question.^ 
 
 Almost immediately upon his arrival in New England he 
 found evidences of the irregularities which it was his busi- 
 ness to discover, and which undoubtedly did exist. In June, 
 1676, he writes that the officers of the colony are mainly 
 " inconsiderable Mechanicks ;" that confiding church^mem- 
 bers are alone capable of election ; and that the clergy gen- 
 erally are inclined to sedition, although some " Civil Gen- 
 tlemen" abominate " the Hypocrisy of their Pharisaicall 
 Sanhedrim." ^ By the following October he did not deal 
 in such generalities, but now stated that no one could be 
 admitted a freeman or have any vote unless he were a 
 church-member in full communion. He had now discov- 
 ered that the oaths of supremacy and allegiance were not 
 taken, but that an oath of fidelity was imposed upon all 
 persons under penalty of a fine for refusal ; he believed he 
 saw that the freemen made only one-sixth of the male 
 population, and that only interest and design had drawn 
 most of the people into church-membership.* 
 
 Randolph's letters were considered by the Committee of 
 Trade and Plantations in England, who thought the colony 
 had technically abolished its earlier freeman law at the 
 demand of the king, but that the practice all along had 
 been in accordance with the earlier narrow custom.* The 
 agents of Massachusetts were called in to explain the con- 
 duct of the colony, and they replied that they knew of no 
 such practice; "that several are freemen who are not 
 Church-members, and that 'tis not the point of opinion in 
 Religion, but the number or defect of Votes, that prefers 
 one and lays by others." ^ In April, 1678, Randolph was 
 back in England, laying his charges before the committee. 
 The Massachusetts agents offered to show that his charges 
 were falsehoods,® but Randolph replied by quoting their 
 own law-book of 1672, and at the request of the lords of the 
 committee he read the laws refusing freemanship to all not 
 
 'For an elaborate account of Randolph, see the Prince Society's 
 edition of the Randolph Papers, I ; and Palfrey, III, 280-397. 
 ' Randolph Papers, II, 206, 207. 
 
 Vfcid., 226. 235. */6»U, 281. 
 
 'Ibid., ^3. 'Ibid., 285. 
 
332 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 in full communion with some orthodox church and forbid- 
 ding any person from voting who was not an attendant 
 upon the established public worship.* The committee were 
 much impressed by Randolph's case ; they seemed " very 
 much to resent" the action of Massachusetts, and instead 
 of favoring the colony they expressed the opinion that 
 "the whole matter ought seriously to be considered from 
 the Very Root." ^ 
 
 Later the colony agents replied to the iterated statements ^ 
 of Randolph respecting the limited suffrage. Although by 
 charter they had absolute power to admit any freemen they 
 saw fit, yet, they aver, an express law had been made by 
 which " others besides churchmembers are capacitated to be 
 made ffreemen, upon which law severall considerable per- 
 sons have been admitted, & any others may be from tyme to 
 tyme, if they please to offer themselves." * But such replies 
 were justly held to be subterfuges, and failed to satisfy 
 either Randolph or the English authorities when all were 
 looking for points of attack upon Massachusetts. Ran- 
 dolph, back again in America, wrote in 1679 in favor of a 
 broad extension of the franchise by admitting as freemen 
 all inhabitants who had taken the oath of allegiance, and 
 excluding from the suffrage or office all refusing to take the 
 oath.^ Such a radical change was not adopted by the Eng- 
 lish committee, but in May, 1679, ^^^Y advised the king 
 to direct " that there bee noe other distinction in making 
 Freemen than that they bee men of competent Estates 
 ratable at ten shillings, according to the Law of the place," * 
 and this feature was shortly afterwards incorporated into a 
 royal letter to the general court. '^ The court later replied * 
 
 ^ Randolph Papers, II, 293. I do not know whether it was intentional 
 or not that these laws were permitted to stand in the law-book of 1672, 
 after the passage of the freeman act of 1664. 
 
 'Ibid., 296. VfciU, 311, 313, 318. 
 
 ^ Ibid., Ill, i. 'Ibid., 35. 
 
 'Ibid., 45- 
 
 'Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Society), II, 259. Hutchinson, in a 
 foot-note, says, " They seem to have held out till the last in refusing 
 to admit" those who were not church-members or did not obtain a 
 certificate from the minister of the town. 
 
 'June II, 1680; Mass. Col. Rec, V, 287, 288. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 333 
 
 that no person was incapacitated for the freemanship who 
 was a freeholder, ratable to the value of ten shillings, not 
 vicious in life, and also orthodox in religion; and they 
 expressly stated — for the first time — ^that to be of a different 
 opinion upon matters of external worship, and particularly 
 to desire to worship according to the rules of the Church 
 of England, was not the form of heterodoxy which their 
 law provided against. This is the most liberal statement 
 on the subject which I have found; but even this shows no 
 intention to make the property qualification of the non- 
 church-members any lower than the extreme requirements 
 of 1664. A perfectly frank statement would have said that 
 these strict property conditions were not applied to " Con- 
 gregational men," but only to those not in communion with 
 the established churches. 
 
 In the midst of the attacks upon the company's charter 
 there appears to be no intention on the part of the colonial 
 leaders of changing the suffrage conditions. In August, 
 1682, when Randolph was again writing against the in- 
 fluence of the Independent ministers,^ the Massachusetts 
 agents in London were reiterating their usual part-truth, 
 "There is noe other distinction vsed in makeing of ffree- 
 men Then that they be ffreeholders of Tenn Shillings ratable 
 Estate, and of the Protestant Religion."" Even after the 
 court learned how sharply the proceedings against the colony 
 were being pushed in England, the agents were instructed : ® 
 
 " It being of the essentialls in our charter to vse our owne liberty 
 wth respect to freemen, this Court hauing repealed that law that 
 appointed a yeares probation, so as now wee haue fully complyed with 
 his majetles former letters and comands in this matter, yow are not to 
 make any alteration of the quallifications that are required by law as 
 at present established." 
 
 Up to the last the form of political qualification which, in 
 spite of all denials, actually favored church-members was 
 
 ^Randolph Papers, III, 186, 187. 
 
 "Ibid.. 192. In February, 1682-3, the general court repealed the law 
 requiring applicants for freedom who were not members of the church 
 to undergo a year's probation before acceptance into the corporation; 
 but this was as far as they would go {Mass. Col. Rec, V, 385). 
 
 ' March 30, 1683 ; Mass. Col. Rec, V, 389. 
 
334 Th^ Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 upheld by those directing the policy of the colony. The 
 overthrow of the religious system did not come until the 
 company's charter was declared forfeited by the English 
 Court of Chancery in 1684, and all political activity under 
 the charter ceased two years later by the appointment of a 
 president and sixteen councillors for Massachusetts, New 
 Hampshire, Maine, and the King's Province.^ Thereafter, 
 until the overthrow of the government of Andros in the 
 spring of 1689, Massachusetts was without any popular 
 elections except those in the towns for local officers. 
 
 It would be interesting, if possible, to determine the num- 
 ber of freemen in Massachusetts immediately before the 
 revocation of the charter, but it is doubtful if the material 
 exists for an exact account. Palfrey estimates the freemen 
 as numbering between one thousand and twelve hundred 
 persons in 1670; ^ another writer believes the freemen made 
 up about one-fifteenth of the entire population in 1679;* 
 while Randolph, writing in 1682, states that there were 
 eighteen hundred freemen,* and that they made up less than 
 one-eighth of the (male?) inhabitants.^ At an election for 
 the nominations of magistrates in 1676, under the code of 
 1672,® each freeman voted for eighteen persons; and the 
 highest number of votes cast was thirteen hundred and 
 twenty, for John Leverett.'' This would show that there 
 were at least thirteen hundred freemen, and probably con- 
 siderably more than that figure. It is not likely that every 
 freeman gave one of his eighteen votes for Leverett, nor is 
 it probable that every freeman took part in the nomination 
 for magistrates. To place the number of freemen in 1676 
 at about fifteen hundred would, therefore, not seem an 
 over-estimate. Votes for the nomination of magistrates in 
 1683 and 1686^ show a smaller number of freemen par- 
 ticipating than in 1676, a result perhaps to be attributed to 
 
 • Palfrey, III, 484. 
 
 " New England, III, 41, note 3. 
 
 ' Ernst, Constitutional History of Boston, 17. 
 
 * Randolph Papers, Prince Society, III, 172, 173. 
 'Ibid., 186, 187. 
 
 ' Code of 1672, 47. 
 
 ''New Hampshire Hist. Soc. Coll., Ill, 99. 
 
 'Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Society), II, 282, 285. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 335 
 
 the uncertainty concerning the company charter in the later 
 years.i Taking these several instances, it appears that about 
 thirteen hundred freemen actually participated in the annual 
 nominations for magistrates. The population of the colony, 
 at the lowest estimate, was twenty-five thousand in 1670; 
 and allowing for the increase in population in the following 
 years, we shall not be far wrong if we count the voting 
 freemen as one-twentieth of the entire population, or one- 
 fourth or one-fifth of the adult males.^ 
 
 With the seizure and arrest of Andros and his associates 
 in April, 1689, the popular forms of government were re- 
 stored. It was not, indeed, thought best to have an election 
 for colony officers in May, but delegates to conventions were 
 elected by the several towns; and the second convention 
 agreed to a policy similar to that adopted in the other 
 colonies of New England, — that of restoring to office the 
 magistrates who had been deposed by the recent coercive 
 measures of James 11.^ Later the convention became bolder, 
 taking the name of general court, and in the spring of 1690 
 providing for a regular colonial election.* 
 
 At an early point in the revolution against Andros there 
 are indications of a change in sentiment upon the suffrage 
 question. The charter officers were restored and the old 
 forms revived, but the struggle with the Stuarts and their 
 governors had brought the freemen and non-freemen more 
 closely together. A broadside, evidently printed before the 
 political question had been solved in May, 1689, expressed 
 the opinion that the officers elected in 1686 would have the 
 power and will " to take in Free men under qualifications 
 of Sobriety, and some Interest in the Country by Estate." •* 
 In February, 1689-90, when the determination to hold an 
 election in May had been reached, a change in the suffrage 
 
 ' In 1683 there were 26, and in 1686, 32 nominees. Adding together 
 the votes for all of these and dividing by eighteen, the number for 
 which each voter could ballot, and taking it for granted that each 
 freeman did vote for eighteen, it appears that there were 1260 voters in 
 1683 and 130S in 1686. 
 
 ' Compare Palfrey, III, 41, note 3. 
 
 'Ibid., 589. 
 
 * New Hampshire Provincial Laws (1904), I, 349, 353. 
 
 'Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, ist Series, XII, 118, 119. 
 
336 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 qualifications was also adopted by which the old require- 
 ment of a minister's certificate was abolished, and a com- 
 paratively low property or tax-paying qualification imposed : 
 
 " It is Ordered by this Court, That the Clause in the Law title Free- 
 men, referring to Ministers giving Certificate to Persons Desiring their 
 Freedom, be and hereby is repealed. And the Sum of Ten shillings is 
 reduced to ffour shillings in a Single Country Rate (without heads of 
 Persons) Or that the Person to be made free have houses or Lands of 
 the Cleer Yearly Value of Six Pounds Freehold w'ch Value is to be 
 returned to the Court by the Select men of the Place, or the Major 
 part of them who also are to Certify that such Person is not vicious 
 in Life."' 
 
 The effect of this act was not to repeal the clause under 
 which since 163 1 adult male church-members had been ad- 
 mitted to the freemanship, but to lower the restrictions 
 imposed by the act of 1664 upon the admission of those who 
 were not members of the church. 
 
 There is abundant proof that the act of February, 
 1689-90, resulted in an immediate extension of the fran- 
 chise. The records of the court ^ in the few succeeding 
 weeks give the names of nine hundred and nine new free- 
 men.' This figure becomes significant when it is noted that 
 the number of freemen admitted during the two months of 
 March and April, 1690, was greater than the entire number 
 of admissions in the twelve years from 1674 to 1686 under 
 the old charter and suffrage provisions. Of the new admis- 
 sions it is also interesting to notice that over half — four 
 hundred and ninety-three — were plainly admitted by virtue 
 of the new property and tax-paying qualifications, while 
 only two hundred and ninety-three were accepted because 
 of their church-membership; and of the remaining ones, 
 
 ' New Hampshire Provincial Laws, I, 355 ; New England Historical 
 and Genealogical Register, III, 346 ; Sewall's Diary in Mass. Hist. Soc. 
 Coll., 6th Series, I, 107. The income qualification of this act required 
 non-church-members to possess an income from freehold three times 
 as great as that required by the English forty-shilling qualification. 
 
 'The legislative records of the Inter-charter period have recently 
 been published in Vol. I of the New Hampshire Laws, Provincial 
 Period. 
 
 'Ibid., 363-471 passim. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 337 
 
 the basis for whose admission is not stated in the records, 
 it is probable that a majority also came in under the terms 
 of the new law. The revolutionists in Massachusetts, like 
 Leisler in New York, granted an extension of the suffrage 
 in order to strengthen their cause ; but in the former colony 
 they still retained the favoritism shown to the members of 
 the church. It was not until the passing of the new charter 
 of 1 69 1 under the royal seals that the suffrage was estab- 
 lished uniformly upon a property basis, and the peculiar 
 political privileges of the church-members, after sixty years 
 of practice, were at last abolished. A man's political rights, 
 for the future, were to rest upon the ownership of wealth, 
 not upon the possession of an orthodox Christian character. 
 The ideal of the founders was a noble one, but two facts 
 in the English world of the time made the attainment of the 
 ideal impossible. The first of these facts was the lack of 
 religious homogeneity in the English nation, and the grow- 
 ing toleration which came in spite of all the adverse legisla- 
 tion of the Cavalier Parliament. The religious restrictions 
 imposed by Massachusetts were more far-reaching than 
 those in England, and came into conflict with the less severe 
 policy of the Stuarts. The second fact is to be seen in the 
 anomaly of disfranchising members of the Church of Eng- 
 land in an English colony. The English Parliament had 
 indeed attempted to prevent non-conformists from voting 
 in English elections, but it was not the more likely to relish 
 the disfranchisement of Episcopalians by a non-conformist 
 English colony. Had church-membership in New England 
 carried with it orthodoxy in the English sense, it is possible 
 the home government would not so strongly have opposed 
 the religious qualifications; but the exclusion of Episco- 
 palians from political power was as obnoxious to the Eng- 
 lishman of 1 69 1 as it had been in the days of Charles I. and 
 Charles II. 
 
 II. The Plymouth Colony. 
 Plymouth colony is the first of the many New England 
 settlenjents whose political organization may be called in- 
 digenous; not in the sense that the type of government 
 founded was un-English, but that it had no organic or legal 
 
338 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 connection with the Enghsh government. Within the 
 limits of every one of the New England colonies there 
 appeared bands of settlers who had voluntarily united for 
 purposes of settlement, and who were compelled by force of 
 circumstances to form political associations. The most cele- 
 brated of such associations is that formed on board the 
 Mayflower on November 11, 1620. The Pilgrims were 
 already united by social and religious ties, and in their joint 
 endeavors to defray the cost of the expedition they had 
 formed a quasi-corporation of an economic nature. But 
 the political oi'ganization which should have been derived 
 from the Virginia Company, upon whose land they intended 
 to settle, was of no value when the Pilgrims found them- 
 selves many miles away from the lands of the Virginia 
 Company, and with no possibility of reaching the place of 
 their intended settlement. The political consequences of the 
 mistake of selecting so northern a settlement were seized 
 upon at once by " some of the strangers amongst them," 
 who in " discontented & mutinous speeches" asserted that 
 they would " use their owne libertie" on shore, and that 
 there was none who had power to command them.^ To 
 curb such spirits, and also because it was felt that a political 
 association of the colonists would be as " firme as any 
 patent, and in some respects more sure," the Mayflower 
 compact was composed and signed. 
 
 The words of this document are known to almost every 
 American, but no excuse need be given for repeating here 
 the political phrases of the compact. The subscribers agree 
 that they do 
 
 " by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and one 
 of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body 
 politick, for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance of y* 
 ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof to enacte, constitute, and frame 
 such just & equall lawes, ordinances, acts, constitutions, & offices, from 
 time to time, as shall be thought most meete & convenient for ye gen- 
 erall good of y* Colonic, unto which we promise all due submission 
 and obedience." ' 
 
 ^Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, 53. 
 'Ibid., 54. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachvisetts. 339 
 
 Under this association the government of Plymouth colony 
 was administered for over seventy years. The patent from 
 the Council for New England, obtained in 1621, gave a 
 legal title to the land so unexpectedly occupied, but it did 
 little more in a political way than to confirm the existing 
 government. The self-incorporating body by this patent 
 attained legal position, but no real change was made in 
 the administration of government in the little colony. 
 Bradford's anticipation that the personal compact would 
 be " more sure" than any patent later received its justi- 
 fication, for no colonial political organization of the 
 seventeenth century had as long a lease of life as did 
 the government inaugurated so humbly in the Mayflower 
 cabin. 
 
 Funds for the transportation of the Pilgrims had been 
 obtained by the formation of a stock company in London, 
 composed of certain capitalists and the emigrants. The 
 shares were placed at ten pounds, and any free man going 
 to the colony was entitled to one share without making a 
 money subscription.^ Perhaps one-quarter or one-fifth of 
 the stock of the undertaking was represented by shares 
 issued in this way to the settlers; the remainder of the 
 capital — that is, four-fifths of seven thousand pounds — was 
 furnished by London capitalists.^ All the property of the 
 enterprise was to be held in common, and at the end of 
 seven years was to be distributed pro rata among the stock- 
 holders, both in England and the colony. In 1623 the 
 London adventurers sent out some colonists who were not 
 incorporated into the organization as stockholders, but who 
 came out at their own risk and expense, and hence did not 
 form a part of the communistic enterprise. These " par- 
 ticulars" were " yet to be subjecte to y^ generall Govern- 
 ment,"^ although not sharing in the common duties or 
 advantages.* While subject to the laws and regulations 
 of the colony, it does not appear that these " particulars" 
 
 'Bradford, 28, 29. 
 
 ' Doyle, Puritan Colonies, I, 42. 
 
 ' Bradford, 100. 
 
 'Ibid., 104, 123. 
 
340 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 had any share in elections or government; and it is not to 
 be wondered that they formed a discontented faction.^ 
 
 These conditions, together with the desertion of some 
 from the " generahty" to the " particular" state, and the 
 fear of the rapidly approaching time when all property 
 must be distributed share and share alike, led to the pro- 
 posal on the part of the colonist stockholders to purchase 
 the shares of the London capitalists. Accordingly, in 1626, 
 a contract was executed^ for the extinction of the claims 
 of the Londoners. The purchase outright by the colonists 
 gave them entire control of the property of the colony, and 
 permitted them to admit to their membership new proprie- 
 tors upon their own terms. The effect upon the colony 
 was much the same as that which followed the transfer of 
 the Massachusetts charter to New England; it removed 
 the directing power in the colony's affairs from England 
 to America and identified the economic trading company 
 activity with the political organization. The purchase led 
 to another development, — an extension of the franchise in 
 the colony. 
 
 Up to this point the community of goods and of political 
 privileges, based respectively, as we have seen, upon the 
 commercial contract made in London and upon the civil 
 compact made on the Mayflower, was limited to those who 
 became stockholders of the enterprise. Now that the colony 
 had achieved self-ownership, the stockholder theory was not 
 abandoned, but simply extended to include all the respon- 
 sible inhabitants, whether they were " particulars" or of 
 the " generality." The attitude of the colony was a more 
 liberal one than that adopted in Massachusetts four years 
 later. " For sundrie reasons," which, unfortunately, Brad- 
 ford does not enumerate, it was determined to admit " into 
 this partnership" all heads of families and those free single 
 young men who were able to govern themselves and their 
 affairs, and accordingly " be helpful! in ye comone-welth." ^ 
 Each free single man was to receive one share, and heads 
 of families were given one share for themselves and for 
 
 ' Palfrey, I, 219 ; Bradford, 123. 
 
 'Ihid., 143, 144. ^Ibid., 145. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 341 
 
 each person in their families. Upon this basis the lands, 
 houses, and cattle were divided, and incidentally political 
 privileges were now conferred upon many who previously 
 as "particulars" did not participate in the government. 
 Thus the inhabitants acquired possession of the lands of the 
 colony; and partnership in the economic sense, which at 
 first seemed the stronger of the bonds uniting the settlers, 
 gradually gave place under the extension of private owner- 
 ship of lands to the more modern feeling of political asso- 
 ciation.^ 
 
 The new patent from the Council for New England, 
 obtained in January, 1629-30, empowered Bradford and 
 his heirs, associates, and assigns to incorporate themselves 
 and the inhabitants of the colony under " some usual or fit 
 name and title," and to make ordinances and constitutions 
 for themselves, not contrary to the laws of England or to 
 any frame of government established by the Council.^ But 
 this patent, like the earlier one, simply placed the duty of 
 organizing the government upon the settlers, and left the 
 MayHower compact and the partnership arrangement of 
 1627 as the real bases of government. 
 
 By the codification of 1636 and the legislation of the two 
 succeeding years, the civil and constitutional organization 
 of the colony is evident for the first time. The class of 
 freemen is now distinct; they are to meet annually for the 
 purpose of electing the governor, assistants, constables, and 
 other inferior officers,^ and are subject to a fine for absence 
 from election or refusal to hold office.* New freemen were 
 admitted by a vote of the general court, composed of all 
 the freemen;® or, later, by the representative courts. No 
 
 ^ At what point the word freeman was first applied to the partners 
 does not appear from the records. It is used in 1633 and occurs fre- 
 quently in the legislation of 1636, and probably was adopted from the 
 Massachusetts use of the word {Plymouth Records, Court Records, 
 
 1,5). 
 
 " Hazard, Historical Collections, I, 298-304. 
 
 ° Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, Laws, 7, 10. 
 
 *Ibid., 10. The fine for neglecting to vote was re-enacted in 1660 
 and changed from three to ten shillings {Records, Laws, 84, 127). 
 
 " Ihid., Court Records, I, 32, and passim. 
 
342 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 general qualifications appear to have been required of appli- 
 cants for the freemanship except the taking of an oath of 
 allegiance to the king and of fidelity to the government.^ 
 It is apparent, however, that the freemen did not, as in early 
 Maryland, include all the free men. Notwithstanding the 
 generous extension of political and economic rights in 1627, 
 the existence of a non-enfranchised class is plain by 1636. 
 The laws of that year established an inhabitant's oath, simi- 
 lar to that for freemen ; ^ jury service was required of free- 
 holders who were not freemen as well as those who had 
 been admitted,* and no person could be admitted as an 
 inhabitant, or be permitted to become a housekeeper, or to 
 build a cottage, without the consent of some of the magis- 
 trates.* 
 
 As in early Connecticut, so in Plymouth, the suffrage 
 was controlled largely by placing restrictions upon the ad- 
 mission of inhabitants rather than by expressing definite 
 qualifications for the freemanship. Thus, in the absence 
 
 ^ Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, Laws, 8. In requiring the 
 oath of allegiance to the king the government of Plymouth differed 
 from that of Massachusetts. The oath is as follows : 
 
 " You shall be truly loyall to our Sov. Lord King Charles 
 his heires & successors. You shall not speake or doe, devise or 
 advise any thing or things act or acts directly or indirectly by 
 land or water, that doth shall or may tend to the destruccon 
 or overthrow of this prn't plantacons Colonic or Corporacon 
 of New Plymouth, Neither shall you suffer the same to be 
 spoken or done but shall hinder oppose & discover the same 
 to the Gov' & Assistants of the said Colony for the time being 
 or some one of them. You shall faithfully submit unto such 
 good & wholesome laws & ordnances as either are or shall be 
 made for the ordering & governm* of the same, and shall 
 endeavor to advance the growth & good of the several Colonies 
 wt'^in the limits of this Corporacon by all due meanes & 
 courses. All w^l^ you promise & swear by the name of the 
 great God of heaven & earth simply truly & faithfully to 
 p'forme as you hope for help fro' God who is the God of truth 
 and punisher of falsehood." 
 
 'Ibid., g, 12. 
 
 'Ibid., II. * Ibid., 26, 108, 109. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 343 
 
 of any express restrictions upon the freemanship, the terms 
 of admission of inhabitants into the colony became more 
 important than they were in the Massachusetts Bay colony. 
 The matter was not left with the several towns, but was 
 controlled by the general government, and without the per- 
 mission of soine of the magistrates none could be admitted. 
 By " lamentable experience" the general court had dis- 
 covered that unworthy persons were sometimes admitted 
 when such power was left to the local inhabitants.^ In 1640 
 the court ordered that no new inhabitants be admitted into 
 Yarmouth " except they bring certificate from the places 
 whence they come, vnder sufficient mens hands of the s'd 
 places, of tiieir religious and honest carriage, w^h certify- 
 cate shall first be allowed by the gou'nJ" and assistants before 
 such p'sons be admitted there." ^ An inhabitant's oath had 
 been required as early as 1636, and in 1644 the court ordered 
 that no person should be considered an inhabitant unless he 
 took the oath of fidelity.^ Between 1658 and 1662 resi- 
 dents who refused to take the oath of fidelity might be fined 
 annually ; * and in the former year, when many had " crept 
 into some townshipes" contrary to the " ancient and whol- 
 some" law of 1636-7, all not formally admitted were re- 
 quired to gain the approbation of the governor and at least 
 two of the assistants; or, failing in that, to depart the 
 colony.' In 1678 additional steps were taken for enforcing 
 the law of 1636-7 in order to prevent " prophanes In- 
 creasing in the Collonie which is soe provoakeing to God 
 and threatening to bringe Judgments vpon vs." « Fines were 
 to be imposed upon residents who remained without permis- 
 sion, and upon persons entertaining such residents. The 
 act concludes with the injunction to the magistrates,— show- 
 ing the retention of a religious qualification at this late 
 
 ' Plymouth Records, Court Records, I, 120. 
 
 'Ibid., 142. See Court Records, III, 165, for permission to settle m 
 a town. 
 ^Plymouth Records, Laws, 43- 
 *Ihid., 109, 118, 129. For infliction of fine, see Court Orders, III, 
 
 139, 176, 181, 191. 
 " Ihid., Laws, 118. 
 'Ibid., 248. 
 
344 ^^^ Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 date, — that they " wilbe carefull, that whom they accept 
 off, are p'sons orthadox in theire Judgments." Thus to 
 become a legal inhabitant a man must take the oath of fidel- 
 ity, and must be accepted by the magistrates; and to obtain 
 the approval of the latter a certificate of religious character 
 might be required or some proof of orthodoxy in belief. 
 While there was no religious qualification for the freeman- 
 ship, the character of a man's religious belief might pro- 
 cure his admission or exclusion from the colony. 
 
 This question of inhabitancy in Plymouth is significant, 
 not only because there were few restrictions upon the free- 
 manship itself, but also on account of the political privileges 
 which were granted to inhabitants who were not freemen. 
 As early as 1636 non-freemen appear to be associated with 
 the freemen in town affairs,^ but their most valuable privi- 
 lege came in the association with the freemen in the election 
 of deputies to the representative courts established in 1638. 
 The town deputies were to be chosen by the freemen and 
 " such as are not ffreemen but haue taken the Oath of fidel- 
 itie and are masters of famylies and Inhabitants of the said 
 Townes as they are to beare their [part] in the charges of 
 their Committees so to haue a vote in the choyce of them." ^ 
 But the delegates chosen must be freemen, and the magis- 
 trates and deputies were empowered to dismiss any deputy 
 who was " insufficient or troublesome." Under this pro- 
 vision non-freemen participated in the election of repre- 
 sentatives throughout the colonial period, although only 
 freemen took part in the election of magistrates.* 
 
 The scrutiny required by law before the admission of in- 
 habitants was not always exercised,* and in 1658 an order 
 of court recognized the fact that " the Number of freemen 
 in many places is but smale and the Inhabitants of the 
 townshipes many more whoe haue equall voates with the 
 freemen in the choise of Deputies;" by the weakness or 
 prejudice of these inhabitants, the court stated, " it hath or 
 
 ^Plymouth Records, Laws, 18. 
 'lUd., 31. 
 
 ° The similar provision in Connecticut colony from 1639 to 1662 may 
 have been introduced from Plymouth. 
 'Compare Laws, 118. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 345 
 
 may come to passe that very vnfitt and vnworthy p'sons 
 may be chosen." To prevent such evils the magistrates and 
 deputies were again empowered to exclude objectionable 
 members.^ The more natural policy of limiting the suffrage 
 was adopted in 1669, when it was provided that none should 
 vote in town meetings but freemen, or " ffreeholders of 
 twenty pounds ratable estate and of good conversation 
 haueing taken the oath of fidelitie." ^ A few years later, in 
 1678, it was found " that the voateing of p^sons that haue 
 not taken the oath of fidelity, doth much obstruct the carry- 
 ing on of religion in the publicke weale." Accordingly, the 
 exclusion from town meetings of those who had not taken 
 the oath was reaffirmed, and the clerks of the towns were 
 directed to keep the names of the men of their towns who 
 had taken the oath.^ 
 
 We must now notice what requirements were imposed 
 upon applicants for the freemanship, after having become 
 inhabitants of the colony. Three formalities cut off the non- 
 free from the franchise, — the proposal of the applicant's 
 name to the general court, his acceptance after a term of 
 probation, and the taking of the oath of freeman by him 
 after the court had voted to admit him.* For a number of 
 years there appears to have been no formal method of pro- 
 posing the names of applicants ; and the term of probation 
 was not a fixed one, but usually lasted until the next meet- 
 ing of the court, which might not be a longer time than 
 three or four months. A change in the method of admission 
 did not come until June, 1656, when it was ordered that 
 future candidates for the freemanship should be " such as 
 shalbee alsoe approued of by the freemen in such townes 
 wher they liue," and propounded to the court by the deputies 
 of their respective towns.^ Thus the approbation of the 
 
 ^ Compare Laws, 92. ' Ibid., 223. ° Ihid., 248. 
 
 * See Records, passim, for instances of each of these features. 
 
 " Ibid., Court Orders, III, loi ; also Laws, 65, 68. Compare this cus- 
 tom with the relation of town freemanship to colony freemanship in 
 Rhode Island, where the colony resigned almost entirely to the towns 
 the prerogative of admission to the franchise. Plymouth never went so 
 far in her local privileges. The Plymouth law was re-enacted in almost 
 the same words in June, 1674 {Records, Laws, 236). 
 
346 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 select class of freemen of a man's own town must first be 
 obtained before his name could be proposed for admission 
 to the colony court. Even this restriction did not seem 
 sufficient, and two years later the applicant was required to 
 " stand one whole yeare propounded to the Court," and 
 then to be admitted if the court " shall not see cause to the 
 Contrary." ^ 
 
 In the meantime, following the leadership of her stronger 
 neighbors, Plymouth began a policy of religious restric- 
 tions which, while never so exclusive as those of Massachu- 
 setts and New Haven, yet departed from the more tolerant 
 practice of the early settlers. In June, 1650, the features 
 of the Massachusetts conformity act of 1635-6 were adopted 
 by Plymouth. The new order provided 
 
 " That forasmuch as there are Risen vp amongst vs many scandalvs 
 practises which are likly to proue destructiue to our churches and 
 Common peace; That whosoeuer shall heerafter set vp any churches 
 or publicke meetings diverse from those allreddy set vp and approued 
 without tlfe concent and approbacon of the Gouerment or shall con- 
 tinew any otherwise set vp without concent as aforsaid shalbe sus- 
 pended from haueing any voyce in towne meetings and p'sented to the 
 next general court to Receue such punishment as the court shall think 
 meet to Inflict." ^ 
 
 A few years later, in 1659, during the first invasion by 
 the Quakers into New England, Quakers and sympathizers 
 with them were disfranchised in Plymouth. " Noe Quaker 
 Rantor or any such corupt p'son" could be admitted to the 
 franchise ; ^ and freemen who were found to be Quakers or 
 " manifest Incurragers" of them were to be disfranchised. 
 Linked with the Quakers in exclusion from the freemanship 
 were " opposers of the good and whosome lawes of this 
 Collonie or manifest opposers of the true worship of God 
 or such as refuse to doe the Countrey seruice being called 
 thervnto;" and joined with them in incurring the pains of 
 disfranchisement after admission were " such as shall con- 
 temptuously speake of the Court or of the lawes thereof 
 
 ^ Records, Laws, 79. Compare with similar feature in Connecticut. 
 
 Ubid., 57. 
 
 'Records, Court Records, III, 167; Laws, 100. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 347 
 
 and such as are Judged by the Court grosly scandalouse as 
 lyers drunkards Swearers &c." ^ The association of the 
 Quakers in the minds of the legislators with such classes 
 shows that the opposition to them was grounded not so 
 much upon a religious fear as upon the political necessity 
 of maintaining the purity of the body politic. Not until 
 July, 1681, were the Quakers restored to a more favorable 
 position. Then certain Quakers dwelling in Sandwich were 
 given liberty to vote in the disposal of lands and the choice 
 of rators or assessors.^ 
 
 The royal commissioners to New England inquired into 
 the condition of Plymouth as well as the other colonies, and 
 were favorably impressed by the attitude of the authorities. 
 To the four propositions of the commissioners * the general 
 court responded in May, 1665. The reply to the first was 
 that they had been accustomed to require all householders 
 to take the oath of loyalty to the king. To die second, the 
 court said it had been the constant practice 
 
 "to admitt men of competent estates and ciuell conversation, though 
 of different judgments, yet being otherwise orthodox, to bee freemen, 
 and to haue libertie to chose and bee chosen officers both ciuell and 
 milletary." * 
 
 The reply to the third proposal was worded more guard- 
 edly ; the court would " most hartily rejoyce that all our 
 naighbours, soe quallifyed as in the proposition, would 
 adjoyne themselves to our societie;" but if dififering beliefs 
 made this impossible, they would not deny the liberty of 
 establishing other societies, where an able preaching min- 
 ister was supported and regular Sabbath worship estab- 
 lished ; but they inferred that where by reason of the paucity 
 and poverty ("pausette and pouertie") of the population 
 
 ^ Cases of disfranchisement both before and after 1659 are common 
 in the Plymouth records. The causes of disfranchisement were drunk- 
 enness, lewdness, accepting Quakerism or sympathizing with Quakers, 
 and opposing the government {Court Records, I, 132; III, 167, 176, 
 
 189). 
 
 ' Court Records, VI, 71. 
 ''Ibid., IV, 8s, 86. 
 *Ibid. 
 
348 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 two congregations could not be maintained, it was not in- 
 tended to root out the present organization. There are, the 
 court added, " other places to accommodate men of different 
 pswasions in societies by themselves." To the fourth pro- 
 posal the court expressed itself not conscious of any laws 
 derogatory to the king's dignity, but promised to repeal or 
 alter them if any should be found. 
 
 These answers and the general attitude of the court 
 pleased the commissioners, and they wrote in their nar- 
 rative, — 
 
 " They are here constrained to perswade men, sometimes to compell 
 them, to be free men, soe far are they from hindering any." " 
 
 Such a comment from those who were looking for irregu- 
 larities means more than it would from the colonists them- 
 selves. Plymouth possessed fewer natural advantages and 
 less wealth than did the neighboring colonies, and conse- 
 quently there were not the same inducements for settlers to 
 enter the colony. Thus she retained a greater economic 
 and religious homogeneity than Massachusetts or Connec- 
 ticut, and it is noteworthy that the records of Plymouth do 
 not show the restless activity of a disfranchised class which 
 is seen in Massachusetts and New Haven. Perhaps the 
 commissioners were right in their statement of the difficulty 
 of obtaining freemen. 
 
 But the test of such a statement would be found in the 
 actual number of freemen and their proportion to the whole 
 population. In 1634 it is probable that considerably more 
 than a majority of the adult male taxpayers were freemen.^ 
 By 1638 the whole number of freemen was one hundred 
 and twenty-three ; ^ and forty- four more were added within 
 the next five years.* In 1643, therefore, not allowing for 
 deaths, there were one hundred and sixty-seven freemen, at 
 
 'Hutchinson, Papers (Prince Society), II, 145. 
 
 ^ There were sixty-eight freemen in 1634 and only eighty-six male 
 taxables in the preceding year, but it is probable that the number of 
 males was greater than the number of taxables (Palfrey, I, 344). 
 
 " Court Records, I, 52. 
 
 * Ibid., 126-161 passim; II, 8-52 passim. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 349 
 
 a time when the males between the ages of sixteen and 
 sixty nimibered six hundred and forty.^ It accordingly 
 seems probable that the freemen at this time made up about 
 one-fourth of the adult male population. Yet sixteen years 
 later, upon a matter submitted to the freemen, only one 
 hundred and seventy-four freemen voted.^ In 1670 the 
 number of freemen had increased to three hundred and fifty- 
 nine * in a population estimated at five thousand.* This 
 would give one freeman to fourteen persons of the popula- 
 tion, and make the freeman class one-third or one-fourth 
 of the adult male population. Apparently, therefore, the 
 enfranchised class in Plymouth was slightly larger than in 
 Massachusetts, and somewhat smaller than in Connecticut ^ 
 at this time.® 
 
 III. The Northern Territories: New Hampshire and Maine. 
 
 Little need be said in this connection of the suffrage 
 in New Hampshire. The facts of interest during the inde- 
 pendent existence of the colony will be told in their proper 
 place, while under the rule of Massachusetts, her policies 
 dominated the New Hampshire towns. Some of the New 
 
 "^ Records, VIII, 187. 
 
 ^ Court Records, III, 174. 
 
 'Ibid., V, 274. 
 
 * Palfrey, III, 35- 
 
 " The writer cannot agree with Goodwin {Pilgrim Republic, 415) 
 that the proportion of freemen in Massachusetts was " a half greater" 
 than in Pljfmouth. 
 
 ° Plymouth, like her neighbors, developed a system of so-called proxy 
 voting, but the records are meagre in their descriptions of it, and 
 apparently it never possessed the features of a true proxy which are 
 to be found in early Rhode Island and Maryland. The "proxy" was 
 simply the written ballot of the freeman who did not desire to attend 
 personally the annual court of elections. The ballot was handed by 
 the freeman to the town deputy after the latter's election in the town 
 meeting, and by the deputy the actual ballot was taken, together with 
 a list of the names of those so voting, to the general court of elec- 
 tions. There the freemen present first gave their votes and then, in an 
 orderly fashion, the deputies presented the ballots of those who had 
 decided not to attend {Plymouth Records, Laws, 79-80, Court Orders, 
 II, 118). 
 
35° The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Hampshire settlements had, indeed, been founded by dis- 
 senters from Massachusetts, and at the time of incorpora- 
 tion with Massachusetts, those who had been formally ad- 
 mitted as inhabitants or " freemen" of the New Hampshire 
 towns were granted the Massachusetts franchise.^ But this 
 practice, apparently, did not continue after the union, and 
 the same rules were applied to applicants for the freemen- 
 ship from these towns as were imposed upon those in Mas- 
 sachusetts proper. 
 
 In Maine, on the other hand, there was a longer indepen- 
 dent existence before the union with Massachusetts, and a 
 greater variation from the prevailing New England idea of 
 freemanship. From the time of the unfortunate Popham 
 colony on the Kennebec in 1607 for almost thirty years 
 there was no regularly organized government in Maine, and 
 the scattered settlements under different grants were prac- 
 tically self-governing communities. The first government 
 worthy of the name was that established in 1636 by Wil- 
 liam Gorges, a nephew of the proprietor, at Saco.^ This 
 was followed four years later by a more formal organization 
 under the new charter granted by the king in 1639 to 
 Gorges. The charter gave to the proprietor wide palatine 
 powers similar to those granted to Lord Baltimore, and, as 
 in the case of the latter, the inhabitants of the colony were 
 to be joined with the proprietor in the making of laws. 
 The legislative power was to be exercised by the proprietor 
 " with the assent of the greater parte of the Freeholders of 
 the said Province and Premisses for the tyme being (when 
 there shal bee any) whoe are to bee called thereunto from 
 tyme to tyme." ^ In March, 1639-40, Gorges executed 
 papers for the establishment of government under the char- 
 ter by erecting a council of seven named persons, and eight 
 representatives of the freeholders elected from four coun- 
 ties.* The small village of Agamenticus (York) was first 
 erected into a borough, and then in 1642 was made a city 
 
 '■ Mass. Col. Rec, II, 29. 
 
 * Williamson, I, 281. The first meeting under Gorges's frame of 
 ^ Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I, 776. 
 
 * Williamson, I, 281. The first meeting under George's frame of 
 government appears to have been a pure democratic meeting {ibid.). 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 351 
 
 with a mayor, recorder, twelve aldermen and twenty-four 
 common councilmen, all annually elected by the citizens and 
 freeholders.^ 
 
 After the death of Gorges in 1647, some confusion arose 
 in the colony, and in July, 1649, a- popular convention, meet- 
 ing at Gorgeana (York), established a popular government 
 based upon a general compact : 
 
 " We, with our free and voluntary consent, do bind ourselves in a 
 body politic and combination, to see these parts of the Country and 
 Province regulated, according to such laws as have formerly been 
 exercised, and such others as shall be thought meet, but not repugnant 
 to the fundamental laws of our native Country." ^ 
 
 A governor and five or six councillors were to be elected 
 annually and the choice determined " by most voices." Ap- 
 parently, therefore, popular government existed among the 
 settlers of the Gorges tract for a number of years before 
 the union with Massachusetts. During this period, when 
 any qualifications for the suffrage were expressed, and such 
 was not often the case, the franchise was limited to free- 
 holders, except in the case of the city of Gorgeana, where 
 " citizens" could vote. 
 
 In addition to the Gorges colony there were a number of 
 other settlements in the Maine territory, but their scattered 
 inhabitants owed relationship to various proprietors, or to 
 the colony of Plymouth, and political association was of 
 the most rudimentary kind. Only among the settlers of the 
 Lygonia patent do popular meetings appear to have played 
 a definite part in the government.^ At best the forms of 
 government only were a little further developed in the 
 Gorges lands and the colony of Lygonia than in the weak 
 
 ^Palfrey, I, 527; Williamson, I, 287. Palfrey estimates that two- 
 thirds of the adult males must have been favored with places of 
 authority under this charter; and it was the foolishness of the pro- 
 prietor in bestowing such an organization upon a frontier village, 
 together with their heterodoxy in religion, which led to the exclusion 
 of the Gorges settlements from the confederacy of New England colo- 
 nists in 1643 (Winthrop, II, 100). 
 
 ° Williamson, I, 326. 
 
 'Ibid., 327, note. 
 
352 The Suffrage Frcmchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 settlements to the eastward of them ; the real administration 
 of government throughout all the country was crude and 
 uncertain. It is probable that many welcomed the claims of 
 Massachusetts as a means to a better regulation of society.^ 
 In 1651 the Massachusetts general court took steps to 
 assert the authority over the Maine settlements which it 
 claimed was its right under the charter of 1628-29; ^^^ 
 in the following year the nearest Maine settlements gave in 
 their submission. The agreement with the inhabitants of 
 Kittery Point included the following article relating to the 
 franchise : 
 
 " 7. That all the present inhabitants of Kittery shall be freemen of 
 the countrye, and, having taken the oath of freemen, shall have lib- 
 ertye to give theire votes for the election of the Gouerno^, Assistants, 
 and other generall officers of the countrye." ' 
 
 Similar terms were granted to Gorgeana (York), Wells, 
 Saco, Cape Porpus, and, in 1658, to Lygonia.* It will be 
 seen that the Massachusetts authorities by these articles 
 admitted the inhabitants to the freemanship without refer- 
 ring to the religious question, and, as many of the Maine 
 settlers were not Puritans, it was the wisest plan to adopt. 
 It is hardly likely that the inhabitants of the northeastern 
 settlements would so readily have submitted had their sub- 
 jection included a religious as well as a political dependence 
 upon Massachusetts. Yet there was no guarantee in the 
 articles that the lenient policy would be continued ; only the 
 "present" inhabitants were given these terms. For the 
 future the same religious restrictions governed the admission 
 of freemen from the North as from the rest of the colony. 
 The early liberalism may have led the inhabitants to think 
 they would receive similar treatment in the future; but 
 in 1670, when complaining of the lack of freemen, the in- 
 habitants of York County were advised by the general court 
 to obtain an orthodox minister as the best way to increase 
 
 ' Williamson, I, 333. 
 
 ' Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. I, 122 flf. 
 
 ^ Ibid., 128, 157 ff., 357 flF. Williamson estimates that 150 persons 
 took the freeman's oath in the first instance, and that they represented 
 a population of about 2100 (I, 356, note). 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 353 
 
 the number of freemen among them.^ No further conces- 
 sion was made to the New Hampshire and Maine settlers. 
 Until 1679, in New Hampshire, and during the entire 
 colonial period in Maine, the basis of representation and 
 the suffrage in the northern settlements was the legislation 
 of the colony of Massachusetts. 
 
 IV. Under the Charter of i6pi. 
 
 For three years after the revolution of 1689 in Boston 
 the government of Massachusetts was carried on without 
 express legal sanction upon the principles of the old char- 
 ter. We have already noted how the revolution resulted hi 
 an extension of the suffrage during this inter-charter period. 
 It now remains for us to note the granting of the new char- 
 ter and consider the suffrage provisions under its terms. 
 After the accession of William and Mary, Mather and other 
 agents worked to the utmost to obtain the restoration of the 
 old charter.^ But in this they failed, and the king would 
 consent to the granting of a charter only where a closer con- 
 nection should be maintained with England.^ 
 
 The charter of October 7, 1691,* established a new 
 corporation, stripped of the commercial characteristics of the 
 old company, and gave it the name of the " Province of the 
 Massachusetts Bay in New England." The new govern- 
 ment included the Bay colony, Plymouth, Maine, and the 
 scattered settlements from the Kennebec to Nova Scotia. 
 Its principal officers — governor, deputy-governor, and a 
 secretary — were to be appointed by the king; a council of 
 twenty-eight members was to be elected annually by the 
 assembly; and the representative assembly was to be com- 
 posed of two deputies elected " by the Major parte of the 
 Freeholders and other inhabitants of the respective Townes 
 or Places who shall be present at such Eleccons." 
 
 The religious qualifications for the suffrage were abol- 
 ished by the new charter, and at last the colony was given 
 
 '■Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 452- 
 ' Palfrey, IV, 61-70. 
 "Ibid., 71-75. 
 
 * Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I, 942-954. 
 
 23 
 
354 ^^ Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 a uniform property qualification. According to the terms 
 of the copy of the charter which Governor Phipps brought 
 to Boston on May 14, 1692, it was provided that 
 
 " noe Freeholder or other Person shall have a Vote in the Eleccon of 
 Members to serve in any Greate and Generall Court or Assembly to be 
 held as aforesaid who at the time of such Eleccon shall not have an 
 estate of Freehold in Land within Our said Province or Territory to 
 the value of Forty Shillings per Annu. at the least or other estate to 
 the value of Forty pounds Sterl'." ' 
 
 But this copy did not agree with that which passed the 
 great seal on October 7, 1691, which required the voter to 
 possess an income of forty shillings from freehold land or 
 other estate to the value of fifty pounds.^ The practice of 
 the colonial government was based upon their copy of the 
 charter, while the English government, throughout the colo- 
 nial period, attempted to enforce the fifty pounds provision 
 of the charter as enrolled in London.^ Aside, however, 
 from this controversy, the charter basis of the suffrage is 
 interesting because it gave the rational dual qualifications, — 
 those of real estate and of personal property. The anti- 
 quated forty-shilling freehold requisite, now two hundred 
 and fifty years old, was joined with the alternative of the 
 possession of forty or fifty pounds value of other property. 
 This was as great a compromise as seventeenth century 
 statesmen could admit to their favorite English doctrine of 
 the representation of real estate. Yet it was more favorable 
 than the requirements which the freemen of Rhode Island 
 placed upon applicants for the freemanship, or those im- 
 posed upon New Hampshire by the royal commissions and 
 instructions to her governors; and it was identical with 
 the qualifications in force in Connecticut after 1702. 
 
 Since the royal charter of 1691 continued as the frame 
 of government of the colony until the Revolution, its express 
 
 ' Poore, I, 949. 
 
 ' Ellis Ames in Mass. Hist. Sac. Proc, 1868, 370-375, has pointed out 
 the probable cause of the discrepancy, which he ascribes to a change 
 in the English copy just before passing the great seal, while the copy 
 made ready for Phipps was not changed in a corresponding manner. 
 
 ° J. F. Jameson, New England Magazine, Jan., 1890, 486. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 355 
 
 provisions for the suffrage furnish the sole legal basis of 
 the franchise during the eighteenth century. There are no 
 further changes in the formal qualifications of voters to be 
 noted, except a naturalization act of February, 1730-31, 
 which only indirectly affected the suffrage, through its ex- 
 clusion of foreign Catholics from the rights of citizenship.^ 
 We may, therefore, glance at some facts bearing upon the 
 size of the voting class in Massachusetts during the eigh- 
 teenth century. In the election of May, 1692, a few days 
 before Governor Phipps arrived with the new charter, only 
 about one thousand freemen took part in the election of 
 magistrates ; ^ which, accepting Palfrey's estimate of the 
 population at the time,^ would show only one voter to sixty 
 persons in the population. This extremely small proportion, 
 after the recent enlargement of the freemanship, can be ex- 
 plained only on the ground of a lack of popular interest in 
 the election, perhaps resulting from the belief that the ex- 
 isting government was only temporary and must soon give 
 place to the organization under the new charter.* Some 
 idea of the proportion of voters after the charter was estab- 
 lished can be gained from the records of the town of Boston. 
 In 1703 only two hundred and six persons" voted for the 
 representatives of Boston out of a population of about seven 
 thousand ; ® or one person in thirty-five. During the ten 
 years, 1 745-1 754, which may be taken as fairly normal elec- 
 tion years, the average population of Boston has been esti- 
 mated at 15,731 persons.'^ The records of the town show 
 
 ' Session Laws, 447. By this act " all Protestants of foreign Nations" 
 who had resided within the province for one year could be granted all 
 the privileges of natural-born subjects of the king of England. 
 
 'Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 3d Series, X, 120. The total number of 
 votes cast for twenty-one candidates was 16,197. If each freeman 
 voted for sixteen, — and that many are marked as elected, — the number 
 of voters would be about one thousand. 
 
 • New England, IV, 135. 
 
 'Governor Bradstreet, on May 4, 1692, had taken the oath of office 
 " for this year, or until there be a settlement of government from the 
 crown of England" (Palfrey, IV, 89). 
 
 ° Samuel Sewall, Diary, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Sth Series, VI, 79. 
 
 * Report Boston Record Commissioners, I, 4. 
 'Ibid. 
 
3S6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 exactly the number of voters in the annual elections for the 
 representatives to the general court during this period.^ The 
 greatest number of voters at any election was 723 in 1748; * 
 the least was 327 in 1752 ; and the average for the ten years 
 was 502, or a little more than three per cent, of the popula- 
 tion. In the years following down to the Revolution there 
 was practically no change in the population of Boston,^ and 
 little variation in the size of the voting class. The average 
 number of voters in the decade, 1755-1764, was 611,* or 
 very nearly four per cent, of the population; while in the 
 decade, 1 765-1 774, immediately preceding the Revolution, 
 the average number of voters had shrunk to SSS,"* or about 
 three and one-half per cent, of the population. The greatest 
 number of voters at any Boston election appears to have 
 been in 1763, when 1089 persons balloted,' or about six 
 and one-half per cent, of the population. It is interesting to 
 notice that the lack of contests led to a diminution in the 
 number of electors ; and in the years immediately preceding 
 the Revolution, when the popular representatives received 
 almost unanimous elections, the size of the voting class was 
 smaller than in earlier years when local questions had 
 aroused the interest of the people. '^ 
 
 It has been estimated that the potential voters, that is, all 
 those who possessed the right of suffrage, made up about 
 
 ^Report Record Com., XIV, 72-2$$ passim. 
 
 ' Ibid., 148. 
 
 'Ibid., I, 4. 
 
 ''Ibid., XIV, 255-305 passim; XVI, 10-113 passim. 
 
 " Ibid., 141-278 passim; XVIII, 21-166 passim. 
 
 'Ibid., XVI, 88. This election appears to have been overlooked by 
 Ernst, who gives the figure 723 as probably the greatest number of 
 voters (Const. Hist, of Boston, 47), a number surpassed on several 
 occasions; and by Hart, who names 916 as the number of voters in 
 "the most crowded town meeting ever held in Boston before the 
 Revolution" (Political Science Quarterly, VII, 322). 
 
 ' In 1771 the number of voters was 410, every one of whom voted 
 for Thomas Gushing and John Hancock, 403 for Samuel Adams, and 
 399 for James Otis (each elector voting for four persons). In 1773 
 and 1774 almost the same unanimity existed. On the other hand, the 
 election of 1772, contested somewhat, called out 723 voters (Report of 
 Record Com., XVIII, 53, 78, 129, 166). 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 357 
 
 sixteen per cent, of the population of Massachusetts at the 
 close of the colonial period and the beginning of the national 
 epoch.^ And accepting this figure, it appears that only one 
 out of four or five of the qualified voters actually exercised 
 his right. This indifference was only slightly lessened in the 
 votes upon constitutional questions in 1778-1780,^ and in 
 the ten years, 1 780-1 789 the actual voters numbered about 
 three per cent, of the population.* It was not until after the 
 adoption of the national constitution, and the introduction 
 of party ideas and machinery that the voting class was con- 
 siderably enlarged.* Just why the number of actual electors 
 was so much smaller proportionately in Massachusetts than 
 in New York or Virginia is not at once apparent. It is 
 probable, however, that the solidarity of sentiment in New 
 England did not develop that vigilance upon the part of the 
 elector which was a natural outcome of the jarring factions 
 of New York City; and the town meeting itself probably 
 became so effective a political machine that attendance was 
 ■ not esteemed important or interesting as it was upon the Vir- 
 ginia election day. Whatever the cause, the citizen of Mas- 
 sachusetts does not appear to take as great an interest — 
 measuring interest by the exercise of the suffrage fran- 
 chise — in his colonial elections as is shown in some of the 
 colonies outside of New England. 
 
 V. Local Suffrage. 
 
 A. Town Elections. 
 
 A general feature, if not indeed a universal one, in the 
 early town life, both in Plymouth and the Bay Colony, was 
 the common ownership of the town lands.^ There is some 
 
 *J. F. Jameson, New England Magazine, Jan., i8go, 486; G. D. 
 Luetscher, Early Political Machinery in the United States, 12. 
 
 'Jameson, op. cit., 487, 488. 
 
 *Ibid. 
 
 *For a careful and interesting study of the causes leading to the 
 growing participation in politics of the potential voters, see Luetscher, 
 Early Political Machinery. 
 
 ' Scarcely a topic of Massachusetts history has called forth so much 
 discussion as the question of the origin and early organization of the 
 
358 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 doubt about the relationship of the New England town to 
 the English parish ; it can be proved, perhaps, that the church 
 congregation was not the common unit of colonizing force ; 
 and the question of priority between towns and the general 
 government may not at present be determinable; but it is 
 clear that in almost all the New England towns there was an 
 economic partnership, which, by actual occupation, or pur- 
 chase from the Indians, or, most commonly, by grant from 
 the central colonial government, received a permanent basis 
 in the common ownership of a tract of land. The land 
 obtained in one of these ways was subsequently apportioned 
 in part or wholly to the original partners and to those who 
 had later been joined with them. The individuals forming 
 such a quasi corporation were the " commoners," and, origi- 
 nally, were the sole " inhabitants." To these original in- 
 habitants others were added by the vote of the town, who 
 might be admitted upon equal terms or only rent land and 
 houses, or being freeholders yet not obtain rights of com- 
 monage. Thus an early equality of rights gave place to an 
 economic and political diversity; and the term inhabitant 
 came to include not only the original commoners and their 
 successors, but also freeholders who had no rights of com- 
 monage, and householders who were only renters. 
 
 This term, " inhabitants," has given the Massachusetts 
 historians a great deal of trouble. Since the colonial records 
 did not frame a definition of it, recourse has been had to the 
 English meanings of the word; but the writers have been 
 unable even to agree upon this, and Coke has been quoted 
 against Coke.^ In Massachusetts the word possessed no 
 
 Massachusetts towns. The controversy has been complicated by the 
 meagreness of the records, the failure of contemporary writers to 
 define their terms, and the desire of recent writers to support personal 
 historical theories. The present writer does not profess to have the 
 fulness of information necessary to decide the questions in dispute, 
 nor is this work the proper place for such a discussion. All that can 
 be done here is to summarize the results of the local investigators 
 and test the facts of local suffrage in Massachusetts in the light of 
 the experience of other colonies. 
 
 ' Channing, /. H. U. Studies, II, 444 ; C. F. Adams, Mass. Hist. Soc. 
 Proc, 2d Series, VII, 178; Goodell, ibid., 213. The intricacies of the 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 359 
 
 fixed meaning. It cannot be held with Channing that an 
 inhabitant was universally a householder or one who 
 manured land in the town ; ^ nor is it possible here to make 
 the word synonymous with freeholder alone ; ^ upon occa- 
 sions the word received both a wider and a narrower inter- 
 pretation than the English uses. The general court in 1634 
 imposed an oath upon inhabitants,^ and by an order of April 
 I, required every " man of or above the age of twenty yeares, 
 who hath bene or shall hereafter be resident within this juris- 
 diccon by the space of sixe monethes, as an householder or 
 sojomer, and not infranchised," to swear that he was an 
 inhabitant of the colony, that he would acknowledge the 
 authority of the established government, and would respect 
 its laws. According to this rule, therefore, the inhabitants 
 included sojourners as well as householders.* On the other 
 hand, the town of Hampton, New Hampshire, in 1662, while 
 a part of the Massachusetts Bay colony, voted in town meet- 
 ing that " no man shall be judged an inhabitant in this town, 
 nor have power or liberty to act in town affairs, or have 
 privilege of commonage, either sweepage or feedage, but he 
 that hath one share of commonage, at least, according to the 
 first division, and land to build upon." ^ Other records show 
 various qualifications imposed upon town voters. Almost in- 
 variably the voter must previously have been accepted or 
 " settled" in the town by vote of the town meeting or select- 
 subject of inhabitancy cannot be fully appreciated until one has perused 
 the account given by Mildmay in The Method and Rule of Proceeding 
 upon all Elections . . . within the City of London [1743], and the 
 extensive notes by H. K. S. Causton in his edition of Mildmay (1841), 
 pp. xxxvi, S3 ff. note, 92 ff. note. See also the ambiguous language of 
 the act of Parliament, 26, Geo. Ill, ch. 100. 
 
 ^Op. cit. 
 
 'Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 2d Series, VII, 203. Chamberlain believes 
 that the inhabitants " included all male adults who, either by general 
 laws or town regulations, were permitted permanently to reside within 
 the town limits, irrespective of their ownership of lands" {ibid., VII, 
 241). 
 
 'Mass. Col. Rec, I, 115. 
 
 * It should be stated, however, that the later custom called this the 
 ■■ resident's" oath. 
 
 " New Hampshire Provincial Papers, I, 153. 
 
360 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 men.^ In Haverhill he must also obtain the town's consent 
 to his voting in town meeting,^ unless he possessed the quali- 
 fications imposed by the general colonial ordinance ; ^ while 
 in Watertown he could be accounted a " townsman" or 
 voting inhabitant if he had received a share in the land divi- 
 dends or was admitted with the consent of the town.* On 
 the other hand a person who had " sojourned in other mens 
 houses" for two years in Charlestown was spoken of as an 
 " inhabitant," and was expressly permitted by the general 
 court to purchase land in the town.** 
 
 It can readily be understood that such variations in local 
 custom, linked with the different names applied to the voters 
 in town meetings, — as inhabitants, freeholders, freemen or 
 townsmen, — would lead to difficulties in making generaliza- 
 tions respecting the suffrage in towns. We shall be near the 
 truth if we think of the suffrage in these Massachusetts towns 
 as exercised by the householders who were also heads of 
 families.® There may have been some voters, who, by local 
 consent or by the general laws, did not fall within the class 
 of householders, but their numbers must have been few and 
 their influence slight.'^ The ancient English meaning of the 
 
 ^Dorchester Records, in Boston Rec. Com. Rept., IV, 8; Bond, 
 History of Watertown, II, 998; Coffin, Newbury, 23; Chase, Haver- 
 hill, 89. A most interesting statement of the principles of the early 
 land grants is to be found in the order of Watertown (Bond, II, 996), 
 that " Those ffreemen of the Congregation shall build and dwell upon 
 their Lotts at ye Towne Plott, and not to alienate them by selling or 
 Exchanging them to any forrainer, but to ffreemen of the congrega- 
 tion, it being our real intent to sitt down here close togither, and 
 therefore, these Lotts were granted to those ffreemen yt inhabited 
 most remote from ye meeting-house, and dwell most scattered." 
 
 * Chase, Haverhill, 89. 
 
 ' See post. 
 
 ' Bond, Watertown, II, 998. 
 
 ' Corey, History of Maiden, 81 (1640). 
 
 ' This opinion is based not upon any express stipulation found in the 
 town records or the laws, but upon the general sense and spirit of the 
 town regulations. 
 
 ' C. F. Adams has pointed out that under Article XII. of the Body 
 of Liberties of 1641 all the men (not servants) of the colony had the 
 right to attend any public meetings or courts, and there in an orderly 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 361 
 
 word inhabitant, as equivalent to householder,^ was the 
 common, although perhaps not universal, acceptation of the 
 word in Massachusetts. 
 
 But while the towns had considerable volition in fixing the 
 local suffrage, the central government did not hesitate to 
 legislate upon the subject. Mention has already been made 
 of the provisions of the Plymouth laws upon the subject, and 
 it remains now only to summarize the legislation of the Bay 
 Colony. About four years after the restriction of the free- 
 manship to church-members, a policy of almost equal severity 
 was adopted with reference to the local sufifrage. In Sep- 
 tember, 1635, the general court ordered 
 
 " that none but ffreemen shall have any vote in any towne, in any 
 accon of aucthoritie, or necessity, or that which belongs to them by 
 vertue of their ffreedome, as receaveing inhabitants, & layeing out of 
 lotts, etc." ' 
 
 By this law and future legislation the freemen were given 
 entire control of town affairs. They had the power to dis- 
 pose of town lands; to make ordinances and enforce them 
 by fines; and to elect their town officers.^ Later they ob- 
 tained the power of fixing the price of labor in the towns,* 
 and of taxing all inhabitants.^ For twelve years the free- 
 men retained these exclusive privileges, but in 1647 some 
 political rights were restored to the town inhabitants. The 
 general court " taking into considration ye usefuU pts & 
 
 way to make propositions; and that the viva voce voting in the town 
 meeting would give considerable opportunity for such persons to take 
 part in the town affairs {Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 2d Series, VII, 206). 
 On the other hand, it should be remembered that voting by "papers" 
 was early introduced into some of the town elections. It is found in 
 1659 in Dorchester {Boston Rec. Com. Rept., IV, 99) ; before 1637 in 
 Newbury (Coffin, Newbury, ig) ; by 1682 in Haverhill (Chase, Haver- 
 hill, 137) ; and in the Plymouth Colony towns in 1643-4 {Records, 
 Laws, 42). 
 
 'H. Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections (London, 1868), 178, 179. 
 
 ' Mass. Col. Rec, I, 161. 
 
 'Ibid., 172 
 
 'Ibid., 183. 
 
 "Ibid., 231. 
 
362 The SufFrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 abilities of div^s inhabitants amongst us, w^h are not free- 
 men, wch, if imp'ved to publike use, ye affaires of this Comon 
 wealth may be ye easier carried [to] an end," impowered the 
 freemen of the respective towns to choose any non-free in- 
 habitants, having taken the oath of fidelity and being over 
 twenty-four years of age, to be jurors and voters in the 
 town meetings, provided they had not been detected or con- 
 victed of evil carriage against the government or churches.^ 
 In 1658 the qualifications of such non-free voters were 
 stated more definitely and at the same time made more rigid. 
 Thereafter town voters were 
 
 " all Englishmen, that are settled Inhabitants and householders in any 
 town, of the age of twenty-four years, and of honest & good Conver- 
 sations, being Rated at twenty pounds estate in a single Country Rate, 
 and that have taken the Oath of Fidelity to this Government, and no 
 other (except freemen) may be Chosen Select men. Jurors, or Con- 
 stables, and have their vote, in the Choice of Select men, ... as also 
 where no Select men are, to have their vote in ordering schooles, 
 bearding of cattle, laying out highwayes, and distributing Lands." ^ 
 
 The lines were drawn still more closely in 1670, when the 
 property qualification of non-freeman voters was raised to 
 eighty pounds taxable estate, but those at the time possessing 
 the right to vote were not to be deprived of it.^ Finally, in 
 March, 1680-81 it was provided that any of the inhabitants 
 of a town, although not possessing the right to vote, could be 
 chosen by the qualified electors to fill any of the town offices ; 
 and after election and officiation in the position, such in- 
 habitants for ever afterwards should have free liberty to 
 vote or to be chosen into any town office.* 
 
 After the receipt of the charter of 169 1 it became necessary 
 
 '^ Mass. Col. Rec, II, 197. Any one convicted as above could vote 
 again if the court sentencing him saw fit to restore him to his former 
 liberty. The majority of the selectmen must be freemen. 
 
 ^Ibid., IV, Pt. I, 336; Code of 1660, 76. The proviso was still 
 retained that a majority of the selectmen must be freemen. 
 
 " Code of 1672, 147, 148. 
 
 * Mass. Col. Rec, V, 306. This has been wrongly interpreted as 
 doing away altogether with the property qualification for non-free 
 town voters (Ernst, Const. Hist, of Boston, 22). 
 
The Suifrage in Massachusetts. 363 
 
 to set a new qualification for the local suffrage. In the fall 
 of 1692 a law was passed which gave the local franchise to 
 '' freeholders and other Inhabitants of each Town Ratable 
 at Twenty Pounds Estate, to one single Rate besides the 
 Poll." ^ In 1700 it was enacted that no person, coming to 
 reside in a town, although otherwise qualified, should be al- 
 lowed to participate in town elections until he had applied to 
 the selectmen of the town for admission as an inhabitant, and 
 had been accepted by the town authorities;^ and in 1722, 
 when a question had arisen whether the twenty pounds quali- 
 fication applied to freeholders as well as other inhabitants, 
 the general court ordered that the fixed property qualification 
 be required of all town voters.* After this date there was 
 no change in the local suffrage qualification, although a num- 
 ber of administrative features were introduced; at twenty 
 pounds taxable property the qualification remained during 
 the entire provincial period. 
 
 B. Church Elections. 
 According to the theory of church organization adopted by 
 the Puritans the members of the church possessed the right 
 to choose their own ecclesiastical officers. But this wide 
 liberty early brought too great a diversity of opinions and 
 doctrines among the clergy, and led to the limitation, both 
 in Plymouth and Massachusetts, of the choice of the church 
 to " approved" ministers,* that is, those acceptable to the 
 ruling religious classes. The inevitable evils of association 
 of town and church called forth the following enactment in 
 Massachusetts, which gives the ideal of ecclesiastical elec- 
 tions in the colony : — 
 
 * October 12, 1692, Session Laws, 37. 
 
 ""May 29, 1700, Session Laws, 203, 204. "No person whatsoever 
 coming to reside or dwell within any Town in this Province, (other 
 than Freeholders or Proprietors of Land in such Town, or those bom, 
 or that have served an Apprenticeship there, and have not removed 
 and become Inhabitants elsewhere) shall be admitted to the privilege 
 of Election in such Town (though otherwise qualified)," unless he shall 
 apply for and obtain the approbation of the selectmen. 
 
 " May 30, 1722, Session Laws, 367. 
 
 ' Plymouth Records, Laws, 67. 
 
364 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 " Every Church hath free Hberty of Calling, Election and Ordination 
 of all her Officers, from time to time, provided they be able, pious, and 
 Orthodox: For the better explanation of the said Law, and as an 
 addition thereunto, this Court doth Order and Declare, and be it 
 hereby Ordered and Enacted, that by the Church, is to be meant, such 
 as are in full Communion only; . . . and that no Inhabitant in any 
 Town shall challenge a right unto or act in the Calling or Election of 
 such Officer or Minister, until he be in full communion, upon the 
 penalty of being accounted a disturber of peace and order." ' 
 
 Under the charter of 1691 a change was made in the 
 method of choosing the minister. This may have been due 
 to an appreciation of the inconsistency in permitting a choice 
 by the church-members only, and the collection of church- 
 rates from all the town inhabitants. The new act of 1692 
 provided that orthodox ministers could be chosen in each 
 town by the " major part of the Inhabitants" in town-meet- 
 ing, and that all the town should be obliged to pay towards 
 his support.^ Not six months later this election by town 
 meeting was changed to a choice by the " major part of such 
 Inhabitants as do there usually attend on the Publick Wor- 
 ship of God, and are by Law duly qualified for Voting in 
 Town Affairs." * In 1695 another change was made.* The 
 minister was first to be chosen by the church, and then sub- 
 mitted to the qualified inhabitants of the town ; ^ and in 
 case of disapprobation by the town, a council from the 
 neighboring churches could decide finally. 
 
 The injustice of excluding any of the qualified taxpayers 
 from a voice in the choice of minister was thus avoided. On 
 the other hand, early in the eighteenth century, certain dis- 
 senting sects were released from taxation for the established 
 ministers upon condition that they would support and regu- 
 larly attend public worship according to their own beliefs. 
 To allow these persons to participate in the town elections of 
 ministers would be equally unfair ; and in 1728 an act which 
 
 ^ Code of 1672, 46. 
 ^ Session Laws, 35. 
 
 " February 8, 1692-93, Reprint of 1699, 39, 40. 
 ' May 29, 169s, ibid., 81. 
 
 " Members of the church might, of course, vote in the church election 
 and in the town election. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 365 
 
 exempted them from paying church taxes, also debarred 
 them from voting in the towns upon any church matters.* 
 
 C. Militia Elections. 
 
 The Puritan colonies, with the exception of New Haven,^ 
 granted wider privileges in the choice of militia officers than 
 in any other form of popular elections. Almost universally 
 the choice of these officers was left to all the soldiers of the 
 company or regiment. Thus Massachusetts in 1636 provided 
 that a colonel and lieutenant-colonel should be chosen by 
 the " men" of each regiment and submitted to the general 
 court for approval ; while the officers lower in rank were to 
 be nominated by the respective towns, and the council was 
 directed to select the incumbent from the names submitted 
 to them.* The elective process is made more definite by an 
 order of March 9, 1636-7, which provided that 
 
 " All persons of any trayned band, both freemen & others, who have 
 taken the oath of residents, or shall take the same, & being no cove- 
 nant servant in household wtt any other, shall have their votes in 
 nomination of those p'sons who are to bee appointed captaines, or other 
 inferior officers of the same band, p'vided they nominate none but 
 such as shalbe freemen; for it is the intent & order of the Court that 
 no person shall henceforth bee chosen to any office in the comon- 
 wealth but such as is a freeman." * 
 
 It was provided in 1647 that all freemen whether exempt 
 from militia service or not, should have a vote in the choice 
 
 ' May 29, 1728, Session Laws, 405. 
 
 ^ See post. 
 
 'Mass. Col. Rec, I, 187. 
 
 ''Ibid., 188. This liberal suffrage was not extended to the choice of 
 sergeant-major-general, who, in 1643, was to be chosen by the body 
 of freemen at the annual court of elections, nor to the election of the 
 sergeant-majors in the shires. In the latter case the deputies were to 
 nominate to their towns suitable freemen for the position, and the 
 freemen of the towns were to vote by ballot for these nominees or for 
 any other freemen {ibid., II, 49, 50). Two years later the sergeant- 
 majors could be chosen not only by freemen, but by " all yt have 
 taken ye oath of fidelity, or shall take it before ye election (except 
 servants or unsetled p'sons)" {ibid., 117). 
 
366 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 of military officers.^ After 1656, a similar privilege was ex- 
 tended to householders ; and the militia suffrage until abol- 
 ished by the general court was extended to every freeman, 
 householder, and listed soldier who had taken the oath of 
 fidelity.2 
 
 There was some doubt, however, as to the right of the 
 general court to delegate the choice of militia officers to the 
 voters; and in 1669 "the Court considering the direction" 
 of the patent, ordered that all commissioned officers except 
 the major-general and " Admiral by Sea," should be chosen 
 by the general court ; and the inferior officers appointed by 
 the commissioned officers.* In this way popular elections for 
 militia officers were discontinued, although at a later date the 
 committee upon militia in each town was authorized to pre- 
 sent to the general court the names of two or three proper 
 persons for each office. Formal militia elections ceased in 
 1669, not to be resumed for over a hundred years. 
 
 In Plymouth military officers above the grade of ser- 
 geant were to be chosen by the towns in a plural number and 
 selections made by the general court; the inferior officers 
 were to be appointed by the higher officers with the " consent 
 of the Body" (of the soldiers?).* In practice even the 
 higher officers appear to have been chosen by the train 
 bands ;^ but not until 1667 was the following order con- 
 cerning these elections passed : " In reference to milletary 
 concernments It is enacted by the Court that noe single 
 p'sons vnder twenty yeares of age either children or servants 
 shall voate as to that accompt or any that are not settled 
 Inhabitants of that place and have taken the oath of fideli- 
 tie." * This continued the basis of such elections until the 
 province charter of 1691 gave the appointment of military 
 officers to the governor and council. 
 
 ^ Mass. Col. Rec, I, 191, 222. 
 
 ' Code of 1660, 56. 
 
 'Mass. Col. Rec, IV, Pt. II, 422; Code of 1672, 116. 
 
 * Plymouth Records, Laws, 39. 
 
 ° Court Records, III, 89. 
 
 'Plymouth Records, Laws, 219. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachusetts. 367 
 
 D. Voting concerning Land Matters. 
 
 It has been noted already that the Massachusetts town life 
 had its origin at about the same time as the common owner- 
 ship of lands; in some cases the land ownership antedated 
 town organization, but almost universally the political and 
 economic community developed together. At first the com- 
 moners probably constituted the entire body politic of the 
 town; and, until such time as the non-commoners acquired 
 an undue influence over land matters, the subject of the com- 
 mon lands was discussed in open town meeting.^ Early or 
 late, however, the distinction between the civil and the 
 property rights of the inhabitants was established. The 
 separation of the commoners from the non-commoners in 
 the settling of land matters did not come at any one time 
 throughout the colony; but each town worked out its own 
 solution of the problem. It might come almost at the be- 
 ginning of town life, or it might be deferred for several 
 generations after the founding of the town; it might be 
 accompanied with compromise grants of land to non-com- 
 moners, or it might leave the latter altogether beyond the 
 pale of participation in the common lands.^ Thus in Water- 
 town as early as 1635 the rights of commonage were re- 
 stricted to those already possessing that right or purchasing 
 it from a former holder;^ in 1651 an agreement was made 
 between Charlestown and the settlers of Maiden that the 
 rights of commonage in the latter place should be limited 
 to the existing number of dwelling-houses;* in Dorchester 
 in 1642 a question of land cultivation in " the necke of 
 Land" was settled by a vote of the original lot-holders in 
 the " neck," and where a man had purchased more than one 
 lot he was entitled to a proportionate voice in the manage- 
 ment of the commons.® On the other hand, in Haverhill 
 the town legislated upon land matters for fifty years after 
 
 ' Egleston, /. H. U. Stud., IV, 581, 582. 
 
 '/6irf., 585, S86. 
 
 ° Bond, Watertown, II, ggS- 
 
 ' Corey, Maiden, no. 
 
 " Rept. Boston Rec. Com., IV, 49, 99. 
 
368 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 the settlement/ and frequent contests took place between 
 the proprietors and the non-commoners. 
 
 TTie general court early passed orders regulating the care 
 of common lands. Thus, in 1643, it placed the direction of 
 common fields, that were fenced and used for the raising of 
 grain, in the control of " those who have the greaf quantity 
 in such feilds;"^ and after a short interval in which the 
 decision of these matters was left to the selectmen or free- 
 men of the towns,* this principle of voting in proportion to 
 the share held, was re-affirmed.* By later orders of the 
 court the number of voters upon matters relating to the 
 town commons was limited to the original proprietors or 
 their successors and such as had received grants from the 
 town or had purchased another person's share.^ In 
 Plymouth, on the other hand, not until 1682 were meet- 
 ings of land proprietors distinct from the towns legally 
 authorized.® 
 
 But no uniform method of voting upon such matters ap- 
 pears to have been adopted before 1692. The Plymouth 
 order of 1682 appears to have provided for a majority vote 
 according to the number of proprietors,'^ and within the 
 Massachusetts towns also it was sometimes the individual, 
 not the amount of his interest, which determined the vote.* 
 But as time went on the property interest became stronger; 
 the town meetings and the non-commoners lost their share 
 in the control of land affairs, and at last these matters came 
 to be settled in distinct meetings of the proprietors, where 
 each man was entitled to an influence proportionate to the 
 amount of his interest in the lands. The transition from 
 the individual to the property basis is shown in a law of 
 1692 which provided for voting in proprietors' meetings 
 according to each man's interest, where such interest had 
 
 ^ Chase, Haverhill, 204, 215, 251 ff. 
 'Mass. Col. Rec, II, 39; 10 May, 1643. 
 
 * Ibid., 49; 17 Oct., 1643. 
 
 * Ibid., 19s; 26 May, 1647. 
 
 •/6irf., IV, Pt. 1,274,27s, 417. 
 
 ' Plymouth Records, Laws, 257. 
 
 'Ibid. 
 
 ' Corey, Maiden, 368, 376; Coffin, Newbury, 140, 144. 
 
The Suffrage in Massachiisetts. 369 
 
 been determined; and for voting as individuals where no 
 such determination had been reached.^ 
 
 Thus the cycle of change was completed; the control of 
 the land, originally obtained by a group of partners, was 
 returned to them or to their lawful successors. The con- 
 fusion of economic and political interests in the early activity 
 of the towns gave way to a distinct separation of the two 
 phases of town life; and even the equal sharing of all pro- 
 prietors was displaced by an influence graded according to 
 wealth. The participation of all the inhabitants in the use, 
 control and ownership of land — that economic democracy 
 so common in the colonies — ^was giving way to the laissez 
 faire doctrine of private ownership of land. The communal 
 lands were divided into shares, distributed to the proprietors, 
 or to the freeholders, or, in a few cases, to all the inhabi- 
 tants; and the village community based upon land ceased 
 to exist. The town abdicated to its citizens the control of 
 the commons. 
 
 '■ Session Laws, 1692, 38. 
 
 24 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 The Suffrage in New Hampshire. 
 
 New Hampshire's earliest political organization had its 
 origin, as was so frequently the case in New England, in 
 the voluntary association of actual settlers. English patents 
 and non-resident proprietors played only a meagre part in 
 the early government of the colony. Of the four principal 
 settlements, one, Hampton, was from the first considered 
 part of Massachusetts and was settled in order to hold the 
 northern territory ; ^ the other three, Dover, Exeter, and 
 Strawberry Bank (Portsmouth), were self-originative politi- 
 cal entities. Exeter was settled by Wheelwright and his 
 fellow-Antinomians from Massachusetts, and on July 4, 
 1639, they adopted the following interesting basis of govern- 
 ment: 
 
 " Whereas it has pleased the lord to move the heart of our Dread 
 Soveraigne Charles, by the grace of god King of England, Scotland 
 France & Ireland, to grant license & liberty to sundry of his subjects 
 to plant them selves in the Westerne partes of America; Wee his 
 loyall subjects, brethren of the church of Exceter, situate & lying upon 
 the river of Piscataquacke wth other inhabitants there considering 
 virth our selves the holy will of god and our owne necessity that we 
 should not live wtii out wholsome lawes & civil government amongst 
 us, of wii we are altogether destitute, doe in the name of Christ & in 
 the sight of god combine our selves together, to erect & set up 
 amongst us such government as shall be to our best discerning, agree- 
 able to the will of god, professing our selves subjects to our Sov- 
 eraigne Lord King Charles according to the libertys of our English 
 Colony of Massachusetts & binding our selves solemnly by the grace 
 & helpe of Christ & in his name & feare to submit our selves to such 
 godly & christian laws as are established in the Realme of England 
 to our best knowledge, & to all other such lawes w^ shall upon good 
 grounds be made & inacted amongst us according to god yt we may 
 live quietly & peaceablely together in all godlyness and honesty." ^ 
 
 'J. Dow, History of the Town of Hampton, 6-9. 
 'July 4, 1639; C. H. Bell, History of the Town of Exeter, 15; New 
 Hampshire Provincial Laws, I, 744. 
 
 370 
 
The Suffrage in New Hampshire. 2)7^ 
 
 The inhabitants near Dover, under the Hilton patent, also' 
 found themselves without an adequate organization, and,, 
 in 1640, adopted a frame similar in its political features tO' 
 that of Exeter, but lacking the frequent allusions to the 
 Deity which the Exeter document contained. 
 
 "Whereas sundry mischiefs and inconveniences have befallen us, 
 and more and greater may, in regard of virant of civil government, his 
 most gracious Majesty having settled no order for us to our knowl- 
 edge: We, whose names are unwritten, being inhabitants upon the 
 river Piscataqua, having voluntarily agreed to combine ourselves into 
 a body politic, that we may the more comfortably enjoy the benefit 
 of his Majesty's laws, together with all such laws as shall be con- 
 cluded by a major part of the freemen of our Society, in case they be 
 not repugnant to the laws of England, and administered in behalf of 
 his majesty. And this we have mutually promised and engaged to 
 do, and so continue till his excellent Majesty shall give other orders 
 concerning us. . . " ' 
 
 In a similar manner the settlers at Strawberry Bank (or 
 Portsmouth) appear to have formed an organization, — 
 although the text of the agreement has not been pre- 
 served, — and elected a governor and two assistants.^ At 
 the same time they chose an Episcopal minister, made a 
 grant of land for glebe purposes, and appointed two church- 
 wardens.* 
 
 These agreements and the simple rules exacted under 
 them contain nearly all the political activity which New 
 Hampshire produced before the union with Massachusetts ; 
 and these associations, it is interesting to note, were not 
 entered upon until a number of years after the first settle- 
 ment in 1623. It is remarkable also, that these documents, 
 so far as preserved, do not ignore the English king and 
 government as was done in several cases in New Haven 
 and Rhode Island, but explicitly affirm the allegiance due 
 to the monarch. No general government was erected by 
 these local agreements, as was the case in Connecticut; the 
 
 * Oct. 22, 1640 ; New Hampshire Provincial Papers^ I, 126 ; N. H. 
 Laws, I, 746. 
 ' N. Adams, Annals of Portsmouth, 26, 27 ; N. H. Laws, I, 744. 
 ' Adams, Portsmouth, 27. 
 
372 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 inhabitants might be called freemen of the distinct towns, 
 but not of a larger political entity. 
 
 In Dover and Portsmouth the inhabitants were not con- 
 tent with their indigenous governments, which do not ap- 
 pear to have been well administered; ^ and as early as 1639 
 they made overtures to Massachusetts for a union with 
 that colony. Legal, ecclesiastical, and even forcible con- 
 tests occurred in the New Hampshire towns ; ^ and, tired at 
 last of their own disorder, Dover and Portsmouth, in June, 
 1 64 1, accepted the terms of Massachusetts for admission 
 into the Bay colony.^ The settlers were to be accounted 
 inhabitants of Massachusetts; local courts were established 
 for the towns; the inhabitants were exempted from any 
 public charges except for purposes directly affecting them- 
 selves ; and " also the inhabitants there are alowed to send 
 two deputies from the whole ryver to the Court at Boston." * 
 
 At first the Massachusetts authorities would have ex- 
 tended their principle of religious restrictions upon the suf- 
 frage to the new territory, and in May, 1642, it was pro- 
 vided " that it shalbee in the power of any Co^t there to 
 admit & sweare freemen, so they bee qualified according to 
 law." ^ But such a policy would have been almost a pro- 
 hibitive one, and in the fall of the same year a more liberal 
 rule was adopted according to which 
 
 ■" all the p'sent inhabitants of Pascataq [= Dover and Portsmouth] 
 who formerly were free there shall have liberty of freemen in their 
 severall townes to manage all their towne affairs, & shall each towne 
 send a deputy to the Gen^all Court, though they bee not at p'sent 
 church members.'" 
 
 A year later, Exeter also was admitted as a Massachusetts 
 town,'^ the excommunicate Wheelwright going in exile into 
 the Maine territory.* 
 
 ■ J. Belknap, History of New Hampshire, I, 54. 
 
 ^ Palfrey, New England, I, 587-592. 
 
 " Mass. Col. Rec, I, 324, 332. 
 
 ■* Ibid., 342. 
 
 'Ibid., II, 5. 
 
 °Ibid., 29. 
 
 ' Ibid., 37, 38, 43- 
 
 ' Palfrey, I, 593. 
 
The Suffrage in New Hampshire. 373 
 
 For almost forty years the New Hampshire settlements 
 remained under Massachusetts jurisdiction, during which 
 time the laws of the latter colony were enforced in the 
 northern towns. No further concessions in the matter of 
 the suffrage appear to have been granted ; and the qualifica- 
 tions of the voters in Massachusetts were required of voters 
 in the New Hampshire towns, except in the case of those 
 who were not church-members at the time of the union.^ 
 
 In 1677, partly through the instrumentality of Edward 
 Randolph, a decision was obtained from the English chief 
 justices to the effect that the New Hampshire towns were 
 outside the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and also that 
 Mason had no political rights in the settlement.^ This de- 
 cision left it to the Crown of England to give a proper 
 form of government to the colony. Accordingly, in Sep- 
 tember, 1679, a commission was executed for a president 
 and six named councillors; and these officers were given 
 the privilege of adopting " such rules and methods ( as to 
 the persons who are to chuse their Deputies and ye time and 
 place of meeting) as they shall judge most conveinent." * 
 In exercising this power President Cutt and his council 
 adopted a novel and by no means popular method of deter- 
 mining the voters in the four towns. After obtaining from 
 the town selectmen a list of the names and estates of the 
 inhabitants, the president and council proceeded to select by 
 name from the lists those persons who should be privileged 
 to vote in the first election for assemblymen.* No general 
 qualifications for voters were stated, but the simple will of 
 the governing board gave the right of the suffrage to one 
 man and withheld it from another. The proportion of 
 voters, 209 out of a population of about four thousand,^ was 
 not in itself so low as to cause dissatisfaction, but the arbi- 
 trary method of selecting the voters, and the evident dis- 
 
 ^ See ante under Maine. 
 
 ' Belknap, New Hampshire, I, 164-169. 
 
 " N. H. Provincial Papers, I, 373 ; N. H. Laws, I, 6. 
 
 'N. H. Laws, I, ii-iS note, 779. Seventy-one persons were named 
 as voters in Portsmouth, 57 in Hampton, 20 in Exeter, and 61 in 
 Dover; or 209 in all. 
 
 ° Ibid., lix, 776. 
 
374 T^he Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 crimination both against persons ^ and places ^ was sufficient 
 to make the plan of the president and council highly un- 
 popular. 
 
 An assembly chosen in this way, " in effect chosen by the 
 Councell," ^ proceeded to pass a number of laws which go 
 under the name of Cutt's Code. Among these is one relating 
 to the subject of suffrage, which continued the Massachu- 
 setts idea of freemanship, and also adopted a qualification 
 for freemen somewhat similar to the Massachusetts quali- 
 fication of town voters. The law reads : 
 
 " Freemen. 
 
 " 8. It is ordered by this Assembly and the authority thereof, y* 
 all Englishmen, being Protestants, yt are settled Inhabitants and free- 
 holders in any towne of this Province, of ye age of 24 years, not 
 viceous in life but of honest and good conversation, and such as have 
 20 /. Rateable estate wt^out heads of persons having also taken the 
 oath of allegiance to his Majs, and no others shall be admitted to ye 
 liberty of being freemen of this Province, and to give their votes for 
 the choice of Deputies for the General Assembly, Constables, Select- 
 men, Jurors and other officers and concernes in ye townes where they 
 dwell." . * 
 
 In one respect, in that it limited the suffrage to freeholders 
 the New Hampshire act was more restrictive than the Massa- 
 chusetts local suffrage law of 1658. It appears to differ also 
 by the insertion of the word Protestant, but this is not a real 
 difference, for it is altogether unlikely that Catholics were 
 permitted to vote in Massachusetts. The law was enforced 
 but a short time, as it was repealed, together with all the 
 other legislation of the Cutt's Code by the English king.^ 
 
 Governor Cranfield, whose commission was dated May 9, 
 1682,® was given no volition in the selection of voters, but 
 
 ' N. H. Laws, I, 779. 
 
 ^ " In Townes of above Two hundred houses not above Twenty per- 
 sons permitted to vote," — evidently referring to Exeter, as this was 
 the only town which had so small a number (Randolph Papers, Prince 
 Soc. ed., Ill, 106, 107). 
 
 ' N. H. Prov. Papers, I, 396 ; Laws, I, 25, 26. 
 
 * Ihid. 
 
 " N. H. Laws, I, 45. 
 
 " JV. H. Prov. Papers, I, 433^443 ; Laws, I, 48-56. 
 
The Suffrage in New Hampshire. 375 
 
 was directed to hold general assemblies composed of depu- 
 ties " duely elected by the Major parte of the ffree holders;" 
 and from his writs we learn that he imposed no further 
 qualification than that of freeholdership.^ In the code which 
 bears the governor's name, little was added to the general 
 clause of the governor's commission. Thereafter, jurors, 
 assemblymen and trustees or overseers of the towns were to 
 be elected by " all persons, settled inhabitants & freeholders 
 in any Town of this Province of Twenty one years, and 
 no other." ^ No attempt was made to specify the size or 
 value of the freehold until after the rule of Dudley and 
 Andros over the Dominion of New England. 
 
 The overthrow of Andros left the New Hampshire towns 
 without any general government; and to make some pro- 
 vision for their local political needs, delegates from the 
 four towns met in January, 1689-90 and adopted a form 
 of self-government. The steps in the case of New Hamp- 
 shire differed from the acts of revolution in the other New 
 England colonies, where the officers under the earlier char- 
 ters were reinstated after the overthrow of Andros; but 
 it was similar to the course of events in New York and 
 Maryland. According to the New Hampshire frame, the 
 officers were to be a president, secretary, treasurer, a council 
 of ten apportioned roughly according to the importance of 
 the towns, and an assembly of not more than three persons 
 from each town. All these officers were to be elected " by 
 the mager vot of the Inhabetants" of the towns.* But this 
 union, like the earlier forms of government in the towns, 
 was not sufficiently strong to stand against the foreign and 
 internal foes of the community; and again an appeal was 
 made for union with Massachusetts.* The latter colony 
 accepted the offer, and for two more years the colonies were 
 united. All through the history of New Hampshire, the 
 opposition to the union with Massachusetts arose mainly 
 in England or from the representatives of the English gov- 
 ernment or of English proprietors. The bulk of the settlers 
 
 ' See election writ in N. H. Prov. Papers, I, 502 ; Laws, I, 78. 
 
 'Laws, I, 63. 
 
 ^N. H. Laws, I, 260, 853, 854. 
 
 *Ibid.; N. H. Prov. Papers, II, 30-46. 
 
376 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 appear satisfied with the Massachusetts form of government. 
 The petition of February, 1689-90, for the union was signed 
 by three hundred and seventy-two persons,^ who must have 
 included the greater part of the freeholders of the four 
 towns. 
 
 In 1692 the government was resumed by the Crown, and 
 again in his commission the royal governor was directed to 
 assemble the deputies of the freeholders ; ^ indeed, he was 
 specially instructed to " take care that the members of the 
 Assembly be elected only by freeholders, as being most 
 agreeable to the custom of England, to which you are, as 
 near as may be, to conform yourself." * In spite of this pro- 
 vision, and a similar one in the commission and instructions 
 of Governor Bellomont,* the elections do not appear to have 
 been limited to freeholders. In 1697 writs of election speci- 
 fied the "freemen" of the towns as electors;^ and in 
 another case described the voters as " Freehold's and other 
 Inhabitants of their several Towns, duly qualified." ® The 
 earliest law extending the suffrage to non-freeholders which 
 has been noticed is one of August, 1699.'^ This retained the 
 English qualification of forty shilling freehold, but linked 
 with it a personal property alternative : 
 
 " No person Inhabiting within this Province, other than Freehold- 
 ers of the value or income of Forty shillings per Annum or upwards 
 in Land, or worth Fifty Pounds sterling at the least in personal Estate, 
 shall have any vote in the Election of Representatives, or be capable 
 of being Elected to serve in the General Assembly." 
 
 It was the same qualification as that set by the Massachusetts 
 provincial charter.® 
 
 ' N. H. Prov. Papers, II, 46. It is interesting to notice that Massa- 
 chusetts permitted a certain degree of local legislation and represen- 
 tation in the assessing and collection of taxes (AT. H. Laws, I, 482). 
 
 'N. H. Prov. Papers, II, 58. 
 
 'Ibid., 64; Laws, I, 510. 
 
 * Laws, I, 614, 623. 
 
 " N. H. Prov. Papers, II, 237, 263. 
 
 'Ibid., 283, 284. 
 
 ''Ibid., Ill, 216, 217. 
 
 'For election writ under this law referring to "Freeholders and 
 other Inhabitants," see N. H. Laws, I, 637. 
 
The Suffrage in New Hcmipshire. 377 
 
 For almost a generation there was no change from this 
 law. But in 1727 a new and comprehensive election law, 
 narrowing the suffrage qualifications, was passed. This act 
 provided for triennial meetings of the legislature ; required 
 members of the legislature to possess three hundred pounds 
 value of real estate; and declared that 
 
 " no person shall have the liberty of voting in the choice of repre- 
 sentatives, other than such who has a real estate of the value of fifty 
 pounds within the town, parish, or precinct where such election shall 
 be." ' 
 
 But a landholder might vote in a place even if he were not 
 an inhabitant, and, presumably, could vote in several towns 
 if he held land in each. After the passage of this act, and it 
 was not modified during the provincial period, no landless 
 man could vote, and no freeholder unless he held land to 
 the value of fifty pounds. 
 
 The facts of local suffrage in New Hampshire do not 
 differ much from those of Massachusetts. Before the first 
 union with the latter colony there were no general elections, 
 and the towns were practically independent. Under the rule 
 of Massachusetts her laws respecting local suffrage were 
 enforced among the northern towns. Not until after 1680, 
 therefore, need we note any forms of local elections. Under 
 Cutt's Code, which applied the term freemen to the pro- 
 vincial elections, the same name was given to the voters 
 in the towns, but no explanation or definition of the term 
 was made.^ Later, under the rule of Andros, local elections 
 were the only ones permitted throughout the Dominion of 
 New England, and these were to be held by the " inhabi- 
 tants" of the several towns.* The same term is applied to 
 town voters as late as 1694,* two years after the assembly 
 had limited the local suffrage to freeholders. It is likely 
 that these variations in terminology did not connote for 
 
 ^ Acts and Laws of His Majesty's Province of New-Hampshire, 
 Portsmouth, 1771, p. 166. 
 
 ^N. H. Prov. Papers, I, 403; Laws, I, 32, 33. The voters were 
 simply "y^ freemen of each Towne." 
 
 ^Conn. Col. Rec, III, 427-429. 
 
 ' N. H. Prov. Papers, II, 73, 131, 132, 330. 
 
378 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 different classes throughout the towns. Probably both free- 
 men and inhabitants were nearly identical with the class of 
 freeholders. 
 
 In 1692 the assembly excluded from voting in town meet- 
 ings all who were not freeholders,^ and even required the 
 land-holding qualification in the elections of ministers, a 
 most unusual provision.^ In 1718 and 17 19 the assembly 
 adojDted a large part of the Massachusetts legislation con- 
 cerning local elections.^ By the laws of these years the local 
 suffrage was extended to " freeholders and other inhabi- 
 tants of each town rateable at twenty pounds estate, to one 
 single rate, beside the poll." The Massachusetts restriction 
 upon strangers was adopted verbatim; only after formal 
 admission by the town or the selectmen might a stranger, 
 although otherwise qualified, be admitted to a vote in town 
 affairs.* In a similar way the voting in meetings of land 
 proprietors was modelled upon the laws of Massachusetts; 
 and where the individual's interest in the common lands 
 had been ascertained the votes were to be proportioned to 
 this interest ; where the proportion had not been determined, 
 each proprietor had an equal voice with all the others.^ 
 These laws gave a basis for voting in local elections which 
 was changed but slightly before the Revolution. The only 
 important change was the substitution, in 1770, of a tax- 
 paying qualification in place of the property-holding quali- 
 fication (£20) of the law of 171 9. The new act provided 
 that every male person who paid thirty shillings taxes, in- 
 cluding a poll-tax of eighteen shillings, should be " deemed 
 a legal voter in all affairs of the town or parish, where he 
 dwells, except chusing Representatives." ^ This in turn 
 was reduced in 1772, when a general reduction of the taxes 
 took place, to the payment of eighteen shillings taxes, in- 
 cluding the poll-tax of twelve shillings.'' 
 
 " N. H. Prov. Papers, III, 167. 
 
 'Ibid., Ill, 189, 190. The latter act was repealed by the queen in 
 1706. 
 
 ^ Acts and Laws of New Hampshire (1771), 71, 123, 136-141. 
 
 * Taken from Massachusetts act of 1700. See ante. 
 
 ° Massachusetts act of 1692. See ante. 
 
 'Acts and Laws of New Hampshire (1771), Temporary Laws, 38. 
 
 ^ Temporary Laws, 58. 
 
The Suffrage in New Hampshire. 379 
 
 The close relationship of New Hampshire to Massachu- 
 setts is seen not only during the formal union of the two 
 colonies, but also in the frequent adoption by New Hamp- 
 shire of the laws of her stronger neighbor. There is, con- 
 sequently, little of novelty to be noted in New Hampshire 
 legislation. The most striking cases appear in the legislation 
 of Cutt's assembly in 1680, where the exclusion of all but 
 Protestants from the suffrage comes at a remarkably early 
 date in colonial history, when usually it makes its appear- 
 ance after the Revolution of 1688. The age requirement of 
 twenty-four years, also contained in this code, was without 
 doubt adopted from the Massachusetts law; but it had a 
 widely different application from its use in that colony. In 
 Massachusetts it simply applied to the small number of 
 non-church-members who might be admitted to the fran- 
 chise; in New Hampshire it was universally applicable. 
 But these features were of slight duration. Another diver- 
 gence from Massachusetts custom continued until Revolu- 
 tionary times. This was the absolute limitation of the 
 assembly suffrage after 1727 to freeholders possessing fifty 
 pounds value of real estate. The province had adopted at 
 first the qualification of the Massachusetts charter, — forty 
 shillings freehold or fifty pounds personal estate; but this 
 was narrowed down to the class of freeholders alone; and 
 with this restriction was continued for almost fifty years of 
 colonial history. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 The Suffrage in Connecticut. 
 
 I. The River Towns to 1662. 
 
 The settlers in the Connecticut valley were staunch Puri- 
 tans ; they had formed a part of the political and ecclesiasti- 
 cal life of Massachusetts ; and in transferring their place of 
 abode to the western valley they often retained their church 
 organization and followed the advice of their pastors.^ Yet 
 in spite of the place which religion occupied in their lives, — 
 and we cannot say it was less than in the lives of the Puritans 
 they left behind in Massachusetts, — the Connecticut settlers 
 did not adopt the Massachusetts limitation of political power 
 to church-members. The laws of the Bay formed the model 
 for much of the later legislation in Connecticut; the land 
 system, the town organization, and the general government 
 were drawn largely from Massachusetts experience ; but the 
 feature of a formal ecclesiastical restriction of the suffrage 
 was not carried westward. 
 
 There is not, however, any evidence that the suffrage 
 question was one of the reasons for the emigration to the 
 Connecticut.^ Winthrop does not mention this motive ; and 
 the apparent reasons for the exodus are the desire for more 
 land, the favorable reports of the Connecticut country, the 
 opposition to the measures of the ruling party in Massa- 
 chusetts, and, perhaps, a covert antagonism between the two 
 pastors, Cotton and Hooker.^ The latter, indeed, in his 
 famous sermon in 1638, said, " The privilege of election, 
 which belongs to the people, therefore must not be exercised 
 according to their humors, but according to the blessed 
 
 ^ Judge Chamberlain, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, Second Series, V, 271. 
 
 ' C. F. Adams, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, Second Series, VII, 180 note. 
 
 ' Winthrop, History of New England, ed. by Savage, I, 160 ; Trum- 
 bull, History of Connecticut (ed. of 1898), I, 37-38; Doyle, English 
 Colonies in America, Puritan Colonies, I, IS4-I5S ; Palfrey, History 
 of New England, I, 449-450. 
 380 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 381 
 
 will and law of God;" ^ and a scholarly commentator says 
 Hooker was " forging out a practical method of theocratic 
 government." ^ The essential point of difference between 
 the two colonies, — ^and the point which gave the greater 
 practicability to the Connecticut constitution, — was the ab- 
 sence of any formal qualifications upon the colony freeman- 
 ship, and the granting to the towns the right to admit or 
 reject their own inhabitants. And since these town inhabi- 
 tants, as we shall see, had the right to vote for deputies in 
 the general court, although forbidden to vote for other 
 colonial officers, the disfranchised and discontented portion 
 of the population would be smaller than in Massachusetts. 
 
 For several years the history of the Connecticut valley 
 is the story of feeble frontier settlements and trading forts 
 which, after receiving the rapid influx of population from 
 Massachusetts, were temporarily under the control of con- 
 stables and commissioners appointed by that colony.^ To 
 these appointive officers there were later added certain 
 " committees" or representatives of the several towns.* The 
 records are so meagre that we cannot discern the method of 
 choice of these representatives, nor is any distinct political 
 qualification evident, before the adoption of the fundamental 
 orders of 1638-9.^ 
 
 It is, therefore, to those orders that we must look for the 
 earliest requirements for the suffrage. The orders erected 
 a " Publike State or Comonwelth" composed of freemen, 
 whose affairs were directed by a governor, six magistrates, 
 and two general courts every year composed of these offi- 
 cers, together with deputies sent from the several towns.® 
 
 ' Palfrey, I, 537 note. 
 
 ' Weeden, in Amer. Antiquarian Soc. Proc, Second Series, IX, 347. 
 
 ' For analysis of the early governments, see Andrews, River Towns 
 of Connecticut, J. H. U. Studies, VII, 23-24. 
 
 * Ibid., 24; Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 163&-1665, 
 g-iZ (quoted hereafter as Conn. Col. Rec). 
 
 'One writer believes that freemanship of the community antedated 
 the adoption of the constitution of 1638-9 (Bronson, Chapters on the 
 Early Government of Connecticut, New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, III, 
 
 303)- 
 ° See the orders in Conn. Col. Rec, 1636^1665, 20-25. 
 
382 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Within the commonwealth thus erected by the " Inhabitants 
 and Residents" of the three towns, there appear to be two 
 classes of voters, which for many years afterwards were kept 
 distinct. 
 
 The first class is that made up of those who were members 
 of the corporation-commonwealth. The corporation was 
 erected in a bold, naive way, upon the model of that of 
 Massachusetts, but without regard to the English theory 
 that rights of incorporation must flow from some higher 
 authority than the members of the company. With such an 
 organization, even when self-instituted, there naturally goes 
 the idea of membership, or, in the language of the time, 
 freemanship. Hence the fundamental orders recognize the 
 existence of freemen, give them a share in the government, 
 and provide for the admission of new freemen. Unfor- 
 tunately we do not know the number of freemen at the be- 
 ginning of the new government, nor the class from which 
 they were drawn. The surmise of Bronson ^ that the class 
 of freemen antedated the making of the constitution does 
 not seem justifiable. There were " Inhabitants and Resi- 
 dents" in the three towns, and it is likely that a more or 
 less formal test was required before new inhabitants were 
 admitted into the towns, but the writer has found no evi- 
 dence of the existence of a community freemanship distinct 
 from that of the towns. So far as the extant documents 
 show, some of the inhabitants and residents of the towns 
 erected themselves into freemen of their home-made cor- 
 poration. 
 
 By the first fundamental, freemen only were permitted to 
 vote in the election of the governor and the magistrates,^ 
 but other qualifications were added in order to limit the 
 meaning of the word freemen. Thus, since an oath of 
 fidelity was administered to all male persons over sixteen 
 
 ' Op. cit. 
 
 ' The wording of the clause is as follows : '' wct choise shall be made 
 by all that are admitted freemen and haue taken the Oath of Fidelity, 
 and doe cohabitte wtbin this Jurisdiction, (hauing beene admitted 
 Inhabitants by the maior pn of the Towne wherein they Hue,) or 
 the mayor p^te of such as shall be then prgent" (Conn. Col. Rec, 163&- 
 1665, 21). 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 383 
 
 years of age/ it was a fortiori required of all freemen and 
 voters. And in this connection it should be mentioned that 
 the mere taking of the oath of fidelity did not make a man 
 or a boy a freeman.^ The taking of the oath was a com- 
 pulsory matter with all males over sixteen years of age 
 dwelling within the jurisdiction, while the freemanship was 
 a privilege conferred by the express vote of the general 
 court. In addition to taking the oath of fidelity, the applicant 
 for freemanship must previously have been regularly ad- 
 mitted into some town of the jurisdiction by the vote of 
 the townspeople; and at the time of election must dwell 
 (" cohabitte") within the commonwealth. Thus four formal 
 qualifications were imposed upon these electors of the gov- 
 ernor and magistrates : an oath of fidelity, actual residence 
 in the jurisdiction, legal inhabitancy of one of the towns, 
 and admission by the general court to the freemanship. 
 The second group of voters, the electors of the town 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 62. 
 " The Oath of a Freeman. 
 
 " I, A. B., being by the Pruidence of God an Inhabitant w^Hn 
 the Jurisdiction of Conectecott, doe acknowledge myselfe to 
 be subiecte to the Government thereof, & doe sweare by the 
 great & fearefuU name of the euerliueing God, to be true & 
 faythfull vnto the same, & doe submitt boath my p^son & 
 estate thereunto, according to all the holsome lawes & orders 
 that there are, or hereafter shall be there made, & established 
 by lawfull authority, & that I will nether plott nor practice 
 any euell [evil] ag* the same, nor consent to any that shall so 
 doe, but will tymely discouer the same to lawfull authority 
 there established; & that I will, as I am in duty bound, 
 mayntayne the honner of the same & of the lawfull magestratts 
 thereof, prmoting the publike good of yt, whilst I shall soe 
 continue an Inhabitant there; & whensoeur I shall giue my 
 voate or suffrage touching any matter w<:h conserns this 
 Comon welth being cauled thereunto, will give yt as in my 
 conscience I shall judge, may conduce to the best good of 
 the same, wt'iout respect of p'sons or favor of any man. Soe 
 helpe me God in o"" Lord Jesus Christe." 
 ''A writer, usually careful in his judgments, has fallen into this 
 error (/. H. U. Stud., VII, 85). See also Trumbull, History of Connec- 
 ticut, I, 75 (New London edition of 1898). 
 
384 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 deputies to the general courts, was not so limited as was the 
 first group. The deputies were to be chosen, according to 
 the seventh fundamental, " by all that are admitted In- 
 habitants in the seurall Townes and haue taken the oath of 
 fidellity," but the express proviso was added that no one " be 
 chosen a Deputy for any Generall Courte w^h is not a Free- 
 man of this Comonwelth." Freemanship was required of 
 the representative, but not of the elector. The latter must 
 simply be a regularly admitted inhabitant of the town 
 wherein he voted. It is well to remember, however, that 
 the word inhabitant had a much narrower connotation at 
 that time than it has to-day. In New England, and in almost 
 all the colonies, the English legal meaning of the word was 
 attached to it, — that is, an inhabitant meant a householder, 
 usually the head of a family, and under American conditions 
 it was frequently synonymous in practice with freeholder.^ 
 At this early period the inhabitant was not merely a resident 
 of the town, he was the responsible head of a family, for- 
 mally admitted by the town into participation in the town 
 political and economic activities. Upon these two bases of 
 freemanship and inhabitancy the elections for the colonial 
 officers and for the town representatives respectively rested 
 during the period that the constitution of 1639 was in 
 operation. 
 
 We must now note those conditions which in law or fact 
 were imposed upon applicants for inhabitancy in the towns 
 and for the freemanship in the commonwealth. As early 
 as 1643 the general court interpreted the clause of the fun- 
 damentals giving the suffrage for deputies to admitted in- 
 habitants, by declaring that such inhabitants were those only 
 who were " admitted by a generall voate of the mayor p^te 
 of the Towne that receaueth them." * Hence the actual 
 restrictions upon inhabitants were left to the votes of the 
 respective town meetings.^ That religious conformity was 
 
 * See ante, Chap. I and Chap. XI. 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636^1665, 96. 
 
 'The code of 1650 provided for the disfranchisement from town or 
 colony elections of persons who were " fyned or whipped for any 
 scandalous offence;" they could be restored to their privileges by 
 action of the court (Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 559). 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 385 
 
 sometimes one of these restrictions there seems no doubt,* 
 and particularly does this appear to be the case in view of 
 the emigration of church congregations from Massachusetts 
 to Connecticut. At Wethersfield, where, in 1640, there were 
 only seven formal members of the church,^ it is likely the 
 other inhabitants were members of some church in New 
 England, but had not yet organized themselves into church 
 fellowship owing to the quarrels among the seven claiming 
 to be the church.^ In the early days, too, admission as an 
 inhabitant of a town was contingent upon a man's ability to 
 enter into the economic life of the community. The in- 
 habitants who planned the settlement of Wethersfield re- 
 quired their fellow " adventurers" to settle within the town 
 before a certain date if they did not want to forfeit their 
 interest in the town " devident." * 
 
 In Hartford the recipient of a grant of land was required 
 to build upon it within twelve months after the grant ; if he 
 removed within four years his lands were to be forfeited 
 to the town ; but a sale was permitted either to the town or 
 to a person approved by the town.® In Middletown a fixed 
 term of residence- and the erection and occupation of a 
 tenantable house were required to hold title to town lots.® 
 That the towns exerted their privilege of refusing inhabi- 
 tants is shown by the town records of Hartford,'^ but after 
 admission there does not seem to be any way of excluding 
 an inhabitant, for the Hartford town meeting offered ten 
 pounds to an objectionable man and his wife if they would 
 remove from the town.^ 
 
 ' New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, III, 315 ; Andrews, /. H. U. Stud., 
 VII, 83. 
 
 ' Trumbull, I, 92-93- 
 
 •New Haven would not have received some twenty-two of the 
 Wethersfield men had they not been members of some "approved" 
 congregation. 
 
 * Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1663, 4. 
 
 ' Hartford Town Votes, I, 1 (printed in Vol. VI of the Connecticut 
 Historical Society's Collections). 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636^1665, 249. 
 
 ''Hartford Town Votes, I, 132, 148, 171, 196. 
 
 'Ibid., 148. 
 
 25 
 
386 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Such restrictions were not, however, always enforced. 
 Before 1657 many objectionable persons seem to have been 
 adopted by the towns as inhabitants,^ and the presence of 
 these persons led the general court to make the first property 
 qualification upon the suffrage. The restriction was not 
 made upon the freemen, but applied only to the " admitted 
 inhabitants," to whom was given the right to vote for town 
 deputies. The seventh fundamental, by an order of the court 
 of February 26, 1656-7, was interpreted as granting the 
 suffrage only to " householders that are one & twenty yeares 
 of age, or haue bore office, or haue 30I. estate." ^ This 
 limitation conformed to the English custom in respect to age 
 and householding, but it went beyond that in the establish- 
 ment of a legal property qualification for inhabitancy. In 
 this form the suffrage for representatives was continued 
 until 1662, when the terms of the new charter restricted such 
 elections to the freemen alone.^ 
 
 It has been seen that the fundamentals gave to the general 
 court the power of admission of freemen. That body some- 
 times exercised the power directly and sometimes delegated 
 it to specific persons or officers. As early as October, 1639, 
 Governor Haynes and a Mr. Wells were appointed by the 
 court to confer with the planters at Pequonnocke (Strat- 
 ford), and were empowered to administer the oath of fidelity 
 to them and to " make such free as they see fitt." * A similar 
 authorization was made shortly afterwards." In 1646 
 a general power of admitting freemen was delegated to any 
 three magistrates, who were required to demand a certificate 
 of the good character of the applicant; but their power 
 was limited to the time intervening before the next meeting 
 
 ^ New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, III, 301. 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-166$, 293. By the code of 1650 the court 
 had declared twenty-one years to be the legal age for giving of votes 
 or performing legal acts (Rec. 1636-1665, 510). 
 
 ' In 1660 the towns were forbidden to admit as inhabitants any 
 persons but " such as are knowne to be of an honest conversation" 
 (Conn. Col. Rec, i636r-i665, 351). 
 
 *Conn. Col. Rec, 1636^1665, 36. 
 
 'Ibid., 47. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 387 
 
 of the general court.* The records do not show how many 
 were admitted as freemen in this manner, but their number 
 may have been considerable, for it does not seem probable 
 that the twenty-three names of admitted freemen given in 
 the records represent all the acceptable persons who came 
 into Connecticut from 1639 to 1649. The order of the gen- 
 eral court in 1657 requiring the town deputies to prepare a 
 list of the names of freemen in their respective towns seems 
 to point to the conclusion that the colony records are not 
 complete on the subject.^ 
 
 Perhaps it was some irregularity in the use of the dele- 
 gated power of admitting freemen which led the court in 
 1657 to enact that "those and only those" who were ap- 
 proved by the general court should be made freemen. 
 Applicants were further required to have " an affirmatiue 
 certificate vnder the hands of all or the major part of the 
 deputies in their seuerall townes, of their peaceable and 
 honest conuersation." ^ It seems impossible to determine 
 whether or not the admission of freemen by the magistrates 
 continued up to the time of this act. The fact that 140 
 freemen were admitted within the fifteen months follow- 
 ing the passage of the act indicates either a large increase 
 in the class of persons qualified for freemanship, or a sudden 
 desire for that privilege, or that the general court was ex- 
 ercising a function which previously had been performed 
 by the magistrates.* The writer is inclined to accept the lat- 
 ter view. 
 
 In 1657 the court had imposed a property qualification 
 upon voting inhabitants in the towns. Two years later, by 
 an order of March 9, 1658-9, a similar restriction was 
 placed upon the freemanship. An order of that date 
 provided 
 
 ^ Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1663, 139. The same order authorizes the 
 administering of the oath of fidelity to all male persons over sixteen, 
 years of age. 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1663, 290. " Ibid. 
 
 'This number is more than half the entire number of recorded 
 admissions between 1639 and 1662. The greatest number admitted at 
 any previous session of the court was in May, 1654, when thirty-six 
 freemen were accepted (Rec, 256) . 
 
388 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 " That for the future none shalbe prsented to be made free- 
 men in this Jurisdiction, or haue the priuilidge of freedome 
 conferd vpon them, vntil they haue fulfild the age of twenty 
 one years and haue 30I. of proper personal estate, or haue 
 borne office in the Comon wealth; such persons quallified as 
 before, and being men of an honest and peaceable conver- 
 sation, shalbe p^sented in an ord^ly way at the General Court 
 in October, yearly, to p^vent tumult and trouble at the Court 
 of Election." ^ 
 
 The reasons for the passage of this act are not given in the 
 contemporary documents. Apparently it was called forth by 
 the rapid growth of the freeman class which had taken place 
 in the preceding two years. The natural feeling may also 
 have arisen that the freemen voters should not possess a 
 lower qualification than that which had lately been imposed 
 upon those voting by right of inhabitancy. 
 
 The property qualification thus established was not identi- 
 cal with that imposed upon town inhabitants. In the latter 
 case the requirement was thirty pounds "estate;" while in 
 the new act it was the same amount of " proper personal 
 estate." This has been interpreted by students of the period 
 as meaning a real estate qualification for town inhabitants, 
 and a personal property requirement for the freemanship.^ 
 Mr. Bronson ^ has pointed out that thirty pounds of personal 
 property was a comparatively large sum for that time, when 
 the average property of a taxable person was sixty pounds, 
 made up largely of real estate. The new qualification must, 
 indeed, have been a very high one, for it practically pro- 
 hibited further accessions to the freemanship. Within the 
 next two and a half years, or until the charter went into 
 operation in October, 1662, there are only three recorded 
 admissions of freemen. The one hundred and forty ad- 
 missions in the fifteen months preceding the passage of this 
 act, and the three freemen admitted in the two and a half 
 years following, give us a very definite idea of the success 
 of the new restrictive legislation. If the ideal of the general 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 331. 
 
 ' Bronson, New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, III, 315 ; Andrews, /. H. 
 U. Stud., VII, 87. 
 'Op. cit. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 389 
 
 court was the exclusion of all other persons from the free- 
 manship, that ideal was attained. In justice to the framers 
 of the law, however, it may be believed tliat the operation of 
 the act was more exclusive than they desired. At least we 
 must remember that one of the first acts under the new 
 charter was the passage of a law putting the freemanship 
 on a far less aristocratic basis.^ 
 
 While there was no formal religious qualification for 
 voters in Connecticut, yet, on the other hand, there was no 
 such separation of church and state as was established by 
 Williams in Rhode Island. Hooker, indeed, had said that 
 the privilege of election, although given by God to the 
 people, " must not be exercised according to their humors, 
 but according to the blessed will and law of God." ^ " To 
 the first settlers in Connecticut," says a late writer, " civil 
 and ecclesiastical affairs were convertible terms. The town- 
 ship and the church were coterminous : the town, by which 
 term, as distinguished from the territorial township, was 
 meant the body of voters within the township, settled civil 
 and ecclesiastical affairs indifferently in the same town meet- 
 ing ; and as about all the voters were at first church-members 
 and agreed closely in creed and methods, the dual system 
 • produced little friction for a time." ^ Palfrey thought it 
 reasonable to believe " that church-membership — or, to 
 speak more precisely, a religious character in the candidate, 
 such as naturally led to church-membership, and was com- 
 monly found in union with it — was also in Plymouth and 
 Connecticut much regarded by the electors as a qualifica- 
 tion of candidates for citizenship." * It is almost the uni- 
 versal opinion of Connecticut historians that the actual ad- 
 ministration of the freeman principle in that colony led at 
 first to virtually the same restrictions upon the suffrage as 
 existed in New Haven or Massachusetts.^ 
 
 ^ See post, 408. 
 
 " Palfrey, New England, I, 537- 
 
 'Johnston, Connecticut, 220. 
 
 * Palfrey, New England, II, 8. 
 
 °A further proof of this opinion is to be seen in the proposition of 
 Connecticut made during the negotiations with New Haven that candi- 
 dates for freemanship be "men of a religious carriage, visibly soe" 
 {New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1663, 49S)- 
 
390 The Suffrage Pranchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 The number of original freemen in 1639 is not known, but 
 their number was increased very slowly. Out of a total in- 
 crease in population between 1639 and 1662 of about 3000 
 persons, only 229 are recorded as having been admitted to 
 the freemanship.* That is, for twenty-three years only one 
 person in thirteen of the new population was made a free- 
 man of the corporation. In the first ten years there are only 
 twenty-three recorded admissions; and of the remaining 
 ones, more than half were admitted by the general court 
 between 1657 and 1659. Yet it is probable that, owing to 
 the more liberal town sufifrage, and the right of town in- 
 habitants to vote for the town representatives in the general 
 court, the limitations upon the freemanship were not felt 
 so heavily as in Massachusetts. It is plain, too, that Con- 
 necticut was looked upon as more liberal than New Haven. 
 Evidently, Hooker's plan of theocratic government was 
 more practicable than those of Cotton and Davenport. 
 
 II. The Suffrage in New Haven before the Union with 
 Connecticut. 
 
 The well-known peculiarity of the New Haven colony is 
 the limitation of political power to those who were church- 
 members. In New Haven, even more fully than in Massa- 
 chusetts, did the church-members control the entire life of 
 the community. In Massachusetts although participation 
 in the colonial elections was granted only to freemen, yet 
 non-freemen were sometimes given a part in the choice of 
 town or militia officers ; but in New Haven the attempt was 
 made to limit the suffrage under any or all conditions — ^with 
 the single exception of proprietary claims to lands — ^to those 
 who were members of some approved church! In no other 
 settlement on the continent was the theoretical ideal of a 
 community of church-members so nearly attained ; nowhere 
 else were the lines between political power and disfranchise- 
 ment so clearly and sharply drawn. Yet it must be said that 
 New Haven was content with her religious qualification; 
 
 ' Bronson, op. cit., 313. There may have been others admitted in the 
 irregular way by officers of the company, but no record has been found 
 of such persons. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 391 
 
 this was the supreme test of good citizenship, and it was the 
 only one. She did not link to it any freehold or personal 
 property prerequisite ; all were invited " to come in by the 
 doore" of the church;^ every one was discouraged from 
 " disorderly or uncomely attempts to climbe up another 
 way." 
 
 The New Haven towns, like many other examples in 
 America, appear to have sprung from the voluntary and 
 spontaneous association of a group of Englishmen. The 
 first compact may have been of a business nature when the 
 friends contributed according to their ability towards the 
 common expenses ; or it may have been of a religious char- 
 acter, the brotherhood bond of members of a common 
 church. Such voluntary economic or ecclesiastical associa- 
 tions before actual settlement are to be seen in the cases 
 of New Haven proper,^ in Milford,^ Guilford,* and South- 
 old.^ But the purely personal compact of business co- 
 partners, or the. friendly tie of common church-membership 
 must be replaced either before * or soon after settlement by 
 a more formal organization both of church and state. The 
 association must be changed from a voluntary personal one 
 to a more definite political organization whose jurisdiction in 
 civil and religious affairs would be co-extensive with the 
 territory of the town.'' This transition was accomplished 
 first in the town of New Haven according to a method later 
 adopted in the neighboring towns. 
 
 The meeting of the New Haven planters on June 4, 1639, 
 which tradition says was held in Mr. Newman's barn, acting 
 under the advice of Minister Davenport, took the first steps 
 for the " settling ciuill Gouernmt according to God." ^ 
 
 ' New Haven Colonial Records, 1653-1665, 403-404. 
 
 ' New Haven Hist. Sac. Papers, I, 12. 
 
 ' Atwater, History of New Haven Colony, 155- 
 
 'Steiner, History of Guilford and Madison, Conn., 29; Atwater, 
 New Haven, 161. 
 
 'Ibid., 171-173. 
 
 " See grant of " civil power for the administration of justice and the 
 preservation of peace" in Guilford; Steiner, Guilford, 29. 
 
 ' Compare C. F. Adams, The Genesis of Massachusetts Towns, Mass. 
 Hist. Soc. Proc, Second Series, VII, 179-187- 
 
 'New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, 11 if. 
 
392 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Here the well-known queries of Davenport were unani- 
 mously answered in the afifirmative by the body of planters. 
 It was agreed that " the Scripturs doe holde forth a perfect 
 rule for the direction and gouernmt of all men in all 
 duet[ies] w^h they are to per forme to God and men as well 
 in the gou^mt of famylyes and coraonwealths as in matters 
 of the chur[ch]." So likewise all accepted the earlier 
 covenant they had made that the rules of scripture should 
 be observed in all " publique offices w^h concerne ciuill 
 order, as choyce of magistrates and officers, makeing and re- 
 pealing of lawes, devideing allottmts of inheritance and all 
 things of a like nature." Upon the third query all expressed 
 themselves as desirous of admission to church-fellowship as 
 soon as they were fitted therefor by God ; and the fourth in- 
 quiry that such a civil order should be established as would 
 secure the purity and peace of the religious ordinances was 
 with equal unanimity adopted. 
 
 In the fifth question there lay the whole theory of New 
 Haven theocratic government : " Whether Free Burgesses 
 shalbe chosen out of chur. members?" The question was 
 carried unanimously ; but one man, perhaps Samuel Eaton,^ 
 after the vote was taken, expressed a partial dissent from 
 the decision. The objections were answered by Davenport 
 and Theophilus Eaton, whose arguments called forth ex- 
 pressions of approval from some who owned they had not 
 previously been quite fully satisfied of the justice of the 
 restriction. And then by a second unanimous vote, this 
 time undoubtedly with more spirit, 
 
 " Mr. Rob* Newman was desired to write itt as an order 
 wherevnto euery one thatt hereafter should be admitted here 
 as planters should submitt and testefie the same by subscribing 
 their names to the order, namely, that church members onely 
 shall be free burgesses, and thatt they onely shall chuse magis- 
 trates & officers among themselues to haue the power of trans- 
 acting all the publique ciuill aflfayres of this Plantation, of 
 makeing and repealing lawes, devideing of inheritances, de- 
 cideing of differences thatt may arise and doeing all things or 
 businesses of like nature." ' 
 
 ' Atwater, New Haven, gp. 
 
 'New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, 15. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 393 
 
 This restriction of freemanship to church-members must 
 be read in the light of the unanimous expression of the 
 desire to enter church fellowship. All the adult planters 
 were willing to enter the church when its organization 
 should be completed, and in the light of this feeling the 
 church-membership provision was not a limitation upon any 
 of the men gathered in Mr. Newman's barn. Should all 
 carry out their desire to enter the church, the suffrage would 
 be co-extensive with the free planters. It would be, most 
 likely, with respect to new-comers, that the rule would work 
 hardship. The original settlers possessed a solidarity of feel- 
 ing which had been the real reason for their previous asso- 
 ciation; but would new arrivals or a rising generation pay 
 such regard to the religious tenets which persecution had 
 brought into the foreground of the Puritan's thinking ? The 
 history of the New Haven colony shows how difficult it was, 
 in spite of great care in the admission of inhabitants, to 
 maintain the homogeneity of sentiment so marked among the 
 first settlers. 
 
 After the consideration of the general foundations of 
 church and state, the planters proceeded to select from their 
 number certain persons to carry on the work of organization. 
 The general meeting appointed twelve men for the " foun- 
 dation work;" these selected seven "pillars" to organize 
 a church. After they had completed this, and admitted 
 others as church-members, the seven held a civil court at 
 which those who were members of the new church or of 
 some "approved" church were privileged to vote for civil 
 officers.^ At about the same time a " freeman's charge" or 
 declaration of obedience to the government was composed.^ 
 
 ^New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, 16-21; Atwater, New Haven, 
 101-102. 
 
 'New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, 19. 
 
 "You shall neither plott, practise nor consent to any evill 
 or hurt against this Jurisdiction, or any pte of it, or against 
 the civill gouernment here established. And if you shall know 
 any pson or psons w^h intend, plott, or conspire any thing 
 wch tends to the hurt or prejudice of the same, you shall 
 timely discouer the same to lawfull authority here established 
 and yow shall assist and bee helpfull in all the affaires of the 
 
394 T^<^ Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 The method of initiating reUgious and civil government in 
 Milford, Guilford, and perhaps in Southold, appears similar 
 to that adopted in New Haven. Pillars of the church were 
 chosen for beginning the " foundation work ;" and after 
 they had started the organization, others were admitted as 
 church-members and as freemen of the respective towns.^ 
 At Guilford, however, an additional restriction was placed 
 upon freemen. The agreement of the settlers of that town 
 included the following clause : 
 
 " We do now therefore, all and every of us agree, order 
 and conclude that only such planters, as are also members of 
 the church here, shall bee, and bee called freemen, and that 
 such freemen only shall have power to elect magistrates. Depu- 
 ties and all other officers of public trust or authority in 
 matters of importance, concerning either the civill officers or 
 government here, from amongst themselves and not else- 
 where." ' 
 
 Thus not church-membership in some " approved" church of 
 New England, but, rather, membership of the local church 
 was required in the Guilford settlement. They went one 
 degree farther than New Haven. On the other hand, Mil- 
 ford appears to have been more lax in the admission of free- 
 men than were her neighbors. Before her union with New 
 Haven and Guilford, Milford admitted six non-church-mem- 
 bers as freemen. But the action was esteemed so objection- 
 able that it was thought worthy of a special place in the 
 
 Jurisdiction, and by all meanes shall promove the publique 
 wellfare of the same, according to yor place, ability, and opptu- 
 nity, yow shall give due honnor to the lawful magistrats, and 
 shall be obedient and subject to all the wholesome lawes and 
 orderes, allready made, or w<:h shall be hereafter made, by 
 lawfuU authority afloresaid. And that both in yo"" pson and 
 estate ; and when yow shall be duely called to give yor vote or 
 suffrage in any election, or touching any other matter, w^h 
 concerneth this common wealth, yow shall give it as in yo' 
 conscience yow shall judg may conduce to the best good of the 
 same." 
 
 ^ Atwater, New Haven, Chap. IX. 
 
 ^ Steiner, Guilford, 35-36. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 39^ 
 
 agreements leading up to the union of 1643. Milford would 
 not disfranchise her irregular freemen, but they were to be 
 permitted to vote only for town officers and deputies, they 
 and all non-church-members were excluded from holding 
 office, and for the future " none shall be admitted freemen 
 or free burgesses hereafter att Milforde, butt church mem- 
 bers according to the practice of Newhaven." ^ 
 
 No change was made in the freeman principle nor in the 
 qualifications of applicants by the fundamentals of 1643, 
 which united the previously separate settlements of New 
 Haven, Milford, and Guilford, except that non-freemen were 
 specially guaranteed rights " to their inheritance & to 
 comerce, according to such grants, orders and lawes as shall 
 be made concerning the same." ^ It was the aim of the 
 New Haven government to keep the entire political control 
 in the hands of the freemen. In Connecticut and Massa- 
 chusetts non-freemen could vote in some local elections, but 
 not in those for the entire colony. But no such distinction 
 was made in New Haven; the freemen church-members 
 alone could elect the colony officers, direct the affairs, and 
 choose the officers of the towns,^ and they only were privi- 
 leged to select the militia officers,* a right almost universally 
 granted to all soldiers.^ The newly organized government 
 also required all persons admitted as inhabitants to take an 
 oath of fidelity to the jurisdiction.*' 
 
 Such was the simple basis of political organization in the 
 " republic of New Haven." All adult male inhabitants, who 
 were members of some approved church in New England, 
 were qualified electors of the commonwealth. But in the 
 
 ^New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, no; Atwater, New Haven, 158. 
 It is interesting to note that of the fifty-four original planters of 
 Milford, forty-four were at once admitted to church membership, a 
 larger proportion of actual members than is seen among the early 
 settlers of New Haven (Atwater, 157). 
 
 'New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, 112. 
 
 'Ibid., 1653-1665, 604. 
 
 *Ibid., 361, 602. 
 
 ' See subject of militia elections in other colonies. 
 
 •"New Haven Col. Rec, 163S-1649, 130; 1653-1665, 57. 98; Lever- 
 more, The Republic of New Haven. loi. 
 
396 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 simplicity of the restriction there lay a danger which the 
 state soon discovered. The church was the door to political 
 power; but who should guard the entrance ? " Who was to 
 keep the keepers ?" ^ Massachusetts had recognized the 
 danger very soon after she laid the religious restriction upon 
 freemen, and in 1635-6 had met the difificulty by forbidding 
 the organization of any church without the consent of the 
 magistrates of the colony and the elders of the approved 
 churches.^ The New Haven legal code of 1656 adopted the 
 spirit of the earlier provision of Massachusetts, although 
 changing somewhat the wording of the law. Full liberty 
 was given to the " people of God within this jurisdiction, 
 who are not in a church way, being orthodox in judgment, 
 and not scandalous in life," ® to gather themselves into a 
 church organization according to the " rules of Christ, re- 
 vealed in his Word." But no such company of persons join- 
 ing in " any pretended way of church fellowship" should be 
 recognized by the general court unless they had the approval 
 of the magistrates and the elders of the churches. 
 
 " Nor shall any person, being a member of any church which 
 shall be gathered without such notice given and approbation 
 had, or who is not a member of some church in New England 
 approved by the magistrates and churches of this colony, be 
 admitted to the freedom of this jurisdiction." 
 
 In this way the state protected itself against the deterioration 
 of the political constituency by the acceptance of the mem- 
 bers of irregular churches. The religious qualification for 
 the suffrage implied a right upon the part of the political 
 authorities to preserve the purity of the ecclesiastical spring 
 whence flowed the freeman class. As in the colonies where 
 freeholding was a prerequisite to political rights the legis- 
 latures were compelled to define the term freehold, so in 
 Massachusetts and New Haven the term church-member 
 must be given a definite connotation. 
 
 Another feature of the fundamentals of the union of 1643 
 
 * Palfrey, New England, I, 436. 
 
 " Mass. Col. Rec, I, 171. 
 
 'New Haven Col. Rec., 1633-1665, 588. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 397 
 
 is the adoption of the proxy system. By the third funda- 
 mental it was provided that 
 
 "for the ease of those free burgesses especially in the more 
 remote plantations, they may by proxi vote in these elections, 
 though absent, their votes being sealed vp in the p'sence of 
 the free burgesses themselves, thatt their severall libertyes 
 may be preserved, and their votes directed according to their 
 owne particular light." '■ 
 
 The constitution of 1643 did not state the manner in which 
 these proxy votes, or ballots, should be cast, but the code of 
 1656 permitted those freemen who could not conveniently 
 attend the election to " send their Votes, either written, or 
 in some other way sealed up." ^ The " other way" is illus- 
 trated by the corn-and-bean provision of the same code; 
 according to which the freeman might " send his Vote, as 
 he finds cause, either in the affirmative, by putting in an 
 Indian Corne, or in the Negative, by putting in a Beane, or 
 in such other manner, as the Generall Court shall judge 
 more convenient." 
 
 Despite, however, the early strictness with which the right 
 of election was limited to the freemen, there arose in prac- 
 tice certain exceptions to the principle, and popular clamor 
 demanded still greater compromises. In the militia elections 
 it was not always found possible to obtain efficient or willing 
 officers among the freemen, and although the electors appear 
 to have been freemen, yet on several occasions the officers 
 chosen were non-freemen.^ In the town-meetings, Guil- 
 ford, as early as 1645-6 permitted all planters to vote upon 
 a question of the division of the town lands.* It must be 
 remembered that non-freemen often were landowners and 
 
 ^New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, 113. 
 
 'Ibid., 1653-1663, 567. 
 
 ' New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, 97. i4S. 407- In the last case the 
 general court permitted Southold to choose a non-freeman drummer 
 because of their '' present necessity & his fitnes." 
 
 * Steiner, Guilford, 167. The attendance of non-freemen at the town- 
 meetings in Guilford was compulsory; the fines upon "planters" being 
 one-half those imposed upon freemen for lateness or absence {ibid., 
 100). 
 
398 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 proprietors in common lands, upon which matters they would 
 have an ethical right to be heard when their property in- 
 terests were at stake. But the boundary line between purely 
 personal matters and political concerns was not easily deter- 
 mined, and some towns admitted non-freemen " to vote in 
 things of weightie trust and concernment." The latter con- 
 dition called forth an order from the general court requiring 
 the fundamental orders to " be exactly attended and none 
 suffered to vote but free-men." But the court itself was 
 compelled in justice to add, " unless it be in some pticuler 
 cases wherein the proprieties of the planters in generall are 
 concerned and ought not to be disposed of w'hout their 
 consent."^ 
 
 As in local matters there was thus a slight lifting of the 
 bars to the suffrage, so the restricted nature of the freeman- 
 ship in general elections soon led to protests by the disfran- 
 chised against its narrowness. While restrictions were im- 
 posed upon the admission of inhabitants,^ yet many who were 
 not church-members acquired inhabitancy and lands in the 
 towns.^ It has not been possible to arrive at an estimate 
 of the actual number or proportion of this disfranchised 
 class, but it must have constituted a group of inhabitants 
 almost, if not quite, as large as that of the freemen. As 
 late as 1669, when the more lenient Connecticut laws were in 
 force, the freemen of the town of New Haven did not in- 
 clude more than half the whole number of taxable males.* 
 At an earlier time the proportion of freemen may have been 
 even less than this.^ A disfranchised class of this size was 
 not likely to remain silent throughout the history of the 
 colony. 
 
 During the war between the English Commonwealth and 
 the Dutch the members of the New England federation dis- 
 cussed the expediency of an attack upon New Amsterdam. 
 Through the opposition of Massachusetts the plan was not 
 
 * New Haven Col. Rec.^ 1653-1665, 177. 
 '/fcjrf., 1638-1649, 24, 40, 130; 1653-1665, 610. 
 "Levermore, Republic of New Haven, 101-104. 
 
 * See post; and compare Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 290, with ibid., 
 518-526. 
 
 ° See Doyle, The Puritan Colonies, I, 198-199. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 399 
 
 carried out, but the agitation of the subject led to great 
 popular movements in Connecticut and New Haven, in the 
 course of which two towns, Fairfield in Connecticut and 
 Stamford in New Haven, even began to collect a force to 
 attack the Dutch on their own account. The refusal of the 
 authorities of both Connecticut and New Haven to sanc- 
 tion the proposed attack increased popular excitement in 
 the towns, and led some of the inhabitants to attack the 
 existing colonial governments; they declared themselves in 
 favor of the " State of England," and were determined " to 
 stand for their liberties, that they may all have their 
 votes." 1 
 
 Robert Bassett, of Stamford, appears to have been the 
 most active man in the New Haven jurisdiction in favoring 
 the popular movement. He was arrested, charged with being 
 a " ringleader in these wayes of disturbance," and brought 
 before the court at New Haven. The court believed he had 
 wanted to " overthrow churches and comonwealthes ;" and 
 recorded how he had demanded, in a Stamford town-meet- 
 ing, after being told that the meeting was held under Eng- 
 lish authority, " then let vs haue Englands lawes, for Eng- 
 land doe not prohibbitt vs from our votes and liberties, and 
 here wee are, and wee are cut of from all appeales to Eng- 
 land." ^ He had also pointed to the more favorable suffrage 
 laws of Connecticut. The court of New Haven proceeded 
 to enlighten him with respect to the suffrage in England; 
 and " hee was informed that many thousands in England, 
 of great estates, and good repute in other respects, haue no 
 vote in such elections." His own course, he was told, had 
 been " full of pride & insolency, himselfe a leader to disturbe 
 the peace both of churches and commonwealth, nay to ouer- 
 throwe all foundations laid here for gouernment, w* by 
 oath he stands bound to maintayne and vphold, so he hath 
 discovered a false and rotten spirit." ^ Another of the mal- 
 contents was charged with teaching the same doctrines, " w* 
 in him is worss then in another because hee is a freeman and 
 •Atwater, New Haven, 404-406; Trumbull, Conn. (ed. of 1898), 
 
 I, I7S- 
 *New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, 52, 55, 59, 60. 
 ' Ibid., 60. 
 
400 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 sometime hath bine a deputie in ye general court." ^ Still 
 another was charged with " pleading for liberties in votes, 
 that all may chuse officers for publique trust, and chuse whom 
 they please; and because it is not granted, he growes surly- 
 and discontented." In the Stamford town-meeting he had 
 said the town deputies were really church deputies ; " and 
 who must chuse them?" he asked. "The free-men; then 
 said hee, wee are bond-men, and so will our chilldren bee, 
 therefore it is time for vs to looke to it." So widespread 
 was the spirit of unrest in Stamford that the general court 
 was informed that " the generality of Stamford did desire 
 they might haue libertie in vots." 
 
 Southold, on Long Island, was the scene of a similar 
 popular movement. The leaders claimed the government 
 was tyrannical ; but the worst remark recorded against any 
 of them was the statement of John Youngs, that he was 
 " vnsatisfyed that he had not his vote in chusing millitary 
 officers." ^ The general court had no compromise to offer 
 the discontented inhabitants. They were fined in various 
 amounts, placed under heavy bonds, and required to make 
 confession of their error. Steps were also taken to enforce 
 more rigidly the policy of tendering the oath of fidelity to 
 all inhabitants, and report was to be made to the general 
 court of those refusing to accept the oath.^ A few months 
 later, in May, 1654, all persons before being admitted as 
 inhabitants, were required to express approval of the funda- 
 mentals restricting the suffrage to church-members, and then 
 must take the oath of fidelity to the government established 
 in the jurisdiction. This approval of the fundamental laws 
 is so unusual a provision that it may be quoted entire : 
 
 " It is ordered that vpon the admittance of any man as a 
 planter into any plantation in this jurisdiction, the funda- 
 mental! lawes and orders concerning votes, &c., shall be read 
 to them, and if approved, the oath of fidellitie shall be admin- 
 
 ^ New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, 61 
 
 'Ibid., 94. Where the right of election of military officers existed 
 in the colonies, it was almost uniformly vested in all the soldiers; so 
 Youngs' demand was a remarkably modest one. 
 
 ' Ibid., S7. 96. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 401 
 
 istered to them, the plantation w^h is to receive them being 
 satisfyed in other respects by a satisfying certifycate from 
 sufficient credible psons, of their good behaviour & conver- 
 sation." ' 
 
 In this way the new inhabitant was required to express ap- 
 proval of the fundamentals and swear to observe the rules 
 by which he might be pei-petually disfranchised. 
 
 Yet in spite of the firmness with which this popular move- 
 ment was suppressed, only two years had passed when the 
 general court was compelled to enter upon its records the 
 fact " that in some of the plantations the fundamental! 
 lawes of the jurisdiction haue not bine attended, but that 
 others besides free-men haue had libertie to vote in things of 
 weightie trust and concernment ;" ^ and it was ordered that 
 the fundamentals be " exactly attended, and none suffered 
 to vote but free-men," except in cases where the land in- 
 terests of proprietors were at stake. 
 
 Again, in 1661 the limited suffrage led to disorders in 
 Guilford, where, however, there were other causes of dis- 
 content.^ The appeal was made this time, not to the laws 
 of England, but to the very fundamentals themselves,* the 
 first of which, while limiting the suffrage to church-mem- 
 bers, had closed with the guarantee that non-freeman planters 
 should have rights " to their inherritance & to comerce." ^ 
 Doubtless the non-freemen of Guilford, like disfranchised 
 classes in almost all other communities, had discovered that 
 the civil and economic rights granted in the fundamentals 
 could not be fully protected without the political rights 
 which the same fundamentals had denied. The general court 
 declared ® to all " godly and peaceable inhabitants" that they 
 hoped there would be no cause to complain of withholding 
 
 ^New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, 98. The same express approval 
 of the fundamentals was required of Oyster Bay when it applied for 
 union with the colony (ibid.). 
 
 ' New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, 177. 
 
 ' Steiner, Guilford, 100-103. 
 
 'New Haven Col. Rec., 1653-1665, 403. 
 
 'Ibid., 1638-1649, 112. 
 
 ° Ibid., 403-404. 
 
 26 
 
402 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 just rights and liberties, but there must be no injury done to 
 the " cheife ends and interests, professed and pretended by- 
 all at our coming, combineing and setling in New Eng- 
 land;" and from which no " disturbers of their Israeli" could 
 divert them to commit their " more weighty ciuill or mili- 
 tary trusts into the hands of either a crafty Achitophell, or 
 a bloody Joab." With a bearing more conciliatory than 
 that of 1654, the court expressed the hope " that all planters 
 would make it their serious endeauour to come in by the 
 doore to enjoy all privilidges & beare all burdens equall wth 
 themselues, according to our foundation settlements & vni- 
 uersally professed ends, and yt there may be noe disorderly 
 or vncomely attempts to climbe vp another way." 
 
 But the malcontents were not to be left much longer in 
 their disfranchised state. A little over a year after the 
 trouble in Guilford the news was spread in the New Haven 
 towns of the terms of the new Connecticut charter, which 
 seemed to include all the New Haven lands within the terri- 
 tory granted to Connecticut. The possibility of enjoying 
 the wider political privileges of Connecticut was noticed at 
 once, and Southold, in which we have seen there was dis- 
 satisfaction with the suffrage, voted to send deputies to 
 Hartford, while individual planters in Guilford, Stamford, 
 and Greenwich were immediately admitted freemen of 
 Connecticut.^ Thus the towns in which the agitation against 
 the restricted suffrage had existed for eight years were the 
 ones to first leave New Haven; and it is quite conceivable 
 that the terms later accorded to New Haven, although 
 favorable, might have been still more so if her population 
 had unitedly upheld the New Haven ofificers in their opposi- 
 tion to the claims of Connecticut. 
 
 Although the extension of the Connecticut jurisdiction 
 over New Haven territory by the charter of 1662 was 
 strongly opposed by the government of the latter colony, 
 evidence is not lacking that Winthrop, who secured the 
 charter in England, believed that the two colonies could be 
 harmoniously united.^ But if such were the case his hopes 
 
 ' Atwater, New Haven, 463-465 ; Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 386-391. 
 
 ^ See correspondence of Governors Winthrop and Leete, before the 
 
 departure of the former for England (Atwater, New Haven, 455-459). 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 403 
 
 were not immediately realized. A number of circumstances 
 prevented the amicable union of the two colonies; among 
 which may be mentioned the absence of Winthrop himself 
 in England, the hasty action of Connecticut in accepting 
 Southold and the inhabitants of the other towns, the natural 
 reluctance of the New Haven authorities to yield their in- 
 dependence, and, as strong as any of the other reasons, the 
 desire to maintain the New Haven religious restriction upon 
 the suffrage. With the latter reason we are particularly 
 concerned. The objection does not at first appear upon the 
 surface of the New Haven Records, but in March, 1662-3 
 the Connecticut general court proposed to New Haven that 
 there should be no interference with the church government 
 of New Haven, that their magistrates might remain in office 
 until the succeeding election, that representation in the 
 Connecticut government be given to New Haven, and that 
 all present freemen of New Haven be at once admitted into 
 the Connecticut corporation.* No reference, however, was 
 made to the future qualifications of freemen. New Haven 
 rejected these overtures until more definite information 
 could be obtained from England respecting the meaning of 
 the charter. 
 
 In August, 1663, New Haven, on her part, suggested the 
 making of a treaty between the two colonies.^ She pro- 
 posed that the " fundamental! lawes for governmt, especially 
 yt touching the qualificacons of freemen shalbe the same w* 
 Boston or our (i.e.) members of some one or othr of o^ 
 churches;" that no infringement be made upon the church 
 ordinances or the freedom of choosing ministers; that the 
 present New Haven freemen be at once admitted upon an 
 equality with those of Connecticut ; that a new law book be 
 drawn up; and that the freemen in each town should elect 
 their town officers. Connecticut replied to the first question : 
 
 " That the patterne or foundation from w^h we cannot vary 
 is or charter, nor dare we admit of any fundamt's varying 
 from ye tenor thereof, but w* lawes may be concurring there- 
 with and conduceable to ye publique weale of church and 
 
 ' New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, 475-477- 
 ^ Ibid., 491. 
 
404 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 state we are ready to grant ye establishm* thereof, & pticularly 
 for quallification of freemen we are ready to grant that they 
 shalbe men of a religious carriage visibly see, hauing and 
 possessing some competency of estate, and shal bring a certifi- 
 cate affirmatiue that they are thus quallified from ye deacons 
 of ye church and two of ye select men of ye towne where they 
 Hue, and if there be noe deacons, then some other knowne & 
 approued persons w^h ye selectment as before." ' 
 
 Connecticut agreed to respect the church ordinances and 
 privileges and to accept as freemen of their colony all the 
 present freemen of New Haven. She refused, however, to 
 follow the plan, so unpopular even in New Haven, of limit- 
 ing the town suffrage to freemen. Instead, the Connecticut 
 committee proposed that all necessary town officers should 
 be " yearly chosen by a maior vote of the approued in- 
 habitants." 
 
 These propositions were the most liberal which Connecti- 
 cut was willing at any time to offer, and, had they been ac- 
 cepted by New Haven, a modification of the Connecticut 
 freemanship law might have resulted in the adoption of a 
 rule as restrictive as that of Massachusetts after her apparent 
 yielding in 1664 to the royal commissioners. But New 
 Haven would not negotiate until the towns and persons 
 lately accepted into the Connecticut colony should be restored 
 to their old relationship. Connecticut refused to do this, and 
 soon there appeared the greater danger of a union with the 
 Catholic Duke of York's territory to the westward.* At 
 last, in November, 1664, came the decision of the king's 
 commissioners that New Haven was included within the 
 charter limits of Connecticut, and there was no further op- 
 portunity for New Haven to make terms with her more 
 fortunate neighbor. The towns of the New Haven colony 
 were incorporated into Connecticut ; those New Haven free- 
 men who took the freeman's oath were to be admitted as 
 freemen of the latter colony ; * but New Haven, as a distinct 
 political entity, was not permitted to enter into an agree- 
 
 ^New Haven Col. Rec, 1653-1665, 493. 
 
 ' At water, New Haven, 510. 
 
 ^ Conn. Col. Rec, i636r-i665, 437. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 405 
 
 ment with Connecticut. In the light of the decision of the 
 royal commissioners, Connecticut had no need to make com- 
 promises with the New Haven men. Her magnanimity in 
 time of victory did not extend even to a modified recogni- 
 tion of the theocracy of New Haven; and the religious 
 qualifications of New Haven, which a year earlier might 
 have influenced the legislation of the united colony, now 
 gave way before the more general economic and political 
 qualifications of Connecticut.^ 
 
 in. Under the Charter of 1662. 
 
 The Connecticut charter of 1662, secured through the 
 exertions of Governor Winthrop, erected a civil corporation 
 composed of nineteen named persons and " such others as 
 now are or hereafter shall bee Admitted and made free of 
 the Company and Society of our Collony of Conecticut." ^ 
 Its affairs were to be directed by a governor, a deputy-gov- 
 ernor, twelve assistants, and two meetings of an assembly in 
 each year. The general assemblies were made up of the 
 " freemen of the said Company, or such of them (not ex- 
 ceeding twoe Persons from each place, Towne or Citty) 
 whoe shall be from tyme to tyme therevnto Elected or 
 Deputed by the maior parte of the freemen of the respective 
 Townes, Cittyes and Places." The governor, deputy-gov- 
 ernor, and the assistants should be chosen annually on the 
 second Thursday in May " by such greater part of the said 
 Company for the tyme being then and there present." The 
 future admission of freemen was vested in the general 
 assemblies, to which full power was given " to Choose, 
 Nominate and appoint such and soe many other Persons as 
 they shall thinke fitt and shall bee willing to accept the same, 
 to bee free of the said Company and Body Politique, and 
 them into the same to Admitt and to Elect." Such other 
 officers as the assembly " shall thinke fitt and requisite for 
 the Ordering, mannageing and disposeing of the Affaires" of 
 
 ^ It is interesting to notice that the last meeting of the New Haven 
 jurisdiction was made up not of freemen alone, but also of as many 
 of the "inhabitants as pleased to come" (Atwater, 518). 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 4. 
 
4o6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 the company should be constituted by the general assembly. 
 The territory included in the charter was not clearly defined, 
 but as later interpreted by the king's commissioners it com- 
 prised not only the Connecticut jurisdiction, but the New 
 Haven colony as well, with the exception of the Long Island 
 dependencies of the two colonies, all of which were given by 
 the king to the Duke of York. 
 
 It will be seen that the charter had the freemanship prin- 
 ciple so strangely common to the English trading companies, 
 to many of the English boroughs, and to the great political 
 organizations of New England; a principle, too, which the 
 colonists of Connecticut and New Haven had established 
 for themselves in their autochthonous communities. Little 
 change was made by the charter in the political organization 
 of the Connecticut colony, but it did indirectly break down 
 the religious qualifications of New Haven by bringing that 
 colony under the rule of Connecticut. The two most 
 noticeable changes in the Connecticut customs were the 
 entire elimination of inhabitants from colonial elections and 
 the apparent incompatibility of proxy voting with the terms 
 of the charter. 
 
 Attention has been called to the two distinct classes of 
 voters in earJy Connecticut; freemen only being permitted 
 by the fundamentals of 1639 to vote for general officers, 
 while properly admitted inhabitants of the towns, as well as 
 freemen, could take part in the elections of deputies to the 
 general courts. The old method in a sense made the deputies 
 the direct officers of the towns; but the new charter, by 
 limiting the suffrage for deputies as well as colonial officers 
 to freemen, gave the representatives a colonial character. 
 The deputies were no longer the representatives of the sev- 
 eral towns, but of the freemen of the colony resident within 
 the towns. Naturally, the elimination of inhabitants from 
 such elections did not come without some opposition by the 
 disfranchised and formal interpretation by the assembly. 
 The general court, " understanding that trouble is like to 
 ensue upon the apprehension of seuerall inhabitants amongst 
 us respectinge the priuiledge of Freemen, and who are to 
 make choyce of Deputyes and publiq' officers," felt com- 
 pelled to order and declare that only those who were orderly 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 407 
 
 admitted by the general assembly into the freemanship 
 should have a share in such elections.^ The democratic 
 ballot, or " proxy" voting as it was called at the time, was 
 also apparently forbidden by the charter. This had been 
 permitted in both Connecticut and New Haven. It was 
 now temporarily suspended, and an interpretation put upon 
 the charter which is thus described : " The charter, then, 
 required annual elections of Colony officers by popular vote, 
 at a mass meeting of all the freemen in one place, and par- 
 ticularly specified as the electoral body the majority of the 
 freemen present at the time of voting." ^ 
 
 In discussing the suffrage under the charter of 1662 we 
 shall notice the facts both of colonial and of local elections. 
 Under the former subject mention must be made (a) of 
 the qualifications successively imposed upon voters down to 
 the revolutionary period; (&) the re-adoption of the proxy 
 system; (c) a few figures concerning the number of voters. 
 Under the heading of local elections, the franchise for town, 
 for church, and for militia elections must be summarized, 
 and mention made of the voting in respect to proprietary 
 claims to lands. 
 
 The charter of 1662 changed the basis for the suffrage in 
 New Haven from a religious one to the good character and 
 property qualifications of Connecticut, but it may be doubted 
 whether this change would have resulted in an extension of 
 the franchise if the Connecticut restriction of 1658-9 had 
 been retained after the union. On the other hand, the 
 charter, as has been noted, worked a limitation in Connecti- 
 cut by barring non-freeman town inhabitants from the elec- 
 tions for deputies. Had the Connecticut freeman act of 
 1658-9 been retained after the enforcement of the charter a 
 restriction of the suffrage' in both colonies would have 
 resulted. But the Connecticut politicians were too liberal — 
 or too shrewd in the light of their impending struggle for the 
 control of New Haven — to retain so high a property quali- 
 fication. The meeting of the first general court after the 
 proclamation of the charter, in October, 1662, — ^the meeting 
 in which Southold and the inhabitants of other New Haven 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 417 ; March 10, 1663-4. 
 ' New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, V, 192. 
 
4o8 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 towns were accepted into their government, — changed con- 
 siderably the basis for the franchise. For the future, 
 applicants for the freemanship must be twenty-one years of 
 age; they must present " themselves with a certificate vnder 
 ye hands of ye maior part of the Townesmen where they 
 line, that they are p^sons of civill, peaceable, and honest con- 
 versation;" and they must be assessed for twenty pounds 
 estate, besides their poll-tax, in the list of estate. Such per- 
 sons were to be presented at the October general court or 
 some adjourned court yearly, and might be admitted by the 
 assembly in the following May after the election. Persons 
 walking scandalously or being legally convicted of any 
 scandalous offence were to be disfranchised by the courts.* 
 This act lowered the property qualification from the pos- 
 session of twenty pounds personal property to the same 
 amount of any form of taxable property ; it required a defi- 
 nite certificate of the good character of the applicant, and it 
 placed him upon a six months' probation.^ In two and a 
 half years before 1662 only three freemen had been admitted 
 in Connecticut ; but under the new law large numbers were 
 admitted at once,^ and many others propounded and ad- 
 mitted after the six months' probation,* while some were 
 even admitted without their application and upon the con- 
 dition that they accept the freemanship.^ For eleven years 
 after the passage of the law of 1662 it remained unchanged, 
 and seems to have been administered with care. The records 
 frequently show that the terms of the act were not mere 
 formalities. In October, 1664, we read of seven persons 
 accepted to be made free in the following May, " if nothing 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 389. 
 
 " The probation feature may have been taken from the similar feature 
 in use in some of the New England churches (Atwater, New Haven, 
 254) ; or, more probably, it was copied from the Plymouth order of 
 1658, requiring freemen to stand propounded for one year. 
 
 "Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 386-389, 391, 406, 412, 425, 427-430. 
 Many of the new freemen undoubtedly came from the New Haven 
 towns, but a number were inhabitants of the original Connecticut 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 *7&jd., 413, 433. 
 
 '^ Ibid., ^g-^yi. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 409 
 
 fall in as a just exception against either of them in the 
 interrem ;" ^ and at other times the applicants for freeman- 
 ship are said " to stand for their freedom," ^ or to be upon 
 " tryall for freemen." ^ In at least two cases the general 
 court saw cause to defer giving the freeman's oath to certain 
 probationers " until some farther opertunity." * 
 
 The few years following the grant of the new charter 
 were a time of considerable interest in the suffrage question. 
 The negotiations with New Haven were under way, bring- 
 ing to the front the advisability of moral and religious quali- 
 fications; the new law of 1662 was being put in execution, 
 while, on the other hand, the town inhabitants were trying to 
 retain their right to vote for town deputies. In the midst of 
 these domestic difficulties came the royal commissioners to 
 investigate the political and religious conditions of the New 
 England colonies. Colonel Nicholls and the other com- 
 missioners were directed to make known to Connecticut 
 those terms of their instructions concerning Massachusetts 
 which properly applied to Connecticut,^ and the Connecticut 
 authorities were compelled to respond to a list of require- 
 ments.® They replied to the demand for all householders to 
 take an oath of allegiance to the king that persons had been 
 appointed to administer such oaths and that it had been 
 taken by " seuerall persons allready." To the demand " that 
 all men of competent estates and of ciuill conuersation, 
 though of different judgements, may be admitted to be free- 
 men, and haue liberty to chuse or be chosen officers, both 
 military and ciuill," the Connecticut general court replied, 
 " our order for admission of freemen is consonant wth that 
 proposition." The requirement for liberty of conscience 
 called forth the answer, " We know not of any one that hath 
 bin troubled by us for attending his conscience, prouided he 
 hath not disturbed the publique;" and the commissioners 
 
 * Conn. Col. Rec, 1636^1665, 433. 
 "Ihid., 413. 
 ' Ibid., 1663-1677, 66. 
 
 'Ibid., 14, 118. In the latter case all were admitted "only except 
 Annanias Turrener." 
 
 " New York Col. Doc, III, SS-56. 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1663, 439. 
 
4IO The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 were also told that the court knew of no laws or expressions 
 in laws derogatory to the king, but if any such be found 
 they should consider it their duty to repeal them. How 
 well these replies and those of Rhode Island contrasted with 
 the attitude of Massachusetts has been told in the com- 
 missioners' own words. ^ 
 
 Interest in the franchise, however, did not cease with these 
 replies. Three weeks later, in May, 1665, the general court 
 re-enacted an earlier law by refusing to admit any freemen in 
 the future unless they took the freeman's oath,* and at the 
 same meeting the court adopted measures for the incorpora- 
 tion of New Haven freemen into the Connecticut company, 
 with an implied extension of the suffrage in New Haven.* 
 A year later the assembly was compelled to adopt the first 
 law against " disorderly and corrupt practices in the election 
 of the members of the Gen^ Assembly." * If the terms of 
 such laws give any clue to the condition of elections, — and 
 usually they are not passed until occasion demands it, — 
 unqualified persons must have been voting, and some free- 
 men had cast more than one vote. Both of these practices 
 in the future were to be punishable with a fine of five pounds 
 for each transgression. In 1669 an interesting entry in the 
 records shows how several persons, who were unjustly " re- 
 pulsed in the endeauoring to procure their freedome," 
 brought in the assessment lists to show that they had suffi- 
 cient property to qualify them for the freemanship.^ In 
 
 ^ Rhode Island Col. Rec, II, 127. 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 15. 
 
 ' Ihid., 18. The Connecticut freeman's oath was to be administered 
 to so many of the New Haven freemen as would accept it, and to 
 such other persons who, by sufficient evidence, were shown to be 
 qualified according to the Connecticut law. 
 
 * Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 37. 
 
 ° Ibid., 107. " In the list of Estates as foloweth, — ^John Tompson 
 Junr, 47^. iss. John Beardsley, 87^. 12s. 6d. John Wells, 71I. Ss. od. 
 Wm Robberts, 76L Sam" Fayrchild, 44^. Sam" Mills, zgi. los. The- 
 ophilus Shearman, 44^. los. This Court orders that those aboue written 
 or so many of them as haue unjustly been repulsed in the endeauoring to 
 procure their freedome, they makeing it appeare that they haue been 
 unjustly debarred of that priuiledg, and that they are qualified according 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 411 
 
 the same year the selectmen and constables of each plantation 
 were required to make a list of the freemen in their several 
 plantations and send it " fayrely written" to the general 
 court, where the names were to be recorded by the secretary, 
 " that soe when there may be any occasion or difificulty about 
 that matter, whoe are freemen, it may be the easier deter- 
 mined." ^ In 1670 the democratic method of proxy voting 
 was restored. 
 
 All these features show how large a place in the history 
 of the colony was occupied by the subjects of elections and 
 suffrage. In the eight years from 1662 to 1670 the pos- 
 session of the freemanship was required for all electors in 
 colonial elections; an oath was imposed upon all freemen; 
 a new and more liberal property qualification was estab- 
 lished, which resulted in large additions to the class of free- 
 men; the religious qualifications were overthrown in New 
 Haven and their place taken by the more worldly require- 
 ments of Connecticut; satisfactory answers were given to 
 the inquiries of the English commissioners; and the first 
 steps were taken towards perfecting the machinery of elec- 
 tions by laws against fraudulent voting, by the drawing up 
 of lists of freemen, and by the introduction of the proxy 
 system. The electoral system was, in these years, outlined 
 in a form which was little changed during the colonial 
 period. 
 
 Within the next five years two changes were introduced 
 into the property qualifications, — one in 1673 raising the 
 qualification and the other in 1675 reducing it somewhat. 
 The printed code of 1673 changed the property requirement 
 from the possession of twenty pounds of taxable property 
 to twenty pounds value " in Housing or Land, beside their 
 personal Estate in the common List." ^ But this amount 
 seems to have been too high, for only two years later the 
 
 to lawe, to the sattisfaction of Mr. Gold & the Comrs of Fayrefeild and 
 Stratford, they shall stand as nominated for their freedom at this 
 court." . 
 
 * Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 112. 
 
 ' The Book of the General Laws For the People within the Jurisdic- 
 tion of Connecticut, Cambridge, 1673, 26. 
 
412 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 amount was diminished by one-half, and for the next four- 
 teen years the property quahfication stood at ten pounds 
 value of taxable real estate.^ It is interesting to glance, in 
 this connection, at the actual assessments made upon land. 
 In 1676 the best " home-lots" were rated at forty shillings 
 an acre, and the worst at twenty shillings; the most valu- 
 able farm lands were listed at fifty shillings an acre, but by 
 far the greater part were valued at from ten to twenty shil- 
 lings an acre.^ At these valuations, a freeman, under the 
 law of 1675, must be possessed of from five' to ten acres of 
 town lots, or from five to twenty acres of farm lands. It 
 is thus fairly easy, in this case, to transform the value in 
 pounds into actual extent of freehold required for the voter. 
 Connecticut, with the rest of New England, passed under 
 the government of Andros, and during the period of his 
 administration popular elections were discontinued except 
 for town officers, who, according to the laws of Andros, were 
 to be annually elected by the inhabitants of the several 
 towns.* The Revolution of 1688 led Connecticut into 
 political irregularities somewhat similar to those arising in 
 many of the other colonies, and the same means were taken 
 for the restoration of the charter government as were 
 adopted in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.* In May, 
 1689, the freemen met at Hartford and there three propo- 
 sitions were made; one suggesting the reinstatement of 
 the officers who were dispossessed by Andros, a second 
 advising the retention of the officers appointed under 
 Andros, and a third recommending the appointment of 
 a committee of safety.^ By a somewhat irregular vote, 
 the first measure, that of restoring the old officers who 
 had not been permitted to serve out their terms, was 
 adopted, and the officers installed as in Massachusetts. All 
 through this proceeding there was fear of offending 
 England, and, in order that the terms of the charter 
 
 " Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 253. 
 ' Ihid., 294 ff. 
 
 ^ Conn. Col. Rec, 1678-1689, 1^7. 
 *R. I. Col. Rec, III, 257-258. 
 
 "Bulkeley's Will and Doom, in Conn. Hist. Soc Coll., Ill, 153-160; 
 Conn. Col. Rec, 1678-1689, 455-460. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 413 
 
 might be the more fully observed, even proxy voting was 
 forbidden.^ 
 
 It may have been the desire to propitiate the English 
 authorities, or, as Bulkeley states, perhaps only an effort to 
 gain political advantage ^ that led the assembly in the fall of 
 1689 to adopt the exact provision of the English statute of 
 1430, and require for the future that all candidates for the 
 freemanship should be " in possession of freehold estate to 
 the value of forty shillings in country pay per annum."* 
 The exact effect of this change from a taxable valuation to 
 an income qualification is difficult to determine, but it was 
 evidently in the direction of a more extended suffrage. 
 Bulkeley believed the change was adopted by certain of the 
 leaders in order that " their admission of freemen [be] 
 enlarged, so to oblige more of the people to them and make 
 them a greater party." * This may have been one reason for 
 the change, but another must have been that desire to 
 placate the English authorities by removing some of the 
 freemanship restrictions, which is seen also in the proposi- 
 tions for a wider suffrage in Massachusetts at this time.^ 
 The act of 1689 also abolished the six months of probation 
 which had been previously required, and provided for the 
 admission of freemen by any assistant or commissioner,® to 
 whom the certificate of age, good character, and property- 
 holding was to be presented, and before whom the free- 
 man's oath was to be taken. Thus the assembly delegated to 
 colonial officers the power of admission of freemen, which 
 it had up to this time, in accordance with the charter, kept 
 in its own control. 
 
 With the dissipation of the fear of English intervention 
 the colony reverted to its old method of a fixed valuation of 
 property as prerequisite for the freemen. The code of 1702 
 established the suffrage qualifications in a form which com- 
 bined the mediaeval English requirement with a more liberal 
 and practical American test. The forty-shilling freehold 
 
 'CoM«. Hist. Soc. Coll., Ill, 160. 
 
 'Ibid., IS9- 
 
 ^Conn. Col. Rec, 16S9-1706, 11. ''Op. cit. 
 
 ' See ante, 335-336- 
 
 ' Justice of the peace, by the act of 1702 and later years. 
 
414 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 provision was, indeed, retained, and was to be kept during 
 the entire colonial period, but an alternative was now made 
 to it by which the applicant for the freemanship might enter 
 that class either by virtue of his freehold or by the holding 
 of forty pounds personal estate} In this dual form of per- 
 sonal property or real estate the sufifrage restrictions con- 
 tinued without change during the remainder of the colonial 
 period. 
 
 The new personal property qualification evidently led to 
 election evils and carelessness in the admission of freemen. 
 In 1705 the assembly was compelled to refuse the freeman- 
 ship to several persons to whom the freeman's oath had been 
 irregularly given ; ^ and again in 1 708 irregularly admitted 
 freemen were referred to the county court of New London.^ 
 In 1709 the assembly ordered that the value of the personal 
 estate as well as of freehold should be taken from the tax- 
 lists of the year in which the applicant desired to be enrolled 
 a freernan.* It is also remarkable, in the light of Rhode 
 Island's efforts to adapt the property qualification to the 
 changing value of the colonial paper money, that no such 
 attempt was made in Connecticut. In 17 10 the Connecticut 
 paper money was circulating at par; by 1724 it was worth 
 little more than one-half its face value in specie; by 1739 
 it had declined to one-third specie value, and in 1744 to one- 
 fourth.^ In spite of this depreciation in the value of money, 
 and consequent lowering of the standard of admission to the 
 freemanship, Connecticut made no changes in her qualifica- 
 tions. Indeed, the forty-shilling freehold, translated later 
 into seven dollars income from land, was retained as one of 
 the alternative qualifications of the suffrage until the amend- 
 ment in 1845 of the constitution of 181 8.® 
 
 ^ Acts and Laws of His Majesties Colony of Connecticut in New- 
 England. Printed in ijoz and now first reissued; Acorn Club, 1901, 
 p. 40. 
 
 'Conn. Col. Rec, i68p-i^o6, 511. 
 
 ' Ibid., IT06-1716, 79. ' Ibid., 129. 
 
 " H. Bronson, A Historical Account of Connecticut Currency, Con- 
 tinental Money, and the Finances of the Revolution, New Haven Hist.. 
 Soc. Papers, I, 50-52. 
 
 ' Neiv Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, V, 233. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 415 
 
 Before 1662 admissions of freemen were sometimes made 
 by the general court, and sometimes by specially appointed 
 officers. Under the charter, with the exception of a few 
 instances in connection with the admission of New Haven 
 freemen, the assembly invariably acted upon the admission 
 of each freeman until the year 1689. The election act of 
 that year delegated to the assistants and local commissioners 
 the duty of examining the certificates of age, good character, 
 and property of applicants for the freemanship, and em- 
 powered these officers to administer the freeman's oath to 
 those properly qualified. In 1729 this duty was made over 
 to the " open Freemens-Meeting of the Town" ^ to which the 
 applicant belonged ; publicly before this meeting the oath of 
 a freeman was to be administered, and the new freeman's 
 name enrolled by the town clerk. No subsequent change was 
 made in the colonial period. 
 
 Summarizing the restrictions upon the suffrage, we may 
 say that there was no formal property qualification upon 
 freemen either in New Haven, down to the union with 
 Connecticut, nor in Connecticut until 1658-9. Up to this 
 time the religious qualifications of New Haven may have 
 been paralleled in practice in Connecticut; but after the 
 passage of this law for almost two hundred years, or down 
 to 1845, ^ property qualification was one of the alternative 
 requirements of freemen. The amount was twenty pounds 
 personal property in 1658-9; in 1662 it was changed to the 
 same amount of taxable property; in 1673 i* became that 
 amount of housing or lands, and in 1675 it was changed 
 again to ten pounds of real estate. From 1689 to 1702 the 
 sole property qualification was forty shillings freehold ; but 
 in the latter year the alternative of forty pounds personal 
 estate was established and retained until after the Revolu- 
 tion. From 1662 to 1689 a six months' probation was 
 required; while from the earliest period to the latter date 
 freemen were admitted by the general court. In 1689 ad- 
 missions were made by certain officers, and in 1729 by the 
 town clerks in open town-meetings of the freemen. The 
 age of twenty-one years was first expressed in 1658-9, 
 
 ' Session Laws, 1729, 370 ; Ch. XLVII. 
 
4i6 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 although it is highly probable that it was in force from the 
 beginning of the colony ; the good-character clause appears 
 first in 1657; both of these provisions were continued 
 throughout the period. From 1640 down to the Revolution 
 of 1776 every person admitted as a freeman was compelled 
 to take some form of an oath. 
 
 Turning from the suffrage qualifications to the manner 
 in which this franchise was exercised, mention must be made 
 of the proxy system of Connecticut. Only a few words, 
 however, can be said here concerning this interesting system 
 of balloting, but the reader is referred to the papers of Judge 
 Baldwin for a full exposition of the subject.^ 
 
 The fundamental orders of 1639 provided for the election 
 of colony officers by means of paper ballots ; ^ and New 
 Haven's constitution of 1643 permitted freemen to cast their 
 votes by proxy if they did not find it convenient to attend 
 the election in person.^ The latter feature appears to have 
 developed in Connecticut also; and, although there is no 
 statutory provision for it, we read that in 1660 certain towns 
 used " to send Proxies, at ye Election, by their Deputies." * 
 This method of sending ballots up to the election, instead 
 of personally attending, was temporarily suspended by the 
 earlier interpretation of the charter of 1662; but in 1670 
 the system was restored, and this time elaborately outlined.® 
 
 " This Court being sencible of the great charge, difficulty and 
 expense of time the freemen of this colony are at by reason of 
 their great numbers and remoatness from Hartford, the place 
 of election, and considering the many inconveniences that 
 otherwayes may arise upon the yearly day of election, and 
 that the work of that day may be the more orderly, easily 
 and speedily issued, — It is ordered by this Court and the 
 Authority thereof, that henceforth all the freemen of this 
 Jurisdiction, wt^out any further summons, from yeare to 
 yeare, shall or may upon the second Thursday in May yearly, 
 
 ' New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, V, 179-245 ; Amer. Hist. Association 
 Papers, IV, 407-422. 
 
 " Conn. Col. Rec, 1636^1665, 22. 
 'New Haven Col. Rec, 1638-1649, 113. 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1663, 346. 
 'Ibid., 1665-1677, 131-2. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 417 
 
 either in person or in proxie, at Hartford attend and consum- 
 ate the election of Gouernour, Deputy Gouernour and Assists, 
 and such other publique officers as his Matle hath appoynted 
 by or Charter then to be yearly chosen." 
 
 The act directed the manner in which the election by proxies 
 should be managed, so " that there be no fraud or deceipt 
 used therein;" the constable was required to read to the 
 assembled freemen the freeman's oath and the law punishing 
 disorderly voting, and then to announce the names of those 
 persons who had previously been put in nomination for 
 office. From this list the freemen were to vote by ballot for 
 the several officers, and their ballots were to be sealed up 
 and sent up to the annual election at Hartford. 
 
 The records of the elections do not show the use of ballots 
 by non-attending freemen. One would not know, from a 
 perusal of these records, that many of the freemen never 
 attended the elections. We read such vague statements as, 
 " This day, being the day appointed by charter, and the laws 
 of this Colony, for the Election of the publick officers of 
 this corporation . . . the freemen of this corporation pro- 
 ceeded to give in their votes to persons chosen and appointed 
 ... to receive and sort them . . . And the votes of the 
 freemen having now been brought in, sorted, and counted," 
 certain persons were declared elected.* Better phraseology 
 to hide the existence of the proxy system and the absence of 
 a majority of the voters from the annual election could 
 hardly be conceived. The option between going personally 
 to the election or sending his vote was retained by the 
 freeman until 1750, when personal attendance was abolished 
 and the elections were conducted entirely by the counting of 
 ballots previously cast in the freemen's meetings of the 
 respective towns and carried up to Hartford by the deputies.^ 
 
 Closely associated with the suffrage and the proxy system 
 was the Connecticut method of nominating candidates for 
 colonial officers by popular vote of the freemen in the towns. 
 The custom, without doubt, was drawn from the similar 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 170&-1716, 309, and other volumes passim. 
 'Acts and Laws Of His Majesty's English Colony of Connecticut, 
 New London, 1750, p. 46. 
 
 27 
 
4i8 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 feature of the Massachusetts code. In 1670 the nomination 
 was made by the assembly;* in 1689 the power was given 
 to the freemen in the towns to hand in the names of twenty 
 persons fairly written on paper as nominees for the colonial 
 offices;* and the twenty having the greatest number of 
 votes for nomination were to be the number from which the 
 freemen at the ensuing election should choose their officers. 
 In 1692 the right of nomination was restored to the assem- 
 bly;^ but in 1697* the freemen regained the privilege and 
 retained it throughout the period.' 
 
 One more feature respecting the colonial suffrage needs 
 to be noted. The few facts which have been gathered 
 concerning the number of voters can be stated briefly. The 
 number of original freemen in the Connecticut valley is not 
 accurately known; but the actual admission of freemen 
 from 1639 to 1662 was only 229, and during this time it 
 has been estimated that the population increased by about 
 three thousand.* In other words, only one person in thir- 
 teen of the new population was admitted to the freeman- 
 ship. On the other hand, some idea of the proportion of 
 church-members, or freemen, to the entire population in New 
 Haven may be gathered from the fact that only 99 men are 
 mentioned as receiving seats in the church in 1646-7,'' at a 
 time when there may have been three hundred houses in the 
 town.* If these 99 men were all heads of families® and 
 householders, there would still remain the holders of twice 
 that number of houses to be accounted for ; so that it seems 
 probable that only one-third of the householders were mem- 
 bers of the church. 
 
 We know the exact number of freemen a few years after 
 
 ^Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 133, 141. 
 'Ibid., i68g-i7o6, ii. 
 • Ibid., 81. 
 'Ibid., 223-4. 
 
 "For further details of the nomination system see Baldwin, Amer. 
 Hist. Assn. Papers, IV, 407 flf. 
 'New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, HI, 313. 
 ' Atwater, New Haven, 542. 
 " Doyle, Puritan Colonies, I, 198. 
 "Atwater, op. cit., 251. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 419 
 
 the securing of the charter, for in 1669 the general court 
 ordered a Hst of all the freemen to be made.^ These lists 
 have been preserved, and they show a total of yyy freemen.'' 
 Comparing this with the figure 2050, — ^the whole number 
 of men in the colony as given in the answers to the Com- 
 mittee of Trade and Plantations, in 1671,' it would appear 
 that three out of every eight men in the population were 
 freemen. In 1692 we have such general statements as " The 
 greatest part of ye people are no freeman of theire Com- 
 pany;"* and "the other people of Connecticut (who yet 
 were many times the greater number of the people) had 
 nothing to do with it" [the election].^ The same writer, 
 the malcontent Bulkeley, says again, " The greatest part of 
 the people of this colony (I believe five or six to one) never 
 were made free of the company." * In the following year 
 the legislature called for opinions from the freemen and 
 inhabitants upon the propriety of addressing the English 
 monarchs for the preservation of the charter privileges, and 
 received an affirmative vote from 2182 persons; a far 
 greater number than all the freemen in the colony.'' Indeed, 
 as late as 1723 the total poll in the annual election for 
 magistrates was only 161 8 freemen.® 
 
 The figures for two elections near to the Revolutionary 
 period are extant, and they show an actual poll of one vote 
 to fifty or sixty persons in the population. A contested elec- 
 tion for treasurer in 1768 called forth only 3385 votes;® 
 which, counting the population of the time at 155,000,^" 
 
 ^Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 112. 
 
 ' Ihid., 518-526. 
 
 ^Ihid., 167Z-1689, 298. 
 
 'JV. K Co/. ZJoc, III, 853. 
 
 • Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., Ill, 146- 
 
 'Ibid., 129. 
 
 ' Ibid., 75 ; Conn. Col. Rec, 1689-1706, 102. 
 
 ' Amer. Hist. Assn. Papers, IV, 418. 
 
 " Conn. Col. Rec, 1768-1772, 4. 
 
 "Ibid.. 1757-1762, 630. In 1762 the population was 146,590, an in- 
 crease of 10,788 in the preceding six years. The same rate of increase 
 would make 155,000 a conservative estimate for 1768 (see Col. Rec, 
 1772-1775, 492)- 
 
420 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 would make the voting class only one-fiftieth of the entire 
 population. In 1775, at a poll of votes in October for nomi- 
 nees for the election in the following May, only 3477 voters 
 took part.^ In 1774 the total population of the colony was 
 197,856; of whom 40,797 were males over twenty years 
 of age.^ There was thus one voter in twelve of the male 
 population over twenty years of age, and only one in fifty- 
 seven of the entire population. The election for nominees 
 may not have aroused the greatest interest ; but yet the two 
 elections of 1768 and 1775 show a similar proportion of 
 voters to the population; and it is quite probable that the 
 elections in the years preceding the Revolution did not call 
 out more than two per cent, of the population. 
 
 In the local suffrage in Connecticut the class of voters 
 differed more or less from the freemen of the colonial elec- 
 tions. There were four forms of local suffrage: town 
 elections, church elections, militia elections, and proprietary 
 meetings. 
 
 Attention has already been called to the difference in the 
 town suffrage in Connecticut and in New Haven before the 
 union of the two colonies. We have noted how Connecticut 
 permitted non-freemen who were regularly admitted in- 
 habitants of a town, to vote for deputies to the general 
 court ; and how the terms of admission were for a time left 
 to the towns, but that in 1657 the assembly prescribed a 
 general qualification for the class of admitted inhabitants. 
 For military elections, the suffrage in Connecticut was still 
 wider, the right being given to the soldiers alone to nomi- 
 nate their officers, and to the courts to accept and install 
 them.^ On the other hand, in New Haven an attempt was 
 made to limit every election, except those concerning pro- 
 
 ' See entire votes for 45 candidates in Conn. Col. Rec, 1773-1776, 
 173-174- Each voter under the law of 1697 voted for twenty candidates ; 
 and the number of votes in the text above is perhaps not accurate, as it 
 has been gained by dividing the total ballots cast for all candidates by 
 the number of candidates ; some voters may not have voted for twenty 
 persons. 
 
 * Conn. Col. Rec, 1772-1775, 491. 
 
 ' Code of 1650, Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 543. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 421 
 
 prietary rights in land, to the body of freemen. Elections 
 for colony officials, for town officers, and for military and 
 ecclesiastical leaders were all to be concentrated in the con- 
 trol of the adult male church-members. In the negotiations 
 for union, too, New Haven desired to retain this limitation 
 of entire political power to the freemen, but the Connecticut 
 authorities refused to yield the elective rights already 
 granted to inhabitants of their towns.* 
 
 After the union under the charter of 1662, the basis for 
 voting in the towns was fixed by the terms of the order of 
 May 17, 1660, which provided that no one should be received 
 as an inhabitant in any town unless he were known to be of 
 an honest conversation and admitted by the vote of the 
 majority of the town inhabitants.^ The power thus vested 
 in the towns of receiving or rejecting applicants for in- 
 habitancy was retained by them throughout the colonial 
 period, and the same authority is conferred upon the towns 
 by the first legal code of the state in 1784.* Such formal 
 admission to inhabitancy was, however, only required of 
 those who came from other towns ; the sons of inhabitants, 
 after attaining their majority, appear to have been classed 
 as inhabitants without any formal vote of the town.* In 
 this respect the position of an inhabitant in a Connecticut 
 town was similar to that of a freeman in some English 
 boroughs or in the Rhode Island towns. Apparently, the 
 word inhabitant in Connecticut in the eighteenth century, 
 did not have its English legal meaning of a householder or 
 a landholder, but rather was applied to those who were 
 formally admitted into the town, or the descendants of such 
 persons. 
 
 This view seems to be borne out by the fact that the voters 
 of the towns are not co-extensive with the class of in- 
 
 * New Haven Col. Rec, 1633-1663, 494. 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 163&-1663, 651. 
 
 ' Code of 1784, 102. After 1750 the right to admit inhabitants might 
 be exercised by the town as a whole or by the selectmen, presumably 
 as the town should determine (code of 1750, gg). 
 
 ' See the record of a contested election in Lyme in January, 1714-15, 
 and the decision of the Governor and Council respecting electors 
 therein (Col. Rec, I70(r-I7i6, 486). 
 
422 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 habitants. The early laws concerning town elections vest 
 the right of suffrage in the " settled and approved Inhabi- 
 tants" of the towns ; ^ but these adjectives, implying accept- 
 ance by the town and land- or house-holding, were evidently 
 too loose a description of the class desired as voters. As 
 early as 1679 ^^ learn that " there are in most of the plan- 
 tations a number of sojourners or inmates that doe take it 
 vpon them to deale, vote, or intermedle with the publique 
 occasions of the towne and places where they doe live, to the 
 dissatisfaction of their neighbours." ^ To prevent such prac- 
 tices the assembly made the following restriction upon the 
 local suffrage: 
 
 " This Court doe order that no person that is not an ad- 
 mitted inhabitant, a householder, and a man of a sober con- 
 versation, and have at least fifty shillings freehold in the com- 
 mon list besides his person, shall adventure to vote in the 
 choyce of towne or county officers or grant of rates or lands, 
 vpon the penalty of the forfeiture of twenty shillings for the 
 breach of this order ; provided that no freeman of the corpora- 
 tion be hereby barred from voteing." * 
 
 It will be noticed that this act placed many restrictions upon 
 the town voter ; he must be regularly admitted by the town 
 into its political and economic life; his character must be 
 good ; he must be a householder in the town and also own a 
 specified amount of land in freehold. 
 
 Only three years after the passage of this law the assem- 
 bly was compelled, by the actions of " sundry persons of an 
 ungoverned conversation" thrusting themselves into the 
 towns, to provide that no person should come to reside in 
 any town without the consent of the townsmen ; and a fine 
 of twenty shillings for every week was imposed upon per- 
 sons entertaining such sojourners without the consent of the 
 townsmen.* In 1685 the assembly showed the same dis- 
 
 • Code of 1672, 65. 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1678-1689, 34. 
 
 ' Ibid. 
 
 *Oct. 12, 1682 {Col. Rec, 1678-1689, III). The preamble of the 
 law is interesting : " Whereas sundry persons of an ungoverned con- 
 versation thrust themselves into o' townships and by some underhand 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 423 
 
 position to guard carefully the town suffrage by reaffirming 
 the provision of 1660, that before the owner of land in any 
 town could dispose of his land to another individual, he 
 must first offer it to the town. Only after the town's 
 refusal to purchase could land be transferred to private per- 
 sons.^ Yet in spite of the care of the legislature, irregu- 
 larities were frequent occurrences in the town elections. 
 " Cunning contrivances and insinuations" were practised;^ 
 special mention is made of " young persons" * and those 
 who were not freeholders or householders voting in such 
 elections ; * and a number of disputed elections took place.^ 
 In one of these cases the assembly made the decision that 
 the towns possessed the power of judging the qualifications 
 of inhabitants and voters." A slight extension of the suf- 
 frage was made by the code of 1750, which gave an alterna- 
 tive to the fifty shillings of rateable freehold the possession 
 of forty pounds value of rateable personal estate.'^ 
 
 The suffrage in church meetings and elections was not 
 exactly like that in the towns. In 1667 a dispute in Windsor 
 over the choice of minister was, by the general court, sub- 
 mitted to a vote of " all the freemen and householders" of 
 the town;* but in another case the voters were merely 
 described as inhabitants.^ In 1699 a definite enactment 
 gave to all the householders within any town or " allowed" 
 
 wayes, either by pretence of being hired servants or of hiring of land 
 or houses, become inhabitants in our townships, whereby much incon- 
 veniency doth arise to such places, such persons often proveing 
 vicious and burthensome and chargeable to the places where they 
 come" . . . 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636-1665, 3Si ; 1678-1689, 186. 
 
 •/. H. Univ. Studies, VII, 91. 
 
 'Code of 171S, 112-113- 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1706-1716, 483-485. 
 
 'Ibid., 486; 17^1^-1733, 85-86, 104; 1744-1750, 368. 
 
 ' Ibid., 1726^1735, 104. 
 
 ' Code of 1750, 241. 
 
 " Conn. Col. Rec, 1665-1677, 73-74- The election return shows 138 
 voters in the town. 
 
 • Ibid., 1678-1689, loi. 
 
424 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 church society the right to call a minister and enter into 
 agreements with him.^ This was a wider suffrage than that 
 for town elections; but it was not long retained in this 
 form. A new law, in 1708,^ kept the broad householder or 
 inhabitant franchise for those in full communion with the 
 church, but required non-church-members who voted in 
 church matters to possess the qualifications imposed by law 
 upon voters in other town affairs.* 
 
 In 1728 the alternative of forty pounds personal estate to 
 the fifty shilling freehold was introduced into the church 
 elections, although not adopted in the town elections until 
 much later. Under this act no one should " presume to 
 vote in any society meeting for the choice of society officers, 
 grants of rates, erecting of meeting-houses, regulating of 
 schools, or any other thing proper to be voted in a society, 
 unless such person or persons have a freehold in the same 
 society rated at fifty shillings, or forty pounds in the com- 
 mon list, or that are persons that are in full communion with 
 the church." * 
 
 Early in the eighteenth century the church suffrage was 
 complicated by the privileges given to Episcopalians and 
 Quakers, whereby members of these sects who regularly 
 attended their worship, were exempted from the payment 
 of taxes for the support of the established churches.^ This 
 led to an illogical position of such dissenters, who, in spite 
 of their non-attendance upon " the ministry of the Presby- 
 terian, Congregational or Consociated churches," had yet 
 " adventured to vote" in meetings concerning the laying of 
 taxes and selection of ministers of those churches.® In 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1689-1706, 316. 
 
 ' Ibid., 1706-1716, 48. 
 
 ° " The major part of the inhabitants of any town, plantation, or 
 societie, qualified as the law directs to vote in all other town affairs, 
 or are members in full communion with the church in the said town 
 or societie, that shall be present at a town or societie meeting legally 
 warned, shall have power by the major vote of them so met to call 
 and settle a minister" . . . 
 
 *Conn. Col. Rec, 1726-1735, 211. 
 
 "In 1727 and 1729; Conn. Col. Rec, 1726^1735, 107, 237. 
 
 ' Ibid., 1744-1750, 218. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 425 
 
 1746, therefore, an act was passed excluding from partici- 
 pation in such meetings or elections all those who were 
 exempt from the payment of taxes for the support of the 
 regular churches.^ After this time ^ the suffrage in religious 
 societies, or in town meetings when religious subjects were 
 discussed, was limited ( i ) to male persons, twenty-one years 
 of age and in full communion with the church concerning 
 which the suffrage was exercised; or (2) non-church- 
 members, who paid taxes for the support of the established 
 church, and who were possessed of a freehold rated at fifty 
 shillings or a personal estate of forty pounds; but those 
 who, by regular membership in and attendance upon certain 
 legally determined churches dissenting from the Congrega- 
 tional forth were freed from the payment of church taxes, 
 were also excluded from the ecclesiastical elections of the 
 regular churches. 
 
 The militia elections of Connecticut were based upon the 
 reasonable and well-nigh universal custom of allowing all 
 the soldiers to participate in the choice of their officers. In 
 New Haven, indeed, it has been noticed that the suffrage in 
 such cases was limited, as in all other forms, to the freemen 
 of the colony; but that this method proved unpopular and 
 sometimes even inconvenient has already been shown.^ 
 After the union of 1662, however, the militia elections of 
 the entire colony were conducted according to the pro- 
 vision of the Connecticut code of 1650, which enacted " that 
 the Souldgers shall onely make choyce of theire Millitary 
 Officers and present them to the Perticular Courte ; but such 
 onely shall bee deemed officers as the Courte shall con- 
 firme." * The custom of nomination resulted almost always 
 in the acceptance by the court of the persons chosen by the 
 soldiers ; ^ although the records do show that on infrequent 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1744-1T50, 218. A similar act had been passed eigh- 
 teen years earlier in Massachusetts. 
 
 = A slight change was made in 1750; see code of 1769, 165. 
 
 ' See ante. 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1636^1665, 543. 
 
 = See records passim; e.g., 1636^1665, 187, 210, 237, 290, 336 ; 1663- 
 
 1677, 304. 
 
426 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 occasions the court refused to confirm those who were pre- 
 sented to them.' No change appears to have been made in 
 this liberal suffrage except one in words rather than in 
 spirit in the comprehensive military act of 1741. This act 
 gave the right to vote for military officers to all those 
 " obliged by law to keep arms." ^ 
 
 The Connecticut and New Haven towns had an economic 
 organization of commoners similar to that in Massachusetts 
 and the other New England colonies. Whatever may have 
 been the origin of the town, whether it was an indigenous 
 community or one erected by the colonial authorities, there 
 existed in either case an economic partnership in the 
 land ; the settlers who obtained the land constituted a quasi- 
 corporation.^ The land belonged to the original settlers and 
 their legal successors; and the admission of an inhabitant 
 into a town did not necessarily entitle the new-comer to 
 rights in commonage and in the undivided lands. In reality, 
 however, there was frequently no distinction made between 
 the town meeting of inhabitants and the corporation meet- 
 ing of the proprietors of the town lands.* In the early 
 history of many towns when the two classes were nearly 
 identical, land grants and distributions were made in the 
 open town meeting, and sometimes persons voted who had 
 no share in the common lands. But changing conditions 
 gradually led to a separation of the two classes; many 
 persons came into the towns who could not purchase a 
 share in the town stock in lands, and to whom the town 
 refused to give such a share; the value of land rose after 
 the population increased, and soon the early liberality in 
 land distribution ® gave place to a strong feeling of owner- 
 
 ' Conn. Col. Rec, 1678-1689, 126 ; 1689-1706, 45 ; 1706-1716, 485. 
 
 '/&4d., 1735-1743, 379-387- 
 
 " Egleston, Land System of the New England Colonies, J. H. Univ. 
 Stud., IV, 580. 
 
 * It is interesting to notice that the only cases in which New Haven 
 contemplated the extension of the suffrage to non-freemen were in 
 respect to the ownership of lands. 
 
 " New Haven, in her early distributions, gave so many acres for each 
 person, and so many for each share, — a combination of persons and 
 property very unusual (Levermore, New Haven, 83-85). 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 427 
 
 ship among the original proprietors or their successors. The 
 process of integration of the class of proprietors in the face 
 of opposition by the inhabitants led to differing develop- 
 ment in the several towns. One writer says that in Wethers- 
 field the town overshadowed the proprietors, in Windsor 
 the proprietors overshadowed the town, while in Hartford 
 the balance was about equally preserved.^ As late as 17 19 
 the entire town of Simsbury retained control of the lands 
 and, much to the offence of the proprietors, made many land 
 grants.* Even where the proprietors alone controlled land 
 matters, the question of the suffrage was a burning one, 
 for it was not clear at first whether voting in such meetings 
 should be in proportion to the shares of the respective pro- 
 prietors or whether each proprietor should have but one 
 vote.^ 
 
 For many years after the settlement of the colony there 
 was no general statutory provision respecting the rights or 
 duties of proprietors of the undivided lands,* and their posi- 
 tion must have been determined by the local customs and cir- 
 cumstances of the respective towns. Although their lands 
 became " an undoubted lawful estate of inheritance" to the 
 proprietors and their successors, yet " the said proprietors 
 did, for a considerable number of years in many of our 
 towns, truly consent and agree that the said common lands 
 might in whole or in part, be actually divided or disposed 
 of by the major vote of the inhabitants of such towns in 
 meeting assembled." ® In 1701 was passed what is believed 
 to be the first act distinctly separating the proprietors from 
 the town; but even in this act, which only concerned the 
 building of fences about common lands, the advice of the 
 selectmen of the town was required upon such matters.^ 
 The code of 1702, however, went much farther in the 
 erection of the proprietors as distinct corporations. Accord- 
 
 ' Andrews, in /. H. Univ. Stud., VII, S2- 
 ' Egleston, /. H. Univ. Stud., IV, 584- 
 'Andrews, op. cit. 
 
 'The code of 1672 makes no reference to proprietors of lands as 
 possessing distinct communal rights or duties. 
 " Conn. Col. Rec, 1717-1725, 395- 
 'Ibid., 1689-1706, 346. 
 
428 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 ing to the provisions therein, the " Proprietors in any 
 Comon Field in this Colony, or so many of them as are 
 residing in the Town or Plantation where such Common 
 Field is Situate," were empowered to meet together for 
 certain communal purposes, and choose committeemen to 
 attend to the details of management of the fields.^ The 
 question of suffrage was settled by allowing each person to 
 vote in proportion to his holding, thus establishing an 
 economic unit as a basis for voting in place of the earlier and 
 more democratic personal suffrage.^ 
 
 In spite of these requirements and of similar ones in an 
 act of 1706,* the towns in some cases retained control of 
 common lands. But the contest for possession of these 
 lands led at last to actual riots between claimants under the 
 authority of the towns and those under the authority of the 
 proprietors.* In 1723 the assembly settled these differences 
 by an act which acknowledged the property right of the 
 proprietors ; but it stated that the proprietors had, in many 
 towns, voluntarily permitted the towns to legislate about 
 their lands ; and consequently that all land grants made in the 
 past by towns under such circumstances should be valid.^ 
 For the future, however, no person by becoming an in- 
 habitant of a town, or by any other means " against or 
 without the consent of such proprietors," could gain any 
 title or interest in the common lands. The proprietors 
 themselves or their legal representatives could hold meet- 
 ings, and " by their major vote in such their meetings, (to 
 be reckoned according to their interest in such common 
 land,) to regulate, improve, manage and divide such com- 
 mon land in such manner and proportion as they shall see 
 good." Thus by this act the proprietors and town inhabi- 
 tants were definitely distinguished; and the old political 
 
 ^ Laws of Connecticut, 1702, 16. 
 
 ' All matters concerning common fields " shall be determined by the 
 vote of the major part of the Proprietors, which major part shall be 
 computed, not according to the number of Persons that are Proprietors, 
 but according to their interest in such Field." 
 
 • Conn. Col. Rec, 1689-1706, 544. 
 
 * Ibid., 1717-1725, 332-348. 
 Vfeid., 396. 
 
The Suffrage in Connecticut. 429 
 
 idea of voting in the proprietary meetings was overthrown 
 not only by making the suffrage proportional to the respec- 
 tive shares in land, but also by permitting the representa- 
 tion of the proprietors by means of their legal agents. These 
 changes took away from the meetings what little political 
 character they had possessed, and made them simply the 
 gatherings of business co-partners. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 
 
 I. From the Time of Settlement to the Charter of 1663. 
 
 The colony of Rhode Island owed its immediate existence 
 to the religious intolerance of Massachusetts. Around the 
 borders of the great Puritan Commonwealth there arose 
 numerous small settlements founded by Massachusetts men. 
 Sometimes lured by the fertility of the neighboring lands, 
 the exile of these persons was voluntary ; but in many cases 
 the religious persecution of the Puritans drove their weaker 
 opponents into new settlements where they hoped to live 
 beyond the realm of Massachusetts interference. Some of 
 the Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine settlements 
 were founded for the first of these causes, and some on 
 account of the second; but in the case of Rhode Island the 
 religious motive was uppermost. Here to a greater degree 
 than in Connecticut or New Hampshire we see a community 
 of non-conformists; by no means a unit upon the points of 
 difference with the Massachusetts religion, yet for one 
 reason or another opposing the hierarchy, and out of the 
 very multiplicity of their views compelled to tolerate one 
 another's opinions. Williams had, of course, even in Massa- 
 chusetts, spoken in favor of liberty of conscience ; and under 
 his influence the necessity for toleration arising from the 
 multiplicity of beliefs became a conscious ideal of the new 
 state. 
 
 And as their theory of religion was an original one, so 
 Rhode Island's political organization was purely indigenous ; 
 there was no charter obtained from the king, no grant of 
 land or town privileges from the General Court of Massa- 
 chusetts, nor any delegation of authority from proprietor or 
 chartered company. In defiance of the monarchical theories 
 of the time, political organization proceeded not from above 
 down to the people, but from the people up to their rulers. 
 A small group of Englishmen found themselves in the 
 430 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 431 
 
 American wilderness, almost in a " state of nature," as the 
 eighteenth century philosophers would say. Too poor and 
 insignificant to expect formal incorporation by the English 
 government, and under the impelling necessity of reaching 
 a common rule of action among themselves, they were 
 forced to adopt some form of association. The agreement 
 might first be needed in order to get a joint stock to purchase 
 lands from the Indians, it would be continued in order to 
 provide for the distribution of the land so purchased, and 
 be perpetuated by the necessity of adopting some rules for 
 civil action, and the election of new members or of local 
 officers. The association might be started with a written 
 document, as when the settlers on Rhode Island, ignoring 
 altogether English king or government, say with charming 
 naivete that we " incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Poli- 
 tick," and submit " our persons, lives and estates unto our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords ;" 
 or it might be a personal arrangement, as that between 
 Roger Williams and his five associates, or between Samuel 
 Gorton and his friends at Warwick, of which to-day we 
 have no written record. In any event a more or less formal 
 agreement was voluntarily reached among these exiles, ac- 
 cording to which they virtually erected themselves into a 
 corporation, and proceeded to adopt such local laws and 
 elect such officers as appeared to them necessary. 
 
 For a time these distinct town governments were the only 
 form of political organization in the Narragansett region, 
 but union among the towns came within a few years. First 
 there was the voluntary federation in 1640 of Portsmouth 
 and Newport, both situated on Rhode Island, and the latter 
 an ofifshoot of the former. This was followed by the en- 
 forced union of all the towns under the charter of 1644. 
 But a united colony was not so easily established, and the 
 grant of a conflicting charter to the towns on Rhode Island 
 led to great confusion. Another voluntary union of the 
 towns under the charter of 1644 was made permanent by 
 the grant of a royal charter in 1663. It is important for our 
 study of the suffrage in Rhode Island to remember that the 
 towns antedated the colony ; there was a town freemanship, 
 there were town meetings and town elections before any 
 
432 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 colonial freemanship or elections existed. And throughout 
 the whole period of our study we shall find that in each indi- 
 vidual's case, as in the history of the colony, the town free- 
 manship came before the colony freemanship ; a person must 
 be admitted a freeman of some town before he could be- 
 come a freeman of the colony. We must, therefore, look at 
 the sufifrage conditions in the towns before considering the 
 colonial franchise. 
 
 Before the granting of the first charter to the colony there 
 were three organized towns. Providence, Portsmouth and 
 Newport, and an unorganized settlement on the land later 
 called by the name of Warwick. In Providence Roger Wil- 
 liams purchased a tract of land from the Indians; he ad- 
 mitted twelve others to an equal share in this land, and in 
 his " initial deed" he anticipated the association of " such 
 others as the major part of us shall admit into the same 
 fellowship of vote with us." ^ A town organization was 
 early formed, but no record exists of a town agreement, 
 until a second party of thirteen heads of families was ac- 
 cepted and made " incorporate" ^ into the town. The new- 
 comers signed the well-known agreement of obedience to the 
 town government in civil matters : 
 
 " We whose names are hereunder desirous to inhabitt in ye towne 
 of prouidence do promise to subiect ourselves in actiue or passiue 
 obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for publick 
 good of o' body in an orderly way by the maior consent of the present 
 Inhabitants maisters of families Incorporated together into a towne 
 fellowship and others whome they shall admitt unto them 
 only in ciuill things." ' 
 
 In the case of Portsmouth and Newport the town life 
 began with a voluntary agreement among the intending 
 settlers before they arrived at the place of settlement. Thus 
 nineteen persons intending to settle upon the Island of 
 
 ^ Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, 
 I, 19-24 (quoted hereafter as R. I. Col. Rec.) ; Arnold, Hist, of R. I. 
 (ed. of 1894), I, 100; Staples, Annals of Providence, 26-33. 
 
 ' R. I. Col. Rec, I, 20. 
 
 ' Providence Records, I, I ; R. I. Col. Rec, I, 14. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 433 
 
 Aquedneck (Rhode Island), met at Providence on March 7, 
 1637-8, and incorporated themselves by the following agree- 
 ment, 
 
 " We whose names are underwritten do here solemnly in the pres- 
 ence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as he 
 shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and to all those 
 perfect and most absolute lawes of his given us in his holy word of 
 truth, to be guided and judged thereby, Exod. 24, 3, 4. 2 Cron. 11, 3. 
 2 Kings II, 17."^ 
 
 The inhabitants who, in 1639, set out from the north of the 
 island and founded Newport made a mutual promise to 
 bear equal burdens according to their strength or property: 
 
 " It is agreed. By vs whose hands are underwritten, to propagate 
 a Plantation in the midst of the Island or elsewhere; And doe 
 engage ourselves to bear equall charges, answerable to our strength and 
 estates in common; and that our determinations shall be by major 
 voice of judge and elders; the Judge to have a double voice." ^ 
 
 The latter agreement shows a more compact organization 
 than the earlier one, and a stronger political spirit, but it 
 makes no mention of God. Another agreement entered into 
 by those who remained behind after the officers and prin- 
 cipal men had moved to the centre of the island, is the only 
 one of the town agreements which makes reference to the 
 English government. 
 
 " We, whose names are under written doe acknowledge ourselves 
 the legall subjects of his Majestic King Charles, and in his name doe 
 hereby binde ourzelves into a civill body politicke under his lawes 
 according to matters of justice." ' 
 
 In three of these agreements it will be noticed that the 
 political organization is begun by the voluntary compact of 
 the signers to the document, while in the Providence paper 
 
 ^R. I. Col. Rec, I, 52; Arnold, History of Rhode Island (edition of 
 1894), I, 124- 
 'Ibid., I, 87. 
 
 'April 30, 1639; R. I. Col. Rec, I, 70. 
 
 28 
 
434 ^^^ Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 there is a joint agreement between a group of new-comers 
 and the old proprietors. We have here democracy in the 
 making; the fiat of the group of friends or neighbors that 
 they will unite in a civil government based upon the principle 
 of equality. This principle is here an outgrowth of two 
 things; their entire isolation from any higher authority 
 which might impose governors upon them, and the eco- 
 nomic situation according to which they shared equally in 
 the burden of purchasing land and enjoyed equally the right 
 to lands so acquired. This was carried to such an extent 
 that the widows of proprietors sometimes gave their consent 
 to matters of a purely civil nature in a way which, if it 
 cannot be called exercising the suffrage franchise, at least 
 shows some participation in the political rights of land- 
 holders.^ 
 
 The original proprietors of- the towns did not keep all 
 their purchase, but they admitted others to their number 
 under certain restrictions which differed somewhat in the 
 several towns.^ But since the original holders could admit 
 new associates upon any terms they saw fit to impose, the 
 suffrage qualifications in these towns are identical with the 
 conditions imposed upon freemen at the time of their accept- 
 ance by the town. 
 
 In Providence, Roger Williams' first twelve associates .. — , 
 together paid him thirty pounds, and the second group of / 
 thirteen persons gave him twenty pounds, for the privilege 
 of associating with him on equal terms in the land and 
 government.* In 1640 the town resolved that all present. 
 
 'Among the signatures of persons accepting the report of the arbi- 
 trators in Providence in July, 1640, are those of two widows {R. I. 
 Col. Rec, I, 31). 
 
 ^Persons so admitted were usually called freemen, following the 
 Massachusetts custom with which the settlers must have been familiar ; 
 sometimes the word townsman is used, and occasionally they are 
 called inhabitants; but generally the latter phrase is reserved for a 
 class of persons who were permitted to live in the town, but to whom 
 the political rights and land claims of the proprietors or freemen were 
 not extended. 
 
 ' R. I. Col. Rec, I, 21, 23. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 435 
 
 and future townsmen should pay thirty shilHngs.^ But oc- 
 casionally smaller payments were made, presumably for 
 smaller land grants than those given to the early settlers.* 
 On Rhode Island the general meeting on June 27, 1638, 
 ordered that all persons, whether freemen or inhabitants, 
 upon the island should pay two shillings for each acre of land 
 occupied.' In one instance, in Providence, each one of a 
 group of thirty-five settlers received a free grant of twenty- 
 five acres ; but they signed an agreement not to claim " any 
 Righte, to the Purchasse of the Said plantation; Nor any 
 privillidge of Vote, in Towne Affaires; untill we shall be 
 received, as free-Men of the said Towne of Providence."* 
 Besides the usual money payment, other conditions were im- 
 posed upon the new inhabitant. He must in all cases be 
 acceptable to the town, and admitted by the vote of the town 
 meeting •* or of the town officers ; ® he might be required to 
 fence his land,'' or to build a house on his lot,* or not to be 
 absent from his land longer than a specified time ; ® and on 
 Rhode Island a purchaser who did not reside on the island 
 lost his vote.^" In practically all cases the new settlers were 
 required to take some form of oath or " engagement" to the 
 government of the town into which they were admitted. 
 This is seen in the agreements made by later comers in 
 Providence to abide by the laws and orders made by the 
 major vote of the town ; ^^ and again on Rhode Island where 
 
 */?. /. Col. Rec, I, 28. A list of the "names of Such as have paid 
 all their purchase money and have quittances" is extant, showing the 
 names of forty-two persons {Providence Records, II, 31). 
 
 ' R. I. Col. Rec.,, I, IS ; Providence Records, I, 3. 
 
 'Ibid., S6. 
 
 * Providence Records, II, 29. These were called quarter-right inhabi- 
 tants, and they became entitled to one-quarter the share of a full 
 proprietor in subsequent land divisions (Arnold, History of Rhode 
 Island, I, 121). 
 
 ' R. I. Col. Rec, I, 53- 
 ' Ibid., I, 28, 84. 
 ''Providence Records, II, i. 
 'R. I. Col. Rec, I, 72. 
 
 * Providence Records, II, 3. 
 " R. I. Col. Rec, I, 125. 
 
 " Providence Records, I, i ; II, 29, go. 
 
436 The Suffrage Franchise m the English Colonies. 
 
 the new settlers must submit themselves to the " government 
 that is or shall be established according to the word of 
 God." ^ In Warwick every inhabitant was compelled to sign 
 the town compact and agree that he would not recognize any 
 other jurisdiction than that of the colony; ^ while on Rhode 
 Island an inhabitant or freeman endeavoring to bring in any 
 other power was to be treated as a perjurer.* 
 
 Thus to become an inhabitant of one of the towns a person 
 must first be accepted by the town; in most cases he must 
 make a pecuniary payment; he was required to submit to 
 the town government and promise to bring in no other au- 
 thority ; and he might be required to submit to various other 
 conditions concerning the use of his land. Yet even admis- 
 sion as an inhabitant under all these restrictions did not nec- 
 essarily make a man a freeman or voter of the town in which 
 he was resident. The early records give abundant evidence 
 of the existence of two distinct classes of inhabitants, com- 
 posed of those who were admitted as freemen and those who 
 had not yet received that privilege.* As time went on the 
 tendency was to extend the freemanship and the suffrage to 
 all freeholders, and in 1658 the town meeting of Providence 
 ordered that " all those that injoy land in ye jurisdiction of 
 this Towne are freemen." ^ While thus extending the 
 political rights of freemen, their economic rights in the town 
 lands were restricted. In the early years we find the state- 
 ment that the undisposed lands belong to the freemen," but 
 soon a distinction arose here, as in the other New England 
 colonies, between the freemen and the proprietors of the 
 town and common lands. Admission to the freemanship 
 came to be considered merely as a grant of political power, 
 while land matters were disposed of not in a general town 
 meeting, but in meetings of those interested in the town 
 lands, made up of the descendants and successors of the orig- 
 
 ^i?. /. Col. Rec, I, S3, gi- 
 ' Arnold, History of Rhode Island, I, 216. 
 "R. I. Col. Rec, I, ii8. 
 
 * Providence Records, II, 29, 96, 112;; R. I. Col. Rec, I, 56, 58, 66, 
 118, 124. 
 
 'Providence Records, II, 112; see also ihid., 96. 
 » R. I. Col. Rec, I, 83. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 437 
 
 inal proprietors.^ The homogeneous economic and social 
 character of the early settlements gave place to those differ- 
 ences of wealth and occupation which led to the factional 
 quarrels over the colonial paper currency. 
 
 The political activities in these towns must have been of a 
 very narrow nature. The earliest form was the town meet- 
 ing, or the " Bodye," upon which attendance was compul- 
 sory ; 2 but at a very early date, and in Portsmouth and New- 
 port from the first, the practice arose of relieving the town 
 meeting by giving details of administration to certain elect- 
 ive officers.^ Portsmouth and Newport developed an admin- 
 istrative system earlier than did Providence, and before the 
 settlers reached the island, a "judge" had been chosen;* 
 while within a few months three elders, a constable and a 
 sergeant were elected by the town meeting.* A similar or- 
 ganization was established at Newport when many of the 
 Portsmouth (called Pocosset at that time) settlers moved 
 to the southwestern side of the island.® Providence and 
 Warwick administered their affairs by irregularly appointed 
 arbitrators ^ until 1640 in Providence, when five " dis- 
 posers" were appointed by the town ; and until 1647 i" War- 
 wick, when a town organization was established.* The 
 early elections in the towns may have been viva voce, but 
 by 1639 the elders in Portsmouth, at least, were chosen by 
 "votes" and by "Providence;"* and at Newport a free- 
 man who was unable to attend the elections could send a 
 
 'Arnold, History of Rhode Island, I, 256; Providence Records, 
 passim; see post, 469. 
 
 'R. I. Col. Rec, I, 13, iS> 57, 81. 
 
 'Ibid., IS, 30, SS. The earliest officers were those appointed to dis- 
 pose of the town lands. 
 
 * Ibid., 52. 
 
 ° Ibid., 63, 64. 
 
 ° Ibid., go, 93. 
 
 ''Ibid., 27; Arnold, History of R. I., I, 176. 
 
 'R. I. Col. Rec, I, 129, note. 
 
 ° Ibid., 64. We are not told what means were taken to ascertain the 
 will of Providence, whether it were by lot or merely the principle vox 
 populi, vox dei. 
 
438 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 " sealed vote" to the judge.^ In all these elections the choice 
 was made by the freemen in the town meeting.^ 
 
 When the town isolation gave place to political union, 
 the town suffrage mentioned above became the basis for the 
 colonial freemanship. The first step in this direction came 
 in 1640 by the union of Portsmouth and Newport. These 
 towns were settled by the same persons, for many of the 
 proprietors left the young town at the northern end of the 
 island to plant a settlement at Newport, and their geographi- 
 cal situation could not but force some kind of political un- 
 derstanding upon the two towns. After a short independent 
 existence the island towns formed a union or confederation 
 which provided for a freemanship of the island, in addition 
 to that of the towns ; * it established a general form of 
 government for the whole island ; * and it permitted each 
 town to direct its local affairs by its own courts or town 
 meetings.' 
 
 This government, with such remarkably modern political 
 machinery, was not less radical in its theory of popular 
 authority. The general court of the island, on March 16, 
 1640-41, agreed unanimously 
 
 " that the Government which this Bodie Politick doth attend vnto in 
 this Island, and the Jurisdiction thereof, in favour of our Prince is a 
 Democracie, or Popular Government; that is to say, It is in the 
 Powre of the Body of Freemen orderly assembled, or the major part 
 
 ^R. I. Col.Rec, 1,98. 
 
 ' Only one form of broader suffrage has been noted. Newport set 
 an example in her first year, which was adopted by the colony and 
 became the custom for a number of years. In 1639 the town gave the 
 militia, or "Traine Band," the privilege "to select and chuse such 
 persons, one or more from among themselves, as they would have to 
 be officers among them; to exercise and traine them;" but the officers 
 so chosen must be presented to the magistrates for approval. As the 
 soldiers included all males capable of bearing arms, later specified as 
 between the ages of sixteen and sixty, it will be seen that this militia 
 suffrage was considerably wider than the town freemanship (R. I. Col. 
 Rec, I, 93). This was probably drawn from Massachusetts custom. 
 
 'R. I. Col. Rec, I, 100. 
 
 * Ibid., 100, loi. 
 
 " Ibid., 106. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 439 
 
 of them, to make or constitute Just Lawes, by which they will be 
 regulated, and to depute from among themselves such Ministers as 
 shall see them faithfully executed between Man and Man."^ 
 
 The short time during which this confederation on the island 
 continued is no indication of its importance in the formation 
 of the colonial government. When the organization under 
 the first charter was completed, its makers drew largely from 
 the forms of this first union. They adopted its general and 
 local freemanship idea, its division of governmental powers, 
 the names and functions of many of its officers, the proxy- 
 elective system, and even the popular election of militia offi- 
 cers. Many of these features had, of course, been introduced 
 into the island by the emigrants from Massachusetts, and 
 then from Newport and Portsmouth the customs at last 
 entered into the general colonial organization. 
 
 A second advance towards union came from England in 
 the form of the charter granted on March 14, 1643-4, by the 
 Commissioners of Plantations. The early town organization 
 and the first union had been purely local in their origin, and 
 had received no authority from the English government, 
 although in some cases an allegiance to the king was recog- 
 nized.* The charter of 1644 granted to the " Inhabitants of 
 the Towns of Providence, Portsmouth, and Newport, a free 
 and absolute Charter of Incorporation to be known by the 
 Name of the Incorporation of Providence Plantations, in the 
 Narraganset Bay, in New England." ^ It gave them " full 
 Power and Authority to rule themselves, and such others as 
 shall hereafter inhabit within any Part of the said Tract 
 of land, by such a Form of Civil Government, as by volun- 
 tary consent of all, or the greater Part of them, they shall 
 find most suitable to their Estate and Condition." They 
 were impowered to make civil laws and constitutions, and 
 choose or displace officers of justice; provided that such 
 regulations for civil government should be conformable to 
 
 ^ R. I. Col. Rec.j I, 112. It is to be noted that this resolution ante- 
 dated the commonwealth movement in England, and even contained 
 a clause saving the authority of the king. 
 
 'R. I. Col. Rec.;i, 70, 112. 
 
 'Ibid., 143-146. 
 
440 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 the laws of England " so far as the nature and constitution 
 of the place will admit." 
 
 Three years after the date of this charter, a general court 
 of election was held at Portsmouth, at which a provincial 
 organization was erected and a code of laws adopted. The 
 new government, shared in by Warwick as well as by the 
 three earlier towns, was partly representative and partly 
 direct. The Rhode Island freemen, meeting May 19-21, 
 1647, agreed that their form of government was " DEMO- 
 CRATICALL; that is to say, a Government held by ye 
 free and voluntarie consent of all, or the greater parte of 
 the free Inhabitants." ^ There was to be a general assembly 
 of all the freemen held annually, not only for the election of 
 ofiScers, but also for the enactment of laws.^ In addition to 
 this there were frequent meetings of a General Court com- 
 posed of six committeemen appointed for each town ; ^ and 
 at least in one case other freemen, whose " helpe is desired," 
 were permitted to tarry if they would.* An inspection of 
 certain of the acts of this assembly and the subsequent ex- 
 perience under them, down to 1663, may be of value to an 
 understanding of the suffrage in the colony. These features 
 fall into three classes ; first, the admission of freemen, or the 
 manner of granting the suffrage ; second, the proxy system, 
 or the manner in which the suffrage was exercised; third, 
 the subjects upon which popular suffrage was exercised, in- 
 cluding the election of general and town officers, the making 
 of laws in general assembly, and the popular initiative and 
 referendum of legislative topics. 
 
 The path to the provincial suffrage lay through the free- 
 manship of the towns ; he who had been accepted as an in- 
 habitant of one of the towns and admitted as one of its free- 
 men could hope, as a matter of course, to be granted the 
 colonial freemanship. The charter of 1644, unlike that of 
 1663, did not use the word freemen, but simply incorporated 
 the " inhabitants" of the three towns. Yet the practice was 
 to require a formal vote and admission to the town and 
 
 "■R. I. Col Rec, I, 156. 
 
 'Ibid., 149, 150, 191. 
 
 ° Ibid., 14Q ; also passim after p. 228. 
 
 * Ibid., 209. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 441 
 
 then a similar entrance into the colonial freemanship.^ The 
 acceptance of freemen during this period sometimes took 
 place in the annual general assembly, or more often, in the 
 representative court; ^ and it is noteworthy that no instance 
 of refusal of the freemanship to those proposed for the fran- 
 chise has been found for these nineteen years. Usually, the 
 candidates were proposed and accepted by name; at other 
 times there were wholesale admissions of freemen. Thus 
 after the reunion of the four towns in 1654 following 
 Coddington's abortive attempt to establish an independent 
 government on the island, the commissioners of the four 
 towns ordered "that all those inhabitants in this Collonie 
 that have been received freemen to act in any Towne or 
 Collonie since Mr. Coddington's commission was exhibited, 
 shall be owned freemen of ye Collonie." * In 1656 the 
 settlers at Patuxett were in a body to " be lovingly enter- 
 tained as freemen of this Collony, to have theire free voates 
 in makinge of lawes, choosinge of officers in Towne and 
 Collony, with the enjoyment of all priviledges belonginge to 
 freemen of this jurisdiction." * The interval between admis- 
 sion to the town franchise and the grant of the colonial free- 
 manship might be very short. We have evidence of this in 
 the case of Providence in 1658. On May isth, the town 
 meeting voted that all freeholders were to be accounted free- 
 men of the town; ^ and on May i8th, twenty-nine freemen 
 of Providence were proposed and admitted freemen of the 
 colony,^ who, it may be fairly supposed, were town freemen 
 coming in under the new town regulation. 
 
 Aside from the prerequisite of town freemanship, few 
 other qualifications appear to have been imposed upon the 
 candidate for colonial freedom. We learn that in the first 
 
 'i?. /. Col. Rec, I, 263, 280, 299-302, 340, 387, 426. The records 
 usually show that the candidate for the freemanship came from a 
 particular town, and in only a few cases is the name of the town 
 lacking {ibid., 282, 303, 356). 
 
 ^ See above references. 
 
 ' R. I. Col. Rec, I, 280. 
 
 ^Ibid., 339. 340. 
 
 'Providence Records, II, 112. 
 
 »i?. /. Col. Rec, I, 387. 
 
442 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 meeting in 1647 it was agreed that all should " set their 
 hands to an engagement to the Charter;" * and it is proba- 
 ble that those subsequently admitted were required to sub- 
 scribe to a similar agreement. During the Puritan Com- 
 monwealth period, the inhabitants of Rhode Island, as in the 
 other colonies, were individually required to submit to the 
 new " State of England" and render obedience to it, under 
 the penalty of forfeiting the benefit accruing under any law 
 of the colony, — which presumably meant disfranchisement.^ 
 Beyond these points, the towns enjoyed the right to fix the 
 qualifications of town freemen, and consequently in an in- 
 direct manner, of the colonial freemen as well. Many years 
 were to pass before any general law established their quali- 
 fications. 
 
 At the meeting in May, 1647, for the election of officers 
 and enactment of laws under the charter of 1644, the free- 
 men of the colony were present in person, the records stating 
 that the " major parte of the Colonie was present." ^ Yet 
 even this meeting lost its pure democratic character before 
 the three days of its session had passed. It was agreed that 
 if forty or more persons remained at the meeting, they should 
 have the authority of the whole body ; * and later it was 
 ordered that " if any do depart, he shall leave his vote be- 
 hind him, that his power remain, though his person be 
 absent." ® Thus in the first assembly, the principle of proxy 
 voting was recognized; and by legislation it was perma- 
 nently established. The assembly made provision for an 
 annual election of officers in a general assembly of the free^ 
 men ; but " forasmuch as many may be necessarily detained, 
 that they cannot come to the General Court of Election, that 
 then they shall send their votes sealed up unto the said Court, 
 which shall be as effective as their personal appearance." * 
 Nothing further was said concerning the method of return- 
 ing the individual votes, but corruption inevitably crept into 
 
 ' R. I. Col. Rec, I, 147. 
 
 'Ibid., 30s. 
 
 ^ Ibid., 147. 
 
 *Ibid. 
 
 'Ibid., 151. 
 
 ' Ibid., 149. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 443 
 
 such a lax system. Only two years later it was found neces- 
 sary to appoint a special committee to examine some of the 
 votes, and the assembly itself passed an order to prevent 
 irregularities in the future by directing that " none shall 
 bringe any voates but such as they receive from the voaters 
 hands." ^ The proxy system here established was without 
 doubt drawn from the custom of the town of Newport,^ and, 
 with some modifications it lasted throughout the colonial 
 history of Rhode Island. The freeman was privileged either 
 to attend the general court of elections in person, or to send 
 his ballot in some prescribed manner to the meeting. Per- 
 sonal attendance was forbidden after 1760, but through the 
 whole colonial period the written paper liallots were col- 
 lected in the several towns and sent to the court of election 
 to be examined and counted.* In a similar manner the 
 voter's privilege to initiate legislation, or to pass upon that 
 which had been adopted by the representative court of assist- 
 ants, was exercised by means of individual ballots sent up 
 to the general officers to be counted. 
 
 The Rhode Island freeman during the period 1 647-1 663 
 possessed a wider field in which to exercise his suffrage 
 powers than did the voter of any other colony at that time. 
 The freemen of the colony could attend in person or send 
 their ballots to the annual election of colonial officers; the 
 freemen of the respective towns could elect their town 
 officers * and their commissioners to the colony courts ; " 
 while all the soldiers of the militia companies could vote 
 in elections for military officers.® In the pure democratic 
 legislative assembly the freeman had a voice in the passage 
 
 'i?. /. Col. Rec, I, 217. 
 
 ' The colonial law of 1647 contains part of the language of an order 
 of Newport of January 29, 1639-40, according to which the elections 
 were to be held annually by the freemen, but " such as shall be neces- 
 sarily detained to send in their votes, sealed up to the Judge" {R. I. 
 Col. Rec, I, 98). 
 
 ' See post, 463-467. 
 
 * R. I. Col. Rec, I, ISO, 151, 21s. 
 
 'Ibid., 147, 209, 221, 228, 229, 236, 317. 
 
 ° This feature, like the proxy voting, is also to be found in the early 
 organization upon Rhode Island, R. I. Col. Rec, I, 93, iiS, ii7. 120, 153. 
 
444 l^he Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 of all laws; but this power did not last long, and the con- 
 venient representative assembly composed of six commis- 
 sioners from each town was permitted to carry on the work 
 of legislation, until in 165 1, it was declared "the lawe 
 makinge Assemblie" of the colony.^ But although the free- 
 man lost his right to attend the legislative body, he still pos- 
 sessed the power of initiating or disallowing legislation. 
 One of the orders of the assembly of 1647 permitted the dis- 
 cussion of general matters in any town meeting, and pro- 
 vided that if any action was there determined upon, the 
 town clerk should certify the matter to the other three towns. 
 The subject was then to be " agitated" in the other towns, 
 and voted upon; then the representative committeemen of 
 the towns were to meet, and " finding the Major parte of the 
 Colonie concurring in the case, it shall stand for a Law 
 till the next Generall Assembly of all the people, then and 
 there to be considered, whether any longer to stand yea 
 or no." ^ 
 
 But more valuable than the initiative was the popular 
 referendum which also dates from 1647. Another order of 
 that year permitted (or perhaps compelled) the general 
 court of committeemen to propose measures to the towns. 
 The towns were then to discuss the subjects and " the 
 votes shall be collected and sealed up," and sent to the gen- 
 eral recorder; and " if major voice determine the case," the 
 measure should become a law until the next meeting of the 
 general assembly of the people.^ The referendum became 
 the subject of frequent legislation after 1647, evidently a 
 result of attempts to put it into practice. In 1650* the 
 representative assembly was required to submit all its laws 
 
 ^ R. I. Col. Rec, I, 236. The members of these "general courts'' 
 were elected for each occasion, and not for a stated time; but by an 
 order of 1655 they were to stand for a year unless the towns chose to 
 send others {ibid., 317). The frequent election and meeting of the 
 commissioners seemed " to be some burden on the people,'' and in 1658 
 they were to meet but once a year unless specially called by the presi- 
 dent and assistants {ibid., 400). 
 
 = R. I. Col. Rec, I, 149. 
 
 = Ibid. 
 
 * Ibid., 229. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 445 
 
 to the several towns within six days after its adjournment, 
 and within the next three days the town was to be called 
 together to consider the laws. 
 
 "And if any freeman mislike any law then made, they shall then 
 send their votes with their names iixed thereto vnto the Generall 
 Recorder within tenn dayes after the reading of thoss lawes and no 
 longer. And if itt appeare that the major vote within that time pre- 
 fixed shall come in and declare itt to be a nullity, then shall the Re- 
 corder signifie it to ye President, and the President shall forthwith 
 signifie to ye Townes that such or such lawes is a null, and the silence 
 to the rest shall be taken for approbation and confirmation of the lawes 
 made." 
 
 In 1658 we are told that "it is conceived a wholesome 
 liberty for the whole or major parte of the free inhabitants 
 of this collony orderly to consider of the lawes made by the 
 Commissioners' Courts, and upon findinge discommodity in 
 any law made by the said court, then orderly to shew their 
 dislike and soe to invalid such a law." ^ 
 
 No absolute evidence has been found in the records to 
 show that the initiative and the referendum were ever exer- 
 cised, and it is unlikely that the former was adopted. The 
 frequent legislation upon the subject of the referendum, 
 however, seems to point to considerable popular interest in 
 the matter, if not to an actual fact of political organization ; ^ 
 and in Providence, at least, the records show that at this 
 time, and for many years thereafter, the laws of each assem- 
 bly were read in the town meeting.^ There is no record of 
 the popular veto of a legislative act. Yet the ideal, even if 
 not carried into practice, shows a strength of democratic 
 thought which is remarkable. 
 
 ^ R. I. Col. Rec, I, 401. The determination of such invalidity was 
 to be made by a majority of each town instead of a majority of the 
 colony. But two years later, since the privileges of the people had not 
 been " clearly evinced," it was enacted that the disallowance of laws 
 should take place upon the vote of a majority of the free inhabitants 
 of the colony, " although any one towne or other should be wholly 
 silent therein" (ibid., 429). 
 
 ' A detailed study of the town records might throw some light upon 
 this point, but the writer has not had opportunity to do this. 
 
 ' Providence Records, III, 25, 37, etc. 
 
446 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 II. Under the Charter of 1663. 
 
 After the restoration of the EngHsh monarchy, the Rhode 
 Island assembly appointed an agent in England to see that 
 their privileges, liberties and boundaries were preserved in- 
 tact.^ John Clarke, the agent, shortly afterwards presented 
 a most humble and supplicatory letter to the king, praying 
 for a confirmation of the charter privileges of the colony.'* 
 Accordingly, on July 8, 1663, a new charter was issued 
 which erected a corporate political company, composed of 
 freemen.^ Twenty-seven named persons and " all such 
 others as now are, or hereafter shall bee admitted and made 
 ffree of the company and societie of our collonie of Provi- 
 dence Plantations in the Narragansett Bay, in New-Eng- 
 land, shall bee, from tyme to tyme, and forever hereafter, a 
 bodie corporate and politique, in ffact and name, by the 
 name of the Governor and Company of the English Collonie 
 of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, in New-Eng- 
 land, in America." The general officers of the company 
 were to be elected annually, although the first incumbents 
 were named in the charter. An assembly composed of six 
 deputies from Newport, four each from Providence, Ports- 
 mouth, and Warwick, and two for every other town, was to 
 meet twice a year. Remarkably broad powers were given 
 to this assembly, but we need note hei-e only the clause for 
 the admission of freemen. By it the assembly could " choose, 
 nominate, and apoynt, such and soe manye other persons as 
 they shall thinke ffitt, and shall be willing to accept the same, 
 to bee ffree of the sayd Company and body politique." Offi- 
 cers should be chosen annually by the general court or assem- 
 bly, "by such greater part of the sayd Company, for the 
 tyme beinge, as shall bee then and there present." 
 
 The charter of 1663 stated in more definite terms than 
 those of the charter of 1644 the form of incorporation of 
 the colony, and it placed additional emphasis upon the free- 
 manship idea ; but in practice it introduced very few changes 
 into the constitution of the colony. Since the charter vested 
 
 *i?. /. Col. Rec, I, 433-435- 
 
 'Ibid., 485-491- 'Ibid., II, 3-21. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 447 
 
 legislative power in the assembly, it was held that the power 
 of the people to annul laws by vote in town meetings was 
 inconsistent with the charter ; ^ and some confusion was 
 caused by the ambiguous terms of the charter in describing 
 elections. It was uncertain whether the elections were to 
 be by the representative assembly, or by an assembly of the 
 freemen ; and if the latter, there were doubts whether proxy 
 votes could be received.^ As the charter interrupted but 
 slightly the customs and laws of the colony, we can proceed 
 at once to consider the development of the suffrage during 
 the next one hundred years under the charter. For this pur- 
 pose, it will be best to treat, first, of the qualifications of 
 electors in the colony elections ; secondly, the proxy system 
 or method of balloting and a few other facts concerning 
 elections ; and thirdly, other elections than those for colony 
 officers. 
 
 Although the new charter gave over to the assembly the 
 whole subject of admission of freemen, yet no change was 
 made in the custom which had previously existed. The 
 applicant for colonial freedom must first have been accepted 
 as a freeman of some town before he was qualified for the 
 higher duties. After gaining the town freedom, the free- 
 man's name was usually proposed to the general assembly 
 by the town clerk,^ although sometimes the applicant him- 
 self petitioned for the colonial franchise.* There are very 
 few instances in which the granting of freedom was refused 
 or even postponed after the presentation of names to the 
 assembly.^ It was very unusual for the assembly to inquire 
 into the returns from the towns; apparently, if a man was 
 properly admitted into a town, he could, if he desired, ob- 
 tain the colonial freedom as well. So strong was the custom 
 in this particular that the assembly, when it came to impose 
 qualifications upon the freemanship, found it necessary to 
 
 ' R. I. Col. Rec, II, 27. 
 'Ibid., 28, 29, 39, 62. 
 ' Ibid., 147, 183. 
 * Ibid., no, 147. 
 
 "The only cases noticed in scores of references to the subject of 
 admission of freemen will be found in R. I. Col. Rec, II, 59, 185, 238, 
 
 337- 
 
448 The Suifrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 place the restrictions not simply upon the freemen of the 
 colony, but also upon the town freemen. 
 
 Before 1663 there was practically no general qualification 
 for the freemanship, since the towns admitted or refused to 
 admit what persons they would. After the new charter, 
 however, the admission of freemen in towns and colony be- 
 came the subject of frequent legislation. The first general 
 qualification was imposed as a result of the demands of the 
 English government. The royal commissioners who made 
 so much trouble for themselves and the colonists in Con- 
 necticut and Massachusetts also turned their investigations 
 upon Rhode Island. Carr and Carter, two of the commis- 
 sioners, made known the king's desires to Rhode Island. 
 The requirements were the same as those discussed more 
 fully under the other two colonies; all inhabiting house- 
 holders were to take an oath of allegiance to the king; and 
 " all men of competante estates and of civill conversation, 
 who acknowledge and are obediante to the civill magistrate, 
 though of differing judgements" should be admitted as free- 
 men and have liberty to elect or be elected to office.^ The 
 assembly in complying with these requirements necessarily 
 imposed new restrictions upon the suffrage. All present 
 freemen, and all admitted in the future, were compelled to 
 take an engagement of allegiance to the king and of obedi- 
 ence to the laws and charter of the colony,^ and those re- 
 fusing were to forfeit the suffrage franchise as well as all 
 the other rights of freemen. The assembly accepted as 
 readily the other proposed qualifications for the suffrage 
 
 'i?. I. Col. Rec, II, no. 
 
 ''Ibid., 112. The oath is as follows: "You, A. B., sollemly and sin- 
 cearly engage true and faithfuU aleagiance vnto his Majestye Charles 
 the Second, King of England, his heires and successors, to beare and 
 due obediance vnto the laws established, from time to time in this 
 jurisdiction to yeald vnto the vtmost of your power, according to the 
 previlidge by his said Majesty granted, in religioues and civill con- 
 cearnments to this CoUony in the Charter; which said engagement 
 you make vnder the perrill and penalty of perjury.'' The same oath 
 was to be taken by all men over eighteen years of age (Jbid., 113). 
 See also Providence Records, III, 64, loi, 199; IV, 55. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 449 
 
 and embodied them in the following- order,^ that those 
 persons who 
 
 "take the aforesaid engagement and are of competent estates, civill 
 conversation, and obediant to the civill magistrate, shall be admitted 
 freemen of this CoUony vpon their exprese desire therein declared to 
 the General Assembly, either by themselves with sufficient testimony 
 of their fittnes and qualificationes as shall by the Assembly be deemed 
 satisfactory; or if by the chief e officer of the towne or townes where 
 they live, they be proposed and declared as aforesaid; and that none 
 shall have admission to vote for publicke officers, or deputyes, or enjoy 
 any priviledge of freemen till admitted by the Assembly as aforesaid, 
 and their names recorded in the gennerall records of this Collony." 
 
 This full compliance of the Rhode Island authorities was 
 very acceptable to the royal commissioners, who write to 
 England in favorable terms concerning the colony, and relate 
 how " they admitt all to be freemen who desire it." ^ The 
 new qualification does not appear to have made the admission 
 of freemen any easier, for during the next few years rela- 
 tively few new freemen were admitted. On the contrary, it 
 must temporarily have excluded many from voting, as some 
 refused to take the form of allegiance required, and for 
 several years there was a class of non-jurors in Providence 
 who interfered in elections and caused heated contests.' 
 
 The close relationship between the freedom of the towns 
 and that of the colony is clearly shown in an act of 1666.* 
 This act impowered the town meetings " to make Such men 
 freemen of their Towns as they Judge may be meet & may 
 be seruiceable to serve in ye Towns in Town Offices." After 
 admission by the towns, the names of all such persons were 
 to be presented to the assembly, and if they " pass by vote to 
 
 ^R. I. Col. Rec, II, 113. 
 
 'Ibid., 127. 
 
 'Ibid,, 141, 142, 200, 288-290, 292, 293; Providence Records, III, 105, 
 149, ISO. 
 
 * Laws and Acts of Her Majesties Colony of Rhode Island and 
 Providence Plantations made from the First Settlement in 1636 to 
 170S, S. S. and B. Rider, Providence, i8g6, 35, 36- The phraseology 
 but not the sense was somewhat changed in the code of 1730, Acts and 
 Laws of Rhode Island, 1730, 16. 
 
 29 
 
4SO The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 allow them freemen of y^ Colony then Shall they have their 
 Vots of Electing Gener'l Officers." It thus came to be the 
 custom for the town clerks to send lists of the new town 
 freemen to the assembly at the time of the general election in 
 May. As early as 1667 the assembly was compelled to 
 order that no person should be admitted to the freedom of 
 the corporation on election day,^ and thereafter the admis- 
 sions of freemen nearly always took place at an assembly 
 session or preparatory meeting held the day before the 
 election.^ 
 
 Both the charter of 1663 and the assembly's order of 1665 
 in response to the English demands, had said that the free- 
 dom of the colony might be given to those who desire it, but 
 they had not implied that the colony could compel persons to 
 accept the honor. Yet in 1670 the assembly impowered the 
 towns to admit such freemen as they "shall judge capable 
 to doe publicke service in bearing office therein; although 
 such person or persones desire not to be made a freeman or 
 freemen." ^ But in establishing compulsory freemanship 
 Rhode Island was not acting without precedent. Massachu- 
 setts and Maryland had adopted somewhat similar orders, 
 and throughout all of the colonies office-holding was com- 
 pulsory ; while frequently persons properly qualified to vote 
 were fined if they did not perform that duty. Thus the com- 
 pulsory freemanship of Rhode Island, although different in 
 name, was practically equivalent to the compulsory voting 
 and office-holding in other colonies. 
 
 From this time down to 17 19 there were no further re- 
 strictions on the suffrage. During all this period the towns 
 could choose any of their inhabitants as freemen who pos- 
 sessed " competent estates" and were of " civil conversation." 
 
 ^R. I. Col. Rec, II, 190. 
 
 'Ibid., Ill, 311. In subsequent years this preparatory meeting was 
 given up almost entirely to the acceptance of freemen and the 
 appointment of committees to manage the election on the following 
 day ; and on one occasion it is called an " Assembly for making 
 freemen." 
 
 'Ibid., II, 357. This is similar to the order in Providence in 1656, 
 that all inhabitants, although not freemen, should be liable to be chosen 
 for town service {Providence Records, II, 96). 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 451 
 
 But in 1 719 a religious qualification was established. In 
 the code of laws drawn up in that year occur these words : 
 
 "and that all men professing Christianity and of competent estates 
 and of civil conversation who acknowledge and are obedient to the 
 civil magistrate though of different judgments in Religious Affairs 
 (Roman Catholicks only excepted) shall be admitted Freemen and 
 shall have liberty to choose and be chosen Officers in the Colony both 
 military and civil." 
 
 The presence of the phrase, " Roman Catholicks only ex- 
 cepted," has been difficult to explain, but Mr. S. S. Rider, 
 in his researches, has placed the matter beyond a doubt. It 
 is now clear that this clause was inserted into the midst of an 
 earlier law by some member of the revisory committee of 
 1 71 9. Neither the clause nor the law is to be found in the 
 early legislation, although a marginal note in the code of 
 1 719 and the following ones attributes the law to the year 
 1663. Mr. Rider has shown that great carelessness existed 
 in ascribing the dates to the laws in the digests; and more 
 conclusively still, it is found that the clause excluding the 
 Catholics does not appear in the manuscript digest of 1705. 
 There can be no doubt that the clause in question was used 
 for the first time in 1719 instead of 1663 as the digest states; 
 and it seems probable that it was added by the committee in 
 order to bring the colonial laws into supposed conformity to 
 the English statutes.^ The digest of 1719 was never ac- 
 cepted by the legislature, and hence the work of the com- 
 mittee has been held to have no more value than the work 
 of any private persons. But in 1730 the assembly accepted 
 as the law of the colony a new digest in which the clause 
 against Catholics is retained; and from that time through- 
 out the colonial period it was the law of the colony. The 
 Rhode Island historians have succeeded in removing the 
 responsibility for this religious qualification from the early 
 
 ^ The English statutes 7 and 8 Wm. 3, ch. 27 and i Geo. i, Statute 2, 
 ch. 13, while not excluding all Catholics as such from the suffrage, yet 
 provided that no person could vote for members of Parliament who 
 upon the request of any candidate refused to take the oaths or affirma- 
 tions of allegiance, supremacy, and the abjuration. This would lead 
 to a practical disfranchisement of many, if not all, Roman Catholics. 
 
452 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 settlers of the colony, and placing it upon their successors, 
 who, under English influence, introduced a political perse- 
 cution quite foreign to the policy of the founders.^ It must 
 be admitted, however, that there were very few Roman 
 Catholics in the colony and the law was practically a dead 
 letter, until in 1783, when the large number of French set- 
 tlers remaining after the French occupation of Newport, 
 caused its repeal.^ 
 
 The law as stated in the digests excluded not only Roman 
 Catholics, but all non-Christians as well, and would thus 
 have barred out Hebrews. There were some Jews in the 
 colony as early as 1684,^ and in 1763 they erected a syna- 
 gogue in Newport.* A number of Jews were naturalized, 
 and despite the laws apparently admitted to the freeman- 
 ship; but in 1762 the superior court refused that privilege 
 to two Hebrews on the ground that " it appears that the 
 free and quiet enjoyment of the Christian religion and a 
 desire of propagating the same were the principal views 
 with which this colony was settled, and by a law made and 
 passed in the year 1663,' no person who does not profess 
 the Christian religion can be admitted free of this colony." ® 
 The Rhode Island historian, Arnold, attributes this decision 
 to the party strife then existing between the governor and 
 the chief -justice; and if this be true, it is interesting to 
 note that it was the same cause as that which led the New 
 York assembly to disfranchise the Jews in 1738. 
 
 '■ For the proof of the opinions above stated, see S. S. Rider's intro- 
 ductions to his editions of the codes of 1705 and 1719 ; and An Inquiry 
 Concerning the Origin of the Clause in the Laws of Rhode Island 
 {171^1783) Disfranchising Roman Catholics, by the same author, in 
 Rhode Island Historical Tracts, Second Series, No. i ; also Walsh's 
 Appeal, i^7-^2iS ; Arnold, History of Rhode Island, 11, 490-497. 
 
 ' Arnold, Hist, of R. I., II, 497. 
 
 '/6jrf., I, 478. *76tU, II, 247. 
 
 "This reference by a court shows how the errors of the digest 
 makers were accepted without question. 
 
 "Arnold, Hist, of R. I., II, 494, note. The doctrine above stated 
 ignores the broad toleration advocated by Roger Williams, who seems 
 to have believed in religious liberty for "papists and protestants, Jews 
 and Turks" (Narragansett Club Publications, VI, 278). 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 453 
 
 Turning from these religious restrictions which remained 
 upon the law books from 1719 until 1783, we notice a great 
 increase in the number of freemen, and an attempt there- 
 after to limit the franchise by imposing a definite property 
 qualification. No early figures showing the proportion of 
 freemen to population have been accessible to the writer; 
 but in 1708 Governor Cranston, writing to the Board of 
 Trade, gives the population of the colony as 7181, of whom 
 1015 were freemen in the towns.^ This shows the remark- 
 ably high proportion of one freeman to every seven in- 
 habitants, and a potential voting class of the same propor- 
 tion. A few years after this, the number of the annual 
 admissions to the freemanship increased largely. Taking 
 the ten years preceding the passage of the restrictive act 
 of February, 1723-4, a count of the names of admitted 
 freemen shows the total to be 841 ; but the rapid increase 
 is shown by the fact that in the five years, 1714-1718 in- 
 clusive, only 222 freemen were admitted ; while from 1719 
 to February, 1724, the number is 619.^ Almost three times 
 as many persons were admitted during the last five years 
 as were received during the first five years of this decade. 
 Such a growth cannot be explained by mere increase in 
 population ; * other causes must have been at work. Since 
 there was as yet no general property qualification, the towns 
 could admit as freemen any persons that they thought pos- 
 sessed competent estates, were civil in conversation, and 
 obedient to the civil government. That the towns were in- 
 terested in keeping up their number of freemen is shown 
 by the action of a town meeting in Providence. In June, 
 1720, a committee composed of persons taken from the 
 different parts of the town was chosen to make lists " of all 
 such as are Capable of being made free men and bring 
 
 '■ R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 59- 
 
 ' See the lists of admitted freemen in R. I. Col. Rec, IV, passim. 
 As has already. been mentioned, the admissions were usually made on 
 the day before the annual election, but occasionally they took place 
 at the other sessions of the assembly, and infrequently even on 
 election day (iJ. /. Col. Rec, IV, 481, 496, S21). 
 
 " Arnold, Hist, of R. I., II, 77- 
 
454 The Suifrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 there seueral Lists to the Townes next quarter meeting." ^ 
 The committee must have rendered efficient service, for in 
 the following October the general assembly admitted as 
 freemen, 143 inhabitants of Providence;^ and in the three 
 and a half years from October, 1 720, to the passage of the 
 freeman act in February, 1723-4, almost forty per cent, of 
 the freemen received were inhabitants of Providence.^ 
 
 This industry of the towns in freeman-making, and the 
 low standard set by the towns for the freemanship, com- 
 bined with the increasing population, led to the enactment 
 of the law of February, 1723-4,* " Directing the Admitting 
 Freemen in the several Towns of this Colony." After the 
 publication of this act 
 
 "no Person whatsoever shall be admitted a Freeman of any Town in 
 this Colony, unless the Person admitted be a Freeholder of Lands, 
 Tenaments, or Hereditraments, in such Town where he shall be ad- 
 mitted Free, of the Value of One Hundred Pounds, or to the value of 
 Forty Shillings per Annum, or the Eldest Son of such a Freeholder: 
 Any other Act, Custom or Usage, to the contrary hereof, notwith- 
 standing." 
 
 Those already free were not to forfeit their freemanship 
 if they did not possess the property qualification. No con- 
 dition, it will be noticed, was imposed by this act upon free- 
 men of the colony, except by the indirect restrictions upon 
 the town freemen. The custom which had held from the 
 earliest period was not thrown aside here. 
 
 Other interesting features are to be seen in these first 
 suffrage qualifications. The English requirement of forty 
 shillings as an alternative to the one hundred pounds, again 
 
 ^Providence Records, XIII, 38. 
 
 "if. /. Col. Rec, IV, 289. 
 
 ' See lists of freemen, R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 289, 290, 293, 302, 309, 314, 
 325. 327. 
 
 ^ Acts and Laws of His Majesty's Colony of Rhode-Island, and 
 Providence-Plantations (Newport, 1730), 131. The act appears to 
 have brought about an immediate restriction of the suffrage ; for while 
 618 freemen were admitted into the colony in the five years before 
 the passage of the act, only 319 were given the freemanship in the 
 five years following the act (see Records, passim). 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 455 
 
 shows how strong was the force of this precedent. In this 
 case it may have been inserted with the desire of placating 
 the English government, which was evincing considerable 
 dissatisfaction with the administration of affairs in Rhode 
 Island, and the Board of Trade had even suggested that 
 Rhode Island and Connecticut be annexed to the royal 
 province of New Hampshire.^ English precedents can also 
 be found for the admission to the freemanship of the eldest 
 sons of freemen, when the sons did not possess the property 
 requirements. It is believed that no American precedent 
 can be found for this,^ with the possible exception of the 
 hereditary semi-commercial burgherrecht of the Dutch New 
 Amsterdam, which is not likely to have influenced Rhode 
 Island seventy years after the English conquest of New 
 Netherland. 
 
 In England, however, we have an instance of the admis- 
 sion of the sons of freemen into a chartered company, — 
 which, it will be remembered, was the legal status of the 
 colony of Rhode Island. The Merchant Adventurers of 
 England by an ordinance of their body provided that free- 
 men could be admitted, among other ways, by " patri- 
 mony." Under this ordinance, a freeman's son, born after 
 his father had been made " an absolute flfree and sworn 
 brother," was entitled to the freedom of the company with- 
 out serving an apprenticeship or paying the heavy fee ordi- 
 narily imposed.^ The feature of hereditary freemanship is 
 to be found also quite generally in the English municipal 
 corporations. In some cases it was granted solely to the 
 eldest son or heir of a freeman,* in others it was given to 
 the youngest son ; ® occasionally to all the sons of free- 
 
 ' Arnold, History of R. I., II, 77- 
 
 'The somewhat similar feature in Pennsylvania was adopted in the 
 constitution of 1776 (Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II, 1542), 
 fifty years after the passage of the Rhode Island law. 
 
 ° W. E. Lingelbach, The Internal Organization of the Merchant Ad- 
 venturers of England (Philadelphia, 1903, 9, 12). 
 
 'In Retford (Oldfield, English Boroughs, II, s) ; Exeter (Izacke, 
 Memorials of Exeter, 38, 39, 74) : Richmond {Hist, of Richmond 
 [anon., 1814], 120) ; Hastings (Oldfield, II, 301-304) ; Rye {ibid., 
 
 327-333). etc. 
 "In Durham (Oldfield, I, 244). 
 
456 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 men/ and sometimes even to those marrying the daughters 
 of freemen.^ From some of these English precedents the 
 authors of the act of 1723-4 must have drawn their heredi- 
 tary suffrage provision, which, as a poHtical anomaly, was 
 to continue in the Rhode Island community until the middle 
 of the nineteenth century.* 
 
 While there is thus abundant English precedent for the 
 hereditary feature, the property qualification in the Rhode 
 Island law led to a form of difficulty which England at this 
 time was spared. The mother country was not afflicted with 
 the paper money craze, while Rhode Island, in the genera- 
 tion following the passage of the election law of 1724, 
 passed through all the day dreams and disillusions of a 
 cheap money epoch. The first issue of paper money, made 
 in May, 1710,* was speedily followed by other and larger 
 issues. Depreciation came as a matter of course. By 1731 
 the paper was quoted at two-fifths of its value in 1710;^ 
 ten years later, in consequence of very large emissions in 
 the interim, its sterling value was only one-fourth the 
 nominal value." In 1750, it was stated that f 110,000 of 
 the money was worth only f 10,000 sterling,'' and this ratio 
 
 ^ This sometimes included all sons, and sometimes only those born 
 after the father's admission, as in London. 
 
 ^ As in Bristol (Evans, Hist, of Bristol, II, 40) ; Ludlow (Oldfield, 
 II, 39) ; Dover {ibid., II, 312), etc. 
 
 " The English town whose requirements for the suffrage apparently 
 most closely approach those of Rhode Island is Nottingham. In that 
 town the electors were all freemen, all freeholders of forty shillings 
 income, the eldest sons of freemen by birth, and the youngest sons 
 after having served a seven years' apprenticeship anywhere, and all 
 other persons who had served a seven years' apprenticeship to freemen 
 {An Essay on the Elective Franchise, Arthur Kelly, London, 1821, p. 
 63; Oldfield, II, 2). Cp. English franchise, ante, 13-15. 
 
 * Acts and Laws of His Majesty's Colony in Rhode Island and Provi- 
 dence Plantations (Newport, 174s), 42, and passim for later acts; 
 Some Account of the Bills of Credit or Paper Money of Rhode Island 
 from the First Issue, in 1710, to the Final Issue, 1786, by E. R. Potter 
 and S. S. Rider {R. I. Historical Tracts, No. 8). 
 
 " R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 459. 
 
 'Ibid., V, 13. 
 
 ' Ibid., 284. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 457 
 
 was accepted by the Rhode Island assembly and commented 
 upon by the English House of Commons.^ A " new tenor" 
 of 1740 depreciated in the same manner. In 1756 provision 
 was made for another new issue, called " lawful money," 
 which was maintained at about the ratio of one and one- 
 third to one pound sterling ; and this money, or English and 
 Spanish coins, remained the circulating medium until the 
 Revolution.^ In the mean time, by 1764, the old tenor 
 paper was quoted at twenty-three and a third for one pound 
 of lawful money.* These few figures concerning the fluc- 
 tuations in value of the paper money render intelligible the 
 frequent changes in the suffrage qualifications. 
 
 As the paper money declined in value the bars of the 
 freemanship were lowered, and the assembly lagging years 
 behind the depreciation, tried by legislation to maintain the 
 standard fixed in 1724.* The first reform came in 1729-30, 
 when the property qualification was changed from one hun- 
 dred pounds value, or forty shillings income, to two hundred 
 pounds value of freehold, or ten pounds annual income from 
 land. Eldest sons of freeholders could still be admitted; 
 but the provision was inserted that where the freedom of a 
 town was obtained by " any fraudulent Means or Contri- 
 vance," such freemanship should be void.® 
 
 The acts of 1724 and 1730 merely required the freeman 
 to possess the proper amount of freehold at the time of his 
 admission to the freemanship, without inquiring into his 
 qualification at each election. This naturally led to corrup- 
 tion and the defeat of the intention of the laws. By the 
 preamble of a new act of 1742 ** it is charged that " many 
 Persons have by Frauds and other indirect Means, procured 
 
 ^ Potter and Rider, Some Account of the Bills of Credit, 76, 84. 
 
 ' Ibid., 95, 97-99- 
 
 ''Ibid., 97. 
 
 * In only one other colony, South Carolina, has such a marked rela- 
 tionship between the suffrage and the currency been found to exist, 
 although wherever the property qualification was expressed in pounds 
 and not in acres there must have been such an influence of the one 
 upon the other. 
 
 ^ Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1730. 209. 
 
 » Ibid., 174s, 252. 
 
458 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 themselves to be made Free of this Colony, who really are 
 not possessed of such Estate," as by the former acts is re- 
 quired ; and many persons formerly possessing the requisite 
 estates " have afterwards disposed of such their Estates, and 
 yet continue to act as Freemen in this Colony, from which 
 many very ill Consequences have already arisen to the 
 Colony, and many more will ensue, if not timely pre- 
 vented." Acting under these impulses the legislature en- 
 acted that no person " shall be admitted to vote or act as a 
 Freeman in any Town Meeting in this Colony, or at the 
 General Election, but such only who, at the Time of such 
 their voting, or acting as Freemen, are really and truly pos- 
 sessed of Lands, Tenements, or Hereditaments lying in this 
 Colony of the full Value of Two Hundred Pounds or Ten 
 Pounds per annum, being their own Freehold Estate, or the 
 eldest Son of such Freeholder." ^ Under this act and all 
 subsequent ones, the freeman's rights continued only so 
 long as the freeman retained those qualities which were 
 thought essential to the position. If his property were 
 alienated, he lost as well the freeman's prerogatives. Thus 
 the freemanship, formerly a grant for life, became condi- 
 tioned upon the continuous holding of land; and in this 
 respect approached more closely than ever before to the 
 suffrage qualifications of the other colonies.^ 
 
 Following the great depreciation of the currency during 
 the decade beginning in 1 740, the franchise prerequisite was 
 still farther lowered. The assembly in the preamble to an 
 act of 1746^ says that the "manner of admitting Freemen 
 in this Colony is so lax and their qualifications as to their , 
 estates so very low that many Persons, are admitted who^f 
 are pos§essed._with -little .ox^no property;" and that the 
 admission of such " necessitous" persons has encouraged 
 evil-minded persons to practice bribery and corruption in 
 
 ' Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1745, 252. Suspected persons could 
 be required to take oath that they were properly qualified. 
 
 ^ There was no saving of the rights of persons already admitted, as 
 had been done by the acts of 1724 and 1730 ; but all, old freemen and 
 newly admitted ones, must conform to the freehold requirements. 
 
 'Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1752, 13; R. I. Historical Tracts, 
 No. 8, 59, 60. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 459 
 
 elections, to the great scandal of the colony. To prevent 
 these evils the assembly again doubled the nominal value of 
 the freehold required of voters, now making it the ap- 
 parently large amount of four hundred pounds, or an in- 
 come of twenty pounds a year from rents. In reality, it may 
 be doubted whether this amount represented as much pur- 
 chasing power as the one hundred pounds required by the 
 act of 1724. 
 
 Bribery and corruption were attacked by the same assem- 
 bly. An act to prevent such practices, passed in 1 746, is the 
 most stringent known in colonial legislation. According 
 to it,i not only every freeman thereafter admitted, but all 
 freemen already .admitted, were required to take the fol- 
 lowing oath or affirmation : 
 
 " You A. B. do solemnly swear [or affirm] That you have not, and 
 will not, receive any Money, or other Reward, or other Thing, by 
 which you may expect any Money or future Reward, at the Election 
 of any Officer to be chosen in this Colony: And that you will not 
 bargain or contract with any Person, directly or indirectly, contrary 
 to the true Intent and Meaning of this Oath [or Affirmation] ; but 
 that you will use your Freedom for the Good of the Gov't only, with- 
 out any other Motive: And this Declaration you make, without any 
 Evasion, Equivocation, or mental Reservation whatsoever." 
 
 The town clerks were directed to send annually to the gen- 
 eral assembly lists of all freemen taking the oath. To dis- 
 courage candidates from " using any corrupt or unlawful 
 Method" to obtain offices, it was enacted that if " One single 
 Vote be unlawfully obtained by such Candidate's Procure- 
 ment, Knowledge or Consent," the election should " be de- 
 clared utterly null and void." Suspected persons refusing 
 to purge themselves under oath were to be declared guilty. 
 Any one convicted of bribery was to sufifer the penalty of 
 perjury and also " forever thereafter be excluded from being 
 a Freeman, or voting, or bearing any public Office, what- 
 soever, in this Colony; And shall also forever be rendered 
 incapable of giving Evidence in any Court of Justice." * 
 
 ' Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1766, 24. 
 
 ^ Ibid. The act was repealed in 1767 (Session Laws of 1767, 11), 
 and all persons having taken the oath were absolved therefrom as 
 fully as though they had never taken it. 
 
460 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 The assembly records show that the provisions of the act 
 were carried out, no person being permitted to vote who 
 had not taken the oath, and all new freemen were compelled 
 to subscribe to it.^ We cannot but imagine that the political 
 corruption had reached a state alarming to the legislators 
 when they felt compelled to administer such an oath to every 
 voter in the colony. 
 
 By 1760, owing largely to the influence of the English 
 government, the colonial currency was placed upon a rational 
 basis, and thereafter sterling money circulated at the legal 
 rate of 133 per cent.^ Again the change in the money 
 system demanded a restatement of the suffrage qualifica- 
 tions, for under the " lawful money" acts, the four hundred 
 pounds requirement would be exorbitant. Accordingly, in 
 1760, the assembly enacted that for the future no person 
 should 
 
 " vote and act as a freeman in any case, whatsoever, but such only, 
 who at the time of voting, shall be truly and really possessed of land 
 or real estate, to be valued and determined agreeably to the former 
 laws, of the full value of £40, lawful money, or that will rent yearly 
 for forty shillings, lawful money, or the eldest son of such a free- 
 man." ' 
 
 The same qualifications were embodied in the comprehensive 
 election law of 1762,* and in the still more elaborate provi- 
 sions of the Digest of 1767.^ 
 
 We are told, in the preamble of the act of 1762,® that the 
 charter right of the colony to elect their officers " is One of 
 the noblest Privileges a People can enjoy;" and it "is of 
 the greatest Importance" that the elections be impartial, and 
 all precautions be taken to prevent collusive practices, par- 
 ticularly since some towns have admitted persons as free- 
 men who were not qualified by the laws of the colony. The 
 
 " See R. I. Col. Rec, V, 213, 487; VI, 43, 140, 201, 246. 
 ' This " lawful money" of Rhode Island was equivalent to •' procla- 
 mation money" in other colonies. 
 'R.I. Col. Rec, VI, 257. 
 
 'Session Laws of 1762; R. I. Col. Rec, VI, 322, 323, 343. 
 'Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1767, 78 ff. 
 ° Session Laws of 1762. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 461 
 
 new legislation impowered the towns to admit as freemen 
 such of their inhabitants as were qualified according to the 
 terms of the act/ and required the town clerk to certify the 
 names of the freemen annually to the assembly. Those " so 
 returned and admitted Freemen of the Colony shall be en- 
 rolled in the Colony's Book." The freehold qualification, 
 now containing minor clauses to prevent fraud, is as follows : 
 
 "And be it further Enacted . . . That no person whosoever shall 
 be permitted to vote, or act as a Freeman in any Town-Meeting in 
 this Colony, but such only who are Inhabitants therein, & who, at the 
 Time of such their voting & acting, are really & truly possessed, in 
 their own proper Right, of a Real Estate, within this Colony, to the 
 full Value of Forty Pounds or which shall rent for Forty Shillings 
 per Annum, being an Estate of Fee-simple, Fee-tail, or an Estate in 
 Reversion, which qualifies no other person to be a Freeman, or at 
 least an Estate for a Person's own Life, or the eldest Son of such a 
 Freeholder. And that no Estate of a less Quality shall entitle any 
 Person to the Freedom of this Colony.'"' 
 
 A person who had previously obtained admission by virtue 
 of his wife's dower, or by virtue of rented lands, or in other 
 irregular ways, was to forfeit his freemanship at once. All 
 persons, excepting the eldest sons of qualified freeholders, 
 were to be propounded for three months before the respective 
 towns, and the evidence of their qualification must be pro- 
 duced in open town meeting.* Suspected persons might be 
 challenged in town meeting and compelled to take oath that 
 they were properly qualified, and thereafter they could not 
 vote until they had satisfied the town as to their qualifica- 
 tions. Persons convicted of executing or receiving any 
 fraudulent deeds were " to be utterly incapable, forever, 
 thereafter of sustaining any Office, or of voting for any Offi- 
 cer, in this Colony." The qualifications imposed by these acts 
 were to be enforced upon all voters for town deputies in the 
 assembly and for town officers, as well as for general offi- 
 cers. Inhabitants might be admitted as freemen and given a 
 vote for general officers in the towns where they resided, if 
 
 ' Digest of 1767, 78, 79. 
 'Ibid. 
 
462 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 they owned sufficient land in any part of the colony, and 
 brought satisfactory proof of the same to the town clerk. 
 Apparently a man voted where he resided, instead of where 
 his land lay, as was the case in the central and southern colo- 
 nies. The right of the eldest son to vote did not go to the 
 second son upon the death of the first, unless the latter had 
 died without issue. ^ A fine of twenty pounds was to be in- 
 flicted upon an unqualified person who voted unlawfully, or 
 upon a freeman who voted more than once at the same elec- 
 tion.^ 
 
 With the repeal of the oath against bribery in 1767* the 
 last change was made in the suffrage qualifications during 
 the colonial period. Beginning with complete control by 
 the towns of the freeman qualifications, we have noticed first 
 the influence of the English commissioners in securing the 
 passage of the general provision for competent estates and 
 civil conversation. About fifty years later came the insertion 
 of clauses in the statute books which excluded Jews and 
 Catholics from the freemanship. The policy of restricting 
 the franchise to those owning a definite amount of real estate 
 began in 1724 with the sum of £100, or forty shillings in- 
 come; and this was subsequently raised to £200 and £400 
 as the value of money depreciated. The return of sound 
 money compelled the restoration of a smaller qualification, 
 which in 1760 was fixed at £40, or an income of forty shil- 
 lings from land. In 1746, and for about twenty years there- 
 after, a most stringent oath against bribery was required 
 from all freemen. Throughout the period the qualifications 
 are said to be imposed upon town freemen ; who, after satis- 
 fying the town meeting and being accepted thereby, were 
 proposed to the assembly for admission to the colonial free- 
 dom. Only one instance has been noticed in the later years 
 where the assembly refused to accept as freemen of the 
 colony those proposed by the towns.* The later legislation 
 
 'Digest of 1767, 78, 79. 
 
 'In the latter case the offender was also to be disfranchised for 
 three years. Such a punishment had first been adopted in 1736 (Digest 
 of I745> 193). 
 
 '^ Session Laws of 1767, 11. 
 
 ' R. I. Col. Rec, VI, 323. 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 463 
 
 is distinguished for as elaborate provisions concerning free- 
 manship, the suffrage and elections as will be found in any 
 other colony. 
 
 Turning now from the qualifications of voters to the man- 
 ner in which the suffrage was exercised, we must glance at 
 some of the features of the proxy system which was an in- 
 tegral part of the Rhode Island election laws. In this sys- 
 tem the observer always finds a valuable link between pure 
 democracy and our modern representative and ballot meth- 
 ods, and it has been deemed best, therefore, to collect the 
 evidence respecting this Rhode Island custom. 
 
 Newport,, apparently, pointed the way for such a system, 
 when, as early as January, 1639-40, the town ordered that 
 elections should be held annually by the " greater part of the 
 Bodie of Freemen, then or ther present," and gave permis- 
 sion to " such as shall be necessarily detained to send in their 
 votes, sealed up to the Judge." ^ The assembly of 1647, the 
 first to meet under the charter of 1644, and composed of all 
 the freemen, permitted those who wished to do so to retire, 
 but required them to leave their votes behind them.^ The 
 same assembly in almost the exact words of the Newport 
 order of 1640 made the proxy system a permanent part of 
 the colonial elections.* 
 
 In the face of the uncertainty as to whether the charter of 
 1663 required all freemen to attend personally or still per- 
 mitted the use of proxies, or required all elections to be by 
 the representative assembly, the first election under the char- 
 ter was held in May, 1664, by the freemen " personally there 
 present," * without the admission of proxy votes. But this 
 assembly " seriously considered" the inconvenience of com- 
 pelling the freemen of remote towns to come to Newport to 
 vote, and referred the matter to the assembly meeting in 
 October, 1664.^ At the latter meeting® the following order 
 was then adopted : 
 
 ' R. I. Col. Rec, I, 98. 
 ' Ibid., 151. 
 ' Ibid., 149- 
 
 *Ihid.,ll,2g. 'Ibid., 39. 
 
 'Ibid., 62. They had the "helpfull presance" of John Clark, the 
 agent who was instrumental in securing the charter. 
 
464 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 " That the liberty and priviledge of electing and being elected vnto 
 all publicke offices in this Collony, shall continue in the whole body 
 or company of the freemen by ther parsonall and individuall votting; 
 and whereas, it hath ben often vrged the difficulty . . . parsonall 
 voting at Newport this presant Assembly ordaynes, that voting by 
 proxces be enjoyed by all the freemen of this Collony, and that each 
 freeman desiering to vote by proxces shall subscribe ther names on 
 the outside, and deliver his votes sealed vp into the hands of a magis- 
 trate, in the face of a town meeting . . . ; and in case of sickness 
 and nescecary absence from the sayd towne meetinge, vnto a magis- 
 trate, who shall deliver the sayd votes or cause them to be delivered 
 into the hands of the Governor, or in his absence, of the deputy Gov- 
 ernor, in the face of the Court of Election; . . . provided, that this 
 order shall noe way prejudice or discorradge any who desier to be 
 parsonally presant. . . . "* 
 
 By an order of 1666, it appears that not only the absentees 
 but also those personally present at the election in Newport 
 were to vote by means of " wrighten Votes." ^ The use of 
 a written tablet was thereafter required of all voters in the 
 colonial elections. 
 
 It is evident that from 1664^ the proxy system of Rhode 
 Island was nothing more than a method of collecting ballots 
 in elections. The true proxy was a temporary grant of 
 power by an absentee freeman to another who was attendant 
 upon the assembly. Such forms of proxies are found in the 
 assembly of 1647 ^"^ perhaps some of the later pure demo- 
 cratic meetings, but they disappear altogether after 1664. 
 What the Rhode Island assembly called a proxy was simply 
 a written ballot sent by a freeman who did not in person 
 attend the general election. For over a century of the col- 
 ony's history the freeman was privileged to attend the elec- 
 tion in person and hand in an unsigned ballot, or he could 
 give in his ballot, properly signed, at a town meeting before 
 the general election, or, if detained by sickness, to some mag- 
 
 ' R. I. Col. Rec, II, 62. 
 
 ^ Rider's edition of MS. Code of 1705, 35, 36. 
 
 ' There can be no doubt that voting by ballot at the general elections 
 existed before 1666. As early as 1647 those whom the "major part 
 of the General Assembly pitcheth upon by paper" were to be accounted 
 elected {R. I. Col. Rec, I, 191). 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 465 
 
 istrate; and the actual ballots thus received were " sealed up 
 in a Packet," ^ sent to the officers of the colony and opened in 
 their presence at the general election in Newport.^ 
 
 By the year 171 5 the inevitable election evils had crept into 
 the ballot system. " Loose and fractious freemen" were 
 found " putting or delivering into the hat sometimes two, 
 three or more votes for one officer." * The assembly, " for 
 the preventing said clandestine proceedings for the future," 
 ordered that " every freeman admitted to vote, shall write 
 his name at length on the back side of his vote, and all proxy 
 votes shall have the same." * But the signing of ballots in 
 this way did not prove popular. The next assembly found 
 that it " hath given great dissatisfaction and uneasiness to 
 many of the good people of this colony, who deem it a very 
 great hardship to have their names exposed upon such oc- 
 casions, to the creating of animosity and heart-burning of 
 their particular friends, etc." ® Accordingly, that part of the 
 former act which required the voters present at the election 
 to write their names upon their ballots was repealed. All 
 proxy votes, however, were to be signed according to the 
 former custom.® For a number of years after this, no ma- 
 terial change appears in the method of balloting. Irregular 
 proxies were sometimes thrown out by wholesale ; '' and in 
 1743-4 it was stated that " no Person Proxing at said Meet- 
 
 ^R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 208. 
 
 ' We have abundant evidence to show that these two forms of voting 
 were carried out. Thus on May 4, 1669, the day before the election, 
 the assembly appointed two persons " to write the names of such as 
 come to vote tomorrow, being the day of Election;" two others were 
 " to receive the votes from such as vote and deliver them fayre [fair] 
 into the hat on the table ;" and two others " are to assist for the open- 
 ing of the proxes" {ibid., II, 242). In 1673 the proxies were divided 
 into four parts and as many committees appointed " to open and putt 
 in the votes as called for into the hat" (,ibid., II, 484). 
 
 Vfcjrf., IV, IQS. 
 
 * Ibid. A fine not exceeding five pounds, or corporal punishment 
 not greater than twenty-one stripes on the bare back, were to be in- 
 flicted upon non-freemen who voted at general or town elections, and 
 upon freemen who cast more than one vote for any officer. 
 
 'Ibid., IV, 207. ' Ibid., 20S. 
 
 ''Ibid., 469, 507; Arnold, History of R. I., II, 239. 
 
 30 
 
466 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 ing shall have Liberty of withdrawing his Proxy at the Gen- 
 eral Election," ^ a right which may previously have been 
 claimed. 
 
 In the meantime the custom of appearing personally at the 
 elections at Newport had grown less popular. By 1760 we 
 learn that the casting of proxy votes at the town meetings 
 was " the ancient and laudable custom of most of the pru- 
 dent freemen ;" ^ and in that year the personal appearance of 
 freemen at Newport for the purpose of casting their votes 
 was prohibited to all except members of the assembly.^ The 
 reasons for abolishing this unique feature of the elections are 
 given in the preamble to the act of August 18, 1760. The 
 presence' of the freemen at the election is said to have been 
 " very injurious to the interest and public weal of the col- 
 ony." It further occasioned " a very great loss of people's 
 time, at a season of the year when their labor is abundantly 
 necessary for preparing the ground and planting the seed, on 
 which the produce of the whole summer must depend." The 
 act directed that " every freeman, who is disposed to give his 
 suffrage for the election of general officers," should do so 
 by handing in a proxy vote at a town meeting on the third 
 Wednesday of April preceding the election.* 
 
 Thus the picturesque gathering of the freemen at New- 
 port, meeting perhaps in a kitchen ^ or in a Quaker meeting 
 house,® and each man individually putting his ballot into the 
 hat on the table, was discontinued. The custom had orig- 
 inated under the early charter, and was retained under that 
 of 1663 because it was thought the charter required a general 
 meeting of the freemen for elective purposes; ''^ but by 1760 
 the assembly evidently thought they would incur no danger 
 
 ^ Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1745, 287. 
 
 ^R. I. Col. Rec, VI, 256. 
 
 ' /6td., 256, 257. *Ibid. 
 
 " Ibid., II, S4I- '■ lUd., IV, 569. 
 
 ' Bellompnt, writing to England in 1699 concerning irregularities in 
 Rhode Island, said, " Their Election of Generall Officers is partly made 
 by proxies, and allowed of by an Act of the government, contrary to 
 the rules of their Charter in that respect; which prescribes that the 
 Elections be made by such greater part of the Company as shall be 
 present at the Generall Assembly" {R. I. Col. Rec, III, 386). 
 
TPie Suffrage in Rhode Island. 467 
 
 of forfeiting the charter by adopting a more convenient 
 method of holding elections. On the other hand, the method 
 of sending the actual ballots (proxies) from the several 
 towns to Newport to be counted, was still continued.^ 
 
 We must now notice what other forms of the suffrage ex- 
 isted than that for the general colonial officers. There were 
 several types of elections in which the suffrage included per- 
 sons who were not freemen of the colony. The most impor- 
 tant of such elections were those held in the towns for depu- 
 ties and for town officers. There are also meetings and 
 elections among the groups of land proprietors which existed 
 in almost all the towns ; and finally, the militia franchise was 
 considerably wider than that of the town or colony. 
 
 The suffrage in the towns was vested in those inhabitants 
 who had been admitted by the town meeting as freemen. 
 Some comment has been made concerning the early restric- 
 tions imposed by the towns; and the legislation by the as- 
 sembly upon the subject has been reviewed at length. The 
 several property qualifications were in each case placed by the 
 assembly upon those admitted to the town freemanship, and 
 not directly upon the freemen of the colony. Hence the qual- 
 ifications already mentioned are those required of town free- 
 men, varying as we have seen from one hundred to four 
 hundred pounds and back again to forty. In addition to 
 these compulsory qualifications, the towns in the early period 
 had wide liberty in the admission and rejection of inhabi- 
 tants, and by this means could impose other qualifications.^ 
 
 * By the act of 1762 (Session Laws) and the Digest of 1767 (83, 84), 
 the freemen were required to hand their proxies " one by one, in their 
 own proper Persons" to the moderator of the town meeting, and the 
 clerk must keep a record of all persons voting and send the list to the 
 assembly. 
 
 - In 1682 town councils were authorized to require a bond from new- 
 comers (.R. I. Col. Rec, III, 117)- In 1728, because persons of a 
 "flexible Disposition" might tender bonds for "profligate Persons," 
 the town councils were empowered to accept such bond or not as they 
 saw fit; and if they refused to accept it, the person in question was 
 to be conveyed out of the town {Acts and Laws of R. I., 1730, 150, 
 act of Feb., 1727-8). See Providence Records, VI, 151, for instance 
 of refusal to admit an inhabitant. 
 
468 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 But by 1766 and perhaps before that time, the town could 
 not refuse to recognize as an inhabitant any one (o) who 
 had resided in the town for one year and had not been 
 warned to depart; (&) who had purchased a freehold of the 
 value of forty pounds in the town; or (c) who was an ap- 
 prentice and had served out his time in the town.^ By these 
 provisions the town must accept as an inhabitant any one 
 who had purchased land sufficient to qualify him for the 
 freemanship. Whether they could refuse to accept him as a 
 town freeman and thus prevent his gaining the colony free- 
 dom as well, does not appear on the face of the records or 
 the laws. By this date, however, it is believed that there was 
 little discretion exercised by the towns.^ 
 
 The only difference, then, between the town suffrage and 
 that of the colony was in the action taken by the general as- 
 sembly upon the name of the town freeman. After the ad- 
 mission of a freeman to the town, the town clerk was re- 
 quired by law to send the new freeman's name to the general 
 assembly, to be acted upon by them for the colonial freeman- 
 ship ; and the latter was granted, so far as the records show, 
 as a matter of course. Thus the man would be a freeman of 
 a town only a few months or at most a year before he would 
 obtain the colonial franchise. For our purposes the two 
 classes may be taken as identical.^ 
 
 ^ Acts and Laws of Rhode Island, 1767, 228 ff. 
 
 ' This is supported by the word " shall" in the Digest of 1767 (p. 
 78) : " Be it Enacted . . . That the Freemen of each respective Town 
 in this Colony, at their Town Meeting Days, shall, and they hereby 
 have full Power granted them to admit so many Persons, Inhabitants 
 of their respective Towns, Freemen of their Towns, as shall be qualified 
 according to this Act." 
 
 " That they were not absolutely so in practice is shown by the 
 express statement that town deputies to the assembly were to be 
 elected by the freemen of the towns, and not merely by freemen of 
 the colony {R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 338). But this provision was probably 
 made in order that newly elected freemen of the towns might have 
 a voice in the election of assemblymen. The same care is shown in 
 the permission that new town freemen may vote for all general 
 officers, and if the general assembly admit them as colony freemen the 
 votes were to be counted; if not admitted, the votes were declared 
 void {Acts and Laws of R. L, 1767, 78-87). 
 
The Suffrage in Rhode Island. 469 
 
 Within the towns there soon arose a more exclusive group 
 than that made up of the freemen. We have noticed how in 
 the early days a person accepted by a town as a freeman was 
 usually entitled to share in the town lands upon an equal 
 plane with the first proprietors.^ But other inhabitants or 
 small freeholders entered the settlement, and might purchase 
 or receive grants of land without any interest in the undi- 
 vided portions of the town. Thus about the early "pur- 
 chasers" or " proprietors" there grew up a large class who 
 did not share tiieir rights. 
 
 The town records of Providence show admirably the grad- 
 ual separation of these two classes. In the earliest period 
 land matters were discussed in the general town meeting ; * 
 but about 1661 the majority of the " purchasers" ordered 
 that requests to the town for lands should be referred to the 
 purchasers for acceptance or refusal.* Thereafter frequent 
 references are made to " purchasers meetings." * The rec- 
 ords of their meetings are still kept in the town book, their 
 meetings and elections are held on the same days as the town 
 meetings and elections,® but care is taken that the acts be 
 recorded as performed by the purchasers. After 1706 no 
 further records of the purchasers are included in the town 
 books, and by 171 5 the town and the purchasers form two 
 distinct bodies which are compelled to appoint committees to 
 settle differences with one another.® The rights of purchas- 
 ers could be alienated and devised or inherited.'' A final 
 land division among the Providence " purchasers" took place 
 in 1 71 9, in which one hundred and one persons participated.^ 
 
 ' See ante, 434-436. 
 
 * Providence Records, I, II, passim. 
 
 ° Ibid., Ill, 10. The record is badly mutilated and lacks date, but fol- 
 lows an item dated 1661. 
 
 */6trf.,III,ii; IV, 36; IX, 9, 12, 18, etc. 
 
 'Ibid., IX, 18, 19, 23, 34, 49, 90, 91, 102-108. 
 
 «/6«U,XI, 178. 
 
 ''Ibid., Ill, 157; VIII, 69. In Providence there was also a group 
 of purchasers who received only twenty-five acres, who may have been 
 entitled to only one-fourth of a vote in proprietors' meetings {ibid., 
 II, 74, I2S, 127; IV, 36; VIII, 154)- See Chapter VII for similar case 
 on Long Island. 
 
 " Arnold, History of R. I., I, 121. 
 
470 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 Far broader than any other form of suffrage in the colony 
 was that granted for the militia elections, which for many 
 years was vested in all the soldiers of the " train bands." 
 The custom was evidently brought from Massachusetts by 
 the Newport settlers, who, as early as 1639, directed the train 
 band to choose their own officers.^ In the code of 1647 
 under the charter of 1644 the militia officers were to be 
 chosen by the " inhabitants" of the several towns from 
 among themselves.^ The same method was retained under 
 the new charter of 1663.® 
 
 When the office of major was erected in 1677, that officer 
 was to be elected as follows : " every soldier listed and ap- 
 pearinge in armes on the traininge day in March, appointed 
 by law in his or their respective towne or place in the Collony, 
 shall have free liberty to vote in writinge for one person to 
 be Major for the ensuinge year." * Under this law, as under 
 the early laws of other colonies, the right of suffrage for 
 military officers and the duty of serving in the militia went 
 together. If a person were compelled to serve in the band, 
 although only a boy of sixteen or an indentured servant, he 
 had a right to vote for the military officers. 
 
 Such popular elections ^ did not fail to meet the disap- 
 proval of Bellomont in 1699, when seeking ground^ of com- 
 plaint against the colony ; and he called the attention of the 
 English government to the fact that the commissioned offi- 
 cers were elected by the soldiers, instead of being appointed 
 by the assembly or the governor and assistants as the charter 
 enjoined.® Perhaps it was this report which led the assem- 
 
 ^iJ. /. Col Rec, I, 93. 
 
 " Ibid., I, I S3. » Ihid., II, 52, s68. 
 
 ''Ibid., 11, 587. The actual ballots were to be delivered to the general 
 assembly as in the case of proxies for general ofHcers. The listed 
 soldiers included all male persons between the ages of sixteen and 
 sixty years, including servants, and excluding some few persons hold- 
 ing important political or economic positions. 
 
 " Ibid., 386. 
 
 "Later it was seen that these orders excluded old men— "ancient 
 freemen"— who, being over sixty years of age, were exempt from 
 military training; and consequently the elections of major for the 
 future were ordered to be by the freemen and the train bands {R. I. 
 Col. Rec, III, 9, 118). 
 
The Suifrage in Rhode Island. 471 
 
 bly, by 1705, to perceive " the great inconveniences and dis- 
 honor it brings to the Collony in admitting the listed sol- 
 diery" to a vote in the choice of officers, and to realize that 
 the votes of " transient persons and many youth of small 
 consideration" led to the choice of officers who were " not 
 honorable to her Majesty nor capable of serving" in the 
 offices to which they were elected.^ At any rate the suffrage 
 in such elections was thereafter to be limited to the freemen 
 of the towns or colony. Only a year afterwards, however, 
 the old elections by all the soldiers were restored.^ 
 
 But in 1 713 Bellomont's interpretation of their charter 
 was accepted and provision was made for the annual election 
 of militia officers by the assembly.^ Again, in 1726, the elec- 
 tions were ordered to be held by the soldiers and freemen of 
 the towns.* In fifteen years this policy had been found to be 
 " vastly prejudicial" to the colony, and in 1 740-1 the selec- 
 tion of the military officers was permanently vested in the 
 assembly, the governor retaining his right to commission the 
 officers.® 
 
 We may conclude this section by summing up what few 
 facts have been found concerning the size of the freeman 
 class in Rhode Island. In the early years the freemen corre- 
 sponded closely in number to the free male inhabitants, al- 
 though almost from the first there were some inhabitants not 
 enjoying freemen's rights. Yet we are told that in 1677 the 
 inhabitants were " generally freemen." ® The comparatively 
 high proportion of one freeman to every seven of the popu- 
 lation in 1708 has already been noted ;^ but in 1713 the 
 assembly thought the non-freeman inhabitants so numerous 
 that the militia elections should be taken from them.^ The 
 
 'Rider, MS. Code of 1705, 116; R. I. Col. Rec, III, 534. 
 
 ='/6irf.,III,s63. 
 
 *lUd., IV, iss; Acts and Laws of R. I., 1730, 90-99. 
 
 *R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 377. 
 
 "/fcirf-.V, I. 
 
 •/6jrf.,IV, 155 
 
 ' Ibid., 59- 
 
 "/Wrf., 155- 
 
472 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 act for dividing the town of Providence, passed in 1759,^ 
 stated that there were four hundred freemen in the town, 
 which, estimating the population at between thirty-five hun- 
 dred and four thousand, would give about one freeman to 
 every nine or ten of the population ; ^ and perhaps the same 
 proportion would be found in Newport.* While these figures 
 are mere approximations, yet nearly the same proportion, 
 that is, one freeman to eleven of the population, was found 
 in the State at the time of the adoption of the national con- 
 stitution.* The permanent freehold qualification must have 
 excluded a larger portion of the population as the town popu- 
 lation increased in size. The change in the size of the free- 
 man class from one-seventh in 1708 to one-eleventh in 1788 
 shows that the suffrage was becoming more limited as the 
 population increased in density ; but in spite of this fact the 
 freehold requisite was retained until the time of the Dorr 
 Rebellion. 
 
 ^ R. I. Col. Rec, VI, 194. 
 
 ' In 1749 Providence had a white population of 3177 ; in the inter- 
 vening ten years this must have increased to nearly 4000 (i?. /. Col. 
 Rec, V, 270). 
 
 "R. I. Col. Rec, V, S4, 270. 
 
 * Arnold, History of R. I., II, 496, 543, 558. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 The main purpose of this work, that of sketching the suf- 
 frage conditions in each of the thirteen colonies, has now 
 been accomplished. Yet the study would not' be complete 
 without at least a short summary of the facts found in the 
 several colonies, a statement of the nature and extent of Eng- 
 lish influence upon the suffrage franchise in the colonies; 
 and, finally, an estimate with respect to the size of the voting 
 class in the colonies previous to the American Revolution. 
 
 In the elections for the colonial legislatures there were re- 
 strictions imposed upon voters in respect to sex, age, race and 
 nationality, religion, good character, residence, property, 
 freemanship in corporations, and certain qualifications akin 
 to the borough franchise in England. Some generalizations 
 will be made concerning each of these qualifications, buf no 
 effort will be made to give specific references either to the 
 preceding pages or to the individual statutes. '^ 
 
 I. Sex. The restriction of political rights to the male sex 
 was universal in the colonies, and the arduous duties of 
 home-life prevented even that indirect social influence of 
 woman upon politics which was frequently seen in English 
 elections of the time. Lady Moody on Long Island and Mrs. 
 Margaret Brent in Maryland remain the only women who 
 are shown by the records to possess even a desire for political 
 privileges. Usually the practice of male suffrage was so 
 strong that it was not thought necessary directly to exclude 
 women, as was, done in the Virginia act of 1699. But South 
 Carolina, Georgia and Delaware had positive restrictions of 
 the franchise to the male sex; the pronoun he is frequently 
 
 ' The reader is referred to the subject titles in the index for a com- 
 plete topical analysis. No effort is here made to duplicate or parallel 
 the scholarly summary of suffrage requisites as given in Bishop, 
 History of Elections in the American Colonies, 46-97. 
 
 473 
 
474 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 applied to voters in other colonies; and the word freeman 
 applied to electors in many colonies would exclude women. 
 
 2. Age. The adoption of the legal age of twenty-one 
 years was almost as universal as was male suffrage. In 
 only two colonies, New Jersey and Maryland, is it lacking 
 from the election laws, and there is no doubt that it was en- 
 forced in those colonies. There were, however, several 
 instances in which the age of voters differed from the com- 
 mon English requirement. Massachusetts as early as 1647 
 required non-freemen who were chosen to participate in local 
 government to have attained the age of twenty- four years; 
 between 1664 and 1686 the same age was required of non- 
 church-members who were admitted to the freedom of the 
 colony; and the twenty-four years' provision was incor- 
 porated into the short-lived Cutt code of New Hampshire as 
 a requirement for all voters. In the New England militia 
 elections, on the other hand, the voting age was less than 
 twenty-one years, for usually all the soldiers or all those re- 
 quired to equip themselves with arms were permitted to share 
 in the choice of militia officers; and as the trained bands 
 included nearly all males over sixteen years of age, it is 
 probable that some under twenty-one years voted in these 
 elections. Plymouth, late in her history, set a new age re- 
 quirement of twenty years for voters in militia elections. 
 Aside from these few exceptions, it is believed that elections 
 were never legally open to persons under the age of twenty- 
 one years. 
 
 3. Race and Nationality. A racial distinction arose nat- 
 urally in the colonies possessing a large negro slave popula- 
 tion. Apparently the first law upon the subject is that of 
 North Carolina of 171 5 which excluded negroes, mulattoes 
 and Indians from the franchise. In 1716 South Carolina 
 inserted the word "white" into her election law; while 
 Virginia adopted the phraseology of North Carolina in 
 1723, and Georgia followed with the word " white" in 
 1 76 1. The North Carolina statute was repealed in 1734-5 
 and the racial restriction does not again appear during the 
 colonial period. 
 
 At English common law no foreigner could exercise politi- 
 cal rights in England, and this general principle was ex- 
 
ten( 
 
 Conclusion. ^^5 
 
 ended to the colonies, where the only noteworthy infringe- 
 ment upon it is to be found in the position of the Huguenots 
 in South Carolina before 1696-7. Foreigners, when they 
 received a citizen's rights, obtained it either by treaty right,^ 
 by special act of a colonial legislature,* or under the terms of 
 general laws passed for that purpose. After the year 1740 an 
 act of parliament forbade the naturalization of any Catholic 
 aliens in the colonies, a policy which New York and Massa- 
 chusetts had anticipated by twenty-five and ten years respect- 
 ively. In a few cases,* there was an explicit exclusion of 
 aliens from elections or office-holding ; but this was unusual, 
 and the for ce of English p recedent was generally the only bar j^ / 
 brfweerrttie toreigner and the fiaiid'ttser- — — —- - ^ 
 
 4. Religion ari'drGood CfiWFUcler. "Religious qualifications, 
 as is well known, were more exclusive and more rigidly en- 
 forced in New England than in any of the other colonies. 
 Massachusetts from 1631 until 1664 required all freemen to 
 be church-members, and after that date, while membership 
 in the church was not required of persons who possessed cer- 
 tain other qualifications, yet even the few freemen who were 
 admitted under the terms of the law of 1664 were compelled 
 to bring certificates from the ministers of their towns that 
 they were orthodox in religious belief. The New Haven 
 freemen must be members of some approved church in New 
 England ; Plymouth disfranchised those who set up churches 
 without the approbation of the authorities; and even Con- 
 necticut in practice, if not in law, appears to have enforced 
 religious conformity. 
 
 Besides this general exclusion in New England of those 
 who did not belong to the established churches, there were 
 particular sects upon whom were visited, not in New England 
 alone, the pains of disfranchisement. In the middle of the 
 seventeenth century the Quakers were outlawed in all the 
 colonies from Virginia to Massachusetts with the exception 
 of Rhode Island, and Baptists had but little more leniency 
 
 'As the Dutch and Swedes within the Duke of York's patent. 
 
 'As early as 1666 in Maryland, Archives, Acts, 1666-76, 144, 205, 270- 
 272, 330, 400, 460. 
 
 , "North Carolina, 171S; Pennsylvania, 1694; Delaware, 1734; New 
 Hampshire, 1680. 
 
4/^ The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies^ 
 
 shown to them. But the sect which received the most liberal 
 share of poHtical persecution was the Roman Catholic. The 
 colonial attitude, outside of New England, where it was 
 always hostile, varied with the changes in English politics. 
 The English commonwealth movement led to the disfran- 
 chisement of Catholics in Maryland, and a similar but short- 
 lived result appeared in Maryland and Niew York after the 
 Revolution of 1688. In New Hampshire in 1680 the fran- 
 chise was distinctly limited to Protestants, but this was in 
 force only two years. In 1699 Virginia permanently dis- 
 franchised " recusant convicts," and two years later New 
 York excluded Catholics from elections. In 1718 Maryland, 
 and in 1719 Rhode Island took similar action, while not until 
 1759 did South Carolina limit her voters to those professing 
 the Protestant faith. 
 
 Jews were disfranchised almost as frequently as Catholics. 
 In 1682 the first Pennsylvania assembly restricted political 
 privileges to those who believed in " Jesus Christ the Son of 
 God and Saviour of the World"; between 1716 and 1759 
 South Carolina required voters to be Christians, and Prot- 
 estants after the latter date. New York in 1737, by resolu- 
 tion of the assembly, disfranchised Jews, and Rhode Island 
 in 1 7 19 limited the suffrage to Protestant Christians. 
 
 Good character qualifications, like the religious require- 
 ment, were most common in New England. Connecticut, in 
 1657, 1659 and 1662 required candidates for the freemanship 
 to be of " peaceable and honest conversation ; " Massachu- 
 setts, in 1664, required non-church-members applying for the 
 freemanship to be " not vicious in life; " Plymouth, in 1658, 
 disfranchised lyers, drunkards, swearers and those refusing 
 to take the oath of fidelity to the government. Rhode Island's 
 " civil conversation" and " obedience to the civil magistrate" 
 were taken from the instructions to the king's commissioners 
 of 1664, and, in turn, were adopted in part by Plymouth in 
 1669 ; while New Hampshire, in 1680, copied the good char- 
 acter clause of the Massachusetts law. A somewhat similar 
 feature is to be found in the Rhode Island compulsory oath 
 administered to all freemen between 1746 and 1767, that 
 they would use no bribery or dishonest methods in election^ 
 Outside of New England the good character provisions are 
 
Contusion. 47 
 
 unusual. We may note the clause in Penn's Laws Made in 
 England which excluded persons convicted of ill-fame or oil 
 unsober and dishonest conversation; and the Virginia act off 
 1762 which excluded from the colonial franchise freeholder^ 
 who were convicts during the time for which they were 
 transported. 
 
 5. Residence. In New England, owing to the close life of, 
 the towns and to the early and numerous restrictions upon 
 the reception of inhabitants into the towns, there is rarely any 
 formal term of residence required for freemen. Practically 
 no one could gain a residence without the consent of the 
 town; and in some cases, as in Plymouth particularly and 
 in Massachusetts, the consent of the colonial authorities was 
 also required before one could settle in a town. To the south- 
 ward of New England, where the personal sifting process 
 of the New England town life did not exist, it was more 
 necessary that a term of residence for voters be. established 
 by law. And yet this did not come very early and in some 
 cases it was never adopted. Thus in Maryland, in 1642, we 
 learn that neither the holding of land nor the possession of 
 a definite place of residence was required, and the same tol- 
 erant spirit is seen in the Carolinas and Virginia. After this 
 early laxity residence restrictions were gradually adopted. 
 In Virginia and the Carolinas there is an efifort to limit the 
 suffrage to housekeepers, but this soon gives place to other 
 qualifications, such as freeholding or tax-paying, which 
 imply a residence in the colony or an evident interest in its 
 concerns. By the Revolutionary days a residence within the 
 county wae required of those voting in Maryland under the 
 personal i)roperty qualification ; in North Carolina the voter 
 must hajpe resided six months in the province ; in South Car- 
 olina, after an early requirement of only three months' resi- 
 denc^the term was permanently fixed, in 1721, at one year, 
 and Georgia followed North Carolina with a six months' 
 provision. Pennsylvania and Delaware compelled the voter 
 to reside two years in the province ; New Jersey required a 
 year's residence in the county, city or town where the elector 
 voted ; while New York was content with a simple require- 
 ment that a freeholder must have held his land three months 
 before the election at which he offered to vote. Virginia, 
 
 ^ 
 
\ 
 
 478 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 New York and New Hampshire, apparently, had no definite 
 residence qualifications. 
 
 6. Property Qualifications. During the seventeenth cen- 
 tury some property qualification upon voters was implied in 
 the laws and customs of many of the colonies, and in the 
 eighteenth century such a requirement was universal. Prop- 
 erty qualifications, for our purposes, may be divided into (a) \J^ 
 those which do not state the form of property required ; (&) 
 those which limit the necessary property to freehold alone; 
 (c) those which give an alternative between a real and a per- 
 sonal property minimum, and (d) those establishing a tax- 
 paying requisite for voters. Instances of each of these can 
 be found during the colonial period. 
 
 A. Of the indefinite property qualifications, perhaps the 
 most general was that in force in Rhode Island between 1665 
 and 1723, which, adopting the language of the king's letter 
 to the New England colonies, required all freemen to be per- 
 sons of " c ompetent est ates . " More specific, but still vague, 
 are the Soutfi CaroImaTaws of 1692 and 171 6 requiring the 
 voter " to be worth" ten pounds or thirty pounds respect- 
 ively ; and of a similar nature is the thirty pounds estate in 
 Connecticut in 1657. More definiteness was gained by the 
 requirement that the property be taxable; as in the twenty 
 pounds of rateable estate in Plymouth in 1669 and in New 
 Hampshire in 1680, and the Connecticut twenty pounds as- 
 sessment of 1662. 
 
 B. Where freeholdership was a requisite for the suffrage, 
 there might be no minimum size or value of the freehold, as 
 in Virginia from 1676 to 1736, in West Jersey after 1682, or 
 New Hampshire from 1682 to 1699. But this early exten- 
 sion of the franchise to all freeholders without respect to the 
 size or value of the real estate soon gave place to a less lib- 
 eral policy. The minimum freehold was measured intone of 
 three ways; either by the English custom of requiring a 
 definite income from land, or by fixing a certain value of 
 freehold, or a certain size in acres or town lots. The first of 
 these tests, in the form of a forty-shilling income from free- 
 hold estate, was in force in New York from 1683 to 1699; 
 in New Hampshire from 1699 to 1727; in Massachusetts 
 after 1691, and Connecticut after 1689, but in the last two 
 
Conclusion. 
 
 479 
 
 cases some other alternative was permissible; and it was 
 part of the qualifications of Rhode Island between 1723 and 
 1730, and after 1760. Thus all the New England colonies 
 possessed the English standard of freehold, and in two of 
 them, the forty shillings, translated into dollars, was main- 
 tained well into the nineteenth century. 
 
 In other cases the freehold possessed by the voter must be 
 of a certain value. This was true in New York after 1699, 
 where the freehold must be of the value of forty pounds, and 
 of New Hampshire after 1728, where it was ten pounds 
 greater than in New York. In Rhode Island in 1723 the 
 freehold must be of the value of one hundred pounds or yield 
 an income of forty shillings; in 1730, owing to the deprecia- 
 tion in the paper currency, this was changed to two hundred 
 pounds, or ten pounds income, and again in 1746 both of 
 these figures were doubled. After 1760 the amount was ex- 
 pressed as forty pounds value in lawful money, or a forty- 
 shilling income. South Carolina after 1745 permitted free- 
 holders in towns to vote if they possessed sixty pounds value 
 of taxable land or houses in towns. 
 
 All the colonies to the southward of New York expressed 
 the freehold in acres or lots rather than in value or income, 
 as was the case in New England and New York. In New 
 Jersey after 1702 the minimum amount where no personal 
 property was held, was one hundred acres ; in Pennsylvania, 
 after some slight changes, it was fixed at fifty acres, twelve 
 of which must be cleared, and Delaware had an identical 
 provision; while Maryland after 1670 also required fifty 
 acres. Virginia up to 1736 had expressed no legal size for 
 the freehold, but after that year the voter could qualify by 
 virtue of one hundred acres of unsettled land, or twenty- 
 five acres with a house and settled plantation, or a house 
 or lot in some legally established town. In 1762 this was 
 changed to fifty acres of unsettled land, and the house either 
 on plantation or in town must be at least twelve feet square. 
 North Carolina after 1735 possessed the fifty acres quali- 
 fication, and Georgia had the same provision imposed upon 
 her by royal instructions in 1754. South Carolina from at 
 least 1704 had the fifty acres provision in connection with 
 other qualifications. In 1745 this was elaborated into a 
 
480 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 settled plantation, or three hundred acres of unsettled land, 
 or sixty pounds value in taxable houses and lands in towns ; 
 but in 1759 the three hundred acres were reduced to one 
 hundred. Thus, immediately before the Revolution, from 
 New Jersey to Georgia the freehold, with one exception in 
 South Carolina, was expressed in acres of land; in six 
 colonies the size was fixed at fifty acres, with other options 
 in Virginia; while in New Jersey and South Carolina, one 
 of the requirements was one hundred acres of freehold. In 
 Georgia and North Carolina the fifty acres freehold was the 
 sole property qualification for the suffrage at the close of 
 the colonial period; in all the other colonies the acres of 
 freehold were linked with other alternatives, such as dif- 
 ferent forms of freehold, as in Virginia and South Caro- 
 lina, or personal property requirements, as in New Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland, or the payment of 
 taxes, as in South Carolina. 
 
 C. At the close of the colonial period a freehold of some 
 size or value was required of voters in seven colonies : New . , 
 Hampshire, Rhode Island,^ New York, New Jersey, Vir- tap 
 ginia. North Carolina and Georgia. In the six other colo- 
 nies there were alternatives to the real estate qualification in 
 the form of the holding of personal property or the payment 
 of taxes. The forty-shilling income from freehold was, in 
 Massachusetts and Connecticut, paralleled by a personal 
 property requirement of forty pounds ; ^ and the same 
 amount of personal property was placed upon a parity with 
 fifty acres of land in Delaware and Maryland. Pennsylvania 
 made fifty acres of land and fifty pounds value of personal 
 estate equivalent terms. New Jersey after 1705 and New 
 Hampshire between 1699 ^"^ 1728 possessed an unusual 
 qualification, which permitted freeholders to vote if they did 
 not possess the requisite freehold, but instead owned fifty 
 pounds value of personal estate, together with any amount, 
 however small, of freehold land. South Carolina, also, from 
 1704 to 1 72 1, had a personal property qualification at first of 
 
 'With the exception of the eldest sons of freeholders, who could 
 vote, although not themselves possessing real estate. 
 
 'I have taken here the colonial interpretation of the Massachusetts 
 charter of 1691. 
 
Conclusion. 481 
 
 ten, and later of fifty pounds, as equivalent to the fifty acres 
 of land. 
 
 D. At the time of the Revolution only one colony, — South 
 Carolina, — retained the tax-paying feature of the suffrage re- 
 quirements. In that colony by the law of 1721 persons pay- 
 ing twenty shillings in taxes were permitted to vote. This 
 was discontinued in 1745, but in 1759 the principle was again 
 adopted, and the amount of taxes necessary to qualify the 
 voter was reduced from twenty to ten shillings. A similar 
 practice of conditioning political privileges upon the payment 
 of taxes is found at one time or another in other colonies. As 
 early as 1656 in Virginia the principle is affirmed; from 
 1715 to 1735 it is the sole basis for the suffrage in North 
 Carolina; and in 1664 tax-paying in an excessive amount 
 was required of non-church-members who desired to be ad- 
 mitted as freemen in Massachusetts. 
 
 7. Freemanship in Corporations. The manner in which 
 the English theory of corporations received a wide political 
 interpretation in America has been seen already in the studies 
 of the charter colonies ; and in the summary just made, the 
 qualifications required of freemen in those colonies have been 
 grouped, where possible, under similar headings with the 
 qualifications of voters in other colonies. But in addition to 
 the requirements already given, the corporation colonies had 
 practices in the admission of their freemen which virtually 
 amounted to further qualifications upon the suffrage. One 
 of the most general of such features is the taking of an oath, 
 a " charge," or an " engagement" of fidelity to the govern- 
 ment. This custom was practically universal in the New 
 England corporations, and in Rhode Island and New Haven, 
 even existed in the separate towns before they were incor- 
 porated into larger unions. Another frequent, but not uni- 
 versal, custom was that requiring the candidate for the fran- 
 chise to pass a period of probation after his name had been 
 proposed and before he was formally accepted as a freeman. 
 Plymouth originated this custom at least as early as 1636 by 
 requiring those proposed at one court to " stand propounded" 
 until the next court; and in 1658 this was changed to a 
 whole year's probation. Connecticut after 1662 required a 
 six months' probation, and Rhode Island, after 1762 had the 
 
 31 
 
482 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 shorter term of three months. Massachusetts never adopted 
 the probation plan except from 1673 to 1683 for applicants 
 who were not church-members. 
 
 Still another restriction upon freemen was the requirement 
 in Connecticut and Massachusetts that the candidates present 
 certificates from the civil or ecclesiastical authorities of the 
 town that they possessed the desired moral or property quali- 
 fications. But more interesting than this, was the Plymouth 
 rule of 1656 that applicants for the provincial freedom must 
 first have been approved for that honor by the freemen of the 
 town in which they dwelt, and later proposed by the town 
 deputies to the court. This virtually left the control of the 
 freemanship with the body of existing freemen in each town. 
 Similar perhaps in theory, but different in practice, was the 
 Rhode Island distinction between town freemen and colony 
 freemen. In this colony, after a period of town control of 
 the subject, the legislature imposed various qualifications 
 upon the freemen of the towns, and having fulfilled these re- 
 quirements for the town freedom, a man could gain the colo- 
 nial franchise as a matter of form. The most remarkable of 
 all the colonial suffrage qualifications is also to be found in 
 Rhode Island, where, after 1723, the political power of the 
 freeman-freeholder included not only himself, but his eldest 
 son as well if the latter were of legal age. The latter could 
 be admitted to the town and colonial franchise by virtue of 
 his birth, in a manner similar to that in which the freedom of 
 certain English municipalities could be gained. 
 
 8. Qualifications Similar to the English Borough Fran- 
 chise. The details of suffrage qualifications heretofore men- 
 tioned may all be held to correspond to the county franchise 
 in England. It is true that the New England colonies were 
 political corporations differing but little in their origin from 
 the various municipal political corporations of England; but 
 the manner in which the franchise was exercised in these 
 colonies conforms closely to the county suffrage in England. 
 It must be remembered, too, that a distinct town franchise 
 was not greatly needed in those colonies which possessed a 
 personal property alternative to the freehold requirement; 
 or, where, in Virginia or South Carolina, the size or value of 
 freehold was so stated that it would admit to the franchise 
 
Conclusion. 483 
 
 many of the inhabitants of the towns. But in addition to 
 such general provisions, there are some cases of the formal 
 adoption of the English borough franchise. 
 
 In North Carolina, to a greater degree than in any other 
 colony, was the distinction between the county and the town 
 franchise elaborated, and in that colony also the variety of 
 suffrage provisions gave an opportunity for partisan election- 
 eering in the boroughs. The voters' qualifications in the 
 nine towns varied among the towns and at different times in 
 the same town. In one case all who happened to be present 
 at the election, without respect to residence or ownership of 
 property, had the right to vote. While, in most cases, the 
 town suffrage was extended to those who occupied a house of 
 lawful size in the town, or who were owners of unoccupied 
 houses, yet there are instances of the limitation of the bor- 
 ough franchise to freeholders alone. Thus the qualifications 
 varied from mere residence in the town, to the tenancy of a 
 house, or to the possession of a freehold within the town lim- 
 its. In the main, however, the qualifications of voters in 
 these towns conformed to those of the inhabitant-house- 
 holder boroughs of England. 
 
 The same statement is true of the towns of Perth Amboy, 
 Burlington and Salem in New Jersey, of Williamsburg and 
 Norfolk in Virginia, and of Annapolis in Maryland; in all 
 of which the voter must be a freeholder or an inhabiting 
 householder of the town. St. Mary's, in Maryland, on the 
 other hand, possessed the narrow corporation franchise, in 
 which the officers were as open to corruption as they were in 
 the similar towns of England. The English freeman-bor- 
 ough franchise also finds its exact counterpart in the elections 
 by freemen of the corporations of the cities of New York and 
 Albany. In these places the freemanship was acquired by 
 apprenticeship or purchase, and was linked to a residence re- 
 quirement of three months after securing the freedom in New 
 York City, and of six weeks in Albany. Thus in the bor- 
 ough suffrage, as in the county franchise, the force of Eng- 
 lish precedent is everywhere apparent. The English freeman 
 borough, the householder-inhabitant borough, the corpora- 
 tion borough, all have their counterparts in America. 
 
 9. The University Franchise. Only one instance has been 
 
484 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 found of the extension to America of the principle which 
 gave political representation to institutions of learning-. This 
 is the case of the College of William and Mary in Virginia, 
 where the president and six masters possessed the right of 
 choosing a member of the house of burgesses. New Eng- 
 land, with all her respect for education, never put political 
 power within the control of her colleges. 
 
 The preceding summary makes it apparent that English 
 customs and precedents exercised a determining influence 
 upon the qualifications of voters in the colonies. Local con- 
 ditions sometimes suggested or compelled variations from the 
 English customs, but such divergences were rarely so vital as 
 to impair the true nature of the suffrage as an English prac- 
 tice. In two ways these English customs came into colonial 1 
 elections ; first by the natural and perhaps unconscious adher- 1 
 ence of the colonists to the forms already familiar to them ; i 
 and, secondly, by the determined effort of the English author- i 
 ities to place the colonial suffrage upon a basis similar to that ^ 
 in England. Thus, consciously or unconsciously, the elective 
 system was brought into conformity to English ideas. Of 
 the old world qualifications, those of age and sex seem to 
 have been adopted most readily in the colonies ; while those 
 of property were changed in many ways to adapt them to the 
 new conditions. 
 
 At the outset the suffrage in most of the colonies con- 
 formed to the voters' qualifications in the English towns 
 rather than to the freehold requisite of the English county. 
 Thus in New England, — where the feeling of community 
 membership was strengthened by the church system, by the 
 town life and by the precedent of the charter of the Massa- 
 chusetts Bay Company, — ^the freeman principle of the Eng- 
 lish boroughs became the basis of the suffrage. In the south- 
 ern colonies, on the other hand, while the word freeman was 
 occasionally used in a sense referring to membership in the 
 colony, the term soon lost the intensely exclusive meaning ^ 
 which made it so valuable to the New England Puritan. It"' 
 came to be identified with the word inhabitant, and thus the 
 early suffrage in Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas is 
 
Conclusion. 485 
 
 similar to the franchise in those English towns where all 
 adult male housekeepers participated in elections. In the 
 middle colonies this early phase is not apparent. But in the 
 south and in New England the holding of land came to be 
 the sole qualification, or an alternative one with the owner- 
 ship of personal property. And in this process the borough 
 basis of freemanship or inhabitancy gave place to the owner- 
 ship of property; that is, a qualification akin to the county 
 franchise in England. 
 
 It has been held ^ that this movement toward higher quali- 
 fications and a restricted suffrage came upon the demand of 
 the English government; and, indeed, as we shall see, the 
 weight of English authority was almost uniformly in favor 
 of a property qualification. But before commenting upon the 
 efforts of the home government in this direction, it should be 
 noted that there are indications of a similar spirit among the 
 colonists themselves. Thus Connecticut in 1657 and 1659 
 imposed a property qualification upon freemen and voting in- 
 habitants; in 1658 Massachusetts required non-freemen vot- 
 ing in town meetings to possess twenty pounds value of taxa- 
 ble property; Maryland, as early as 1666, shows evidence of 
 a tendency toward government by freeholders ; and Virginia 
 in 1670 adopted a restrictive clause. Thus with the growth 
 of population and the removal of the frontier from the coast 
 plains, property-holding and non-property-holding classes 
 became distinct; vested interests arose; and these in turn 
 demanded a political interpretation of their favored position. 
 It is probable, under the prevailing seventeenth and eigh- 
 teenth century political ideals, that a restricted suffrage 
 would have been adopted throughout the colonies even if the 
 English government had not endeavored to obtain the same 
 end. But that the restriction took the frequent form of a 
 freehold qualification, especially in the forty-shilling pro- 
 vision, is due in very large degree to the influence of the 
 English government. 
 
 This influence is seen first of all in the royal charters to 
 proprietors, in which, with the exception of that to the Duke 
 of York, distinct provision is made for representative assem- 
 
 " Bishop, History of Elections in American Colonies, 72. 
 
486 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 blies. The Maryland, the CaroHna and the Pennsylvania 
 charters mention assemblies elected by the freemen or by the 
 freeholders, and thus, although no distinction is made be- 
 tween them, two of the features of the English franchise are 
 imposed upon these colonies. But a more definite control of 
 the franchise is obtained in the royal provinces, where the 
 authority of the English government is almost uniformly 
 used to limit the suffrage to freeholders. The earliest in- 
 stance noticed of this policy is found in the instructions of 
 1676 to Governor Berkeley of Virginia, which directed him 
 to " take care that the members of the assembly be elected 
 only by ffreeholders, as being more agreeable to the custome 
 of England." After that date, the same policy, often in the 
 same words, was copied in the instructions of the govern- 
 ors of Virginia and other colonies. So general was the in- 
 sertion of this clause after 1689 that it may be called uni-^ 
 versal. It appears in New Hampshire in 1682 after the 
 remarkable suffrage acts of the Cutt assembly ; in New York 
 it is found in 1689 in the instructions to Governor Slaughter; 
 and in New Jersey, the Carolinas and Georgia it appears in 
 all the royal instructions or commissions from the beginning 
 of the royal government in each case. The policy thus laid 
 down was not weakly administered; and it is to be noted 
 that in all the seven royal governments, with the exception of 
 a subordinate clause enfranchising certain tax-payers in South ^ 
 Carolina, the suffrage was strictly limited to freeholders, i^ 
 The personal property alternatives are to be found either in ^ 
 boroughs in these royal provinces, or in the general provi--"J^ 
 sions of the three proprietary provinces and the charter colo- 
 nies of Massachusetts and Connecticut. 
 
 In addition to this continuous policy of the English gov- 
 ernment, there were occasions upon which more particular at- 
 tention was paid to the suffrage in certain colonies. An in- 
 stance of this is seen in the instructions to the parliamentary 
 commissioners sent to reduce the Chesapeake Bay settlements 
 during the Commonwealth period, directing them to exclude 
 from the suffrage those who would not swear to support the 
 new English administration. But a much more noted case is 
 that of the Stuart commissioners to New England in 1664. 
 The account of their duties and acts has already been given. 
 
Conclusion. 487 
 
 As a result of their labors the Massachusetts law of 1664 ad- 
 mitting non-church-members was passed; Rhode Island 
 adopted the very words of the commissioners in its suffrage 
 law ; and the influence of the commission was felt in Con- 
 necticut and Plymouth. Similar instances of English inter- 
 ference with the suffrage franchise have been noticed in New 
 Jersey, in North Carolina and in Georgia ; and the policy is 
 summed up in 1767 in a circular instruction to the governors 
 of all the royal provinces directing them to give assent to no 
 law altering the number of members of the legislature of 
 their colonies, or the time of continuance of the assembly, or 
 changing the qualifications of electors or elected} It is evi- 
 dent that throughout the colonial period the English authori- 
 ties took a deep interest in the question of the colonial suf- 
 frage, and uniformly used their influence in favor of the 
 freehold qualification. 
 
 In closing, reference may be made to the figures obtained 
 showing the size of the voting class. In Virginia in several \ 
 elections between 1744 and 1772 there appeared to be about 
 nine per cent, of the white population actually participating 
 as electors. In New York City, in the elections of 1735, 
 1 76 1 and 1769 the actual voters numbered about eight per 
 cent, of the population. In Pennsylvania the tax-list figures 
 give only potential voters, but they show about eight per cent, 
 of the rural population qualified for the suffrage, and only 
 two per cent, in the city of Philadelphia, a condition quite in 
 contrast to that of New York City. In New England the 
 actual voters appear to be less proportionately than in the 
 middle and southern colonies. Massachusetts, for instance, 
 shows only one person in fifty as taking part in elections, and 
 Connecticut, in elections immediately preceding the Revolu- 
 tion, had about the same proportion. In Rhode Island the 
 freemen or potential voters numbered only nine per cent, of 
 the population. These figures are entirely too few, and too 
 scattered in time and territory, to justify any accurate gener- 
 alization from them. The potential voters seem to vary from 
 one-sixth to one-fiftieth of the population, and the actual 
 
 ^N. J. Archives, IX, 637 (July 24, 1767). 
 
488 The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies. 
 
 voters show almost an equal variation; Massachusetts and 
 Connecticut showing at times only two per cent, of actual 
 voters among a population where perhaps sixteen per cent. 
 were qualified electors; and New York City and Virginia 
 showing the far larger proportion of eight per cent, of the 
 population as actual voters. At best, however, the colonial 
 elections called forth both relatively and absolutely only a -^ 
 smalHtaction of the present percentage of voters. Property''^ 
 qualifications, poor means of communication, large election 
 districts and the absence of party organization combined to U-- 
 make the most sharply contested elections feeble in their -^ 
 effects upon the community as compared with the widespread 
 suffrage of the twentieth century. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abjuration, oath of, in Del., 270. 
 
 Acadians, presence of, probable 
 cause of disfranchisement of 
 Catholics in S. C, 158. 
 
 Acrelius, account of elections in 
 Pa., 28s. 
 
 Actual voters, number of, in 
 Mass., 356-357. 
 
 Admission, of inhabitants to towns 
 on Long Island, 192; in N. Y. 
 under Duke's Laws, 203-204; of 
 partners in Plymouth, 303 note; 
 of freemen in Mass., 302-304; 
 terms of, 308 ; in distant towns, 
 309; of freemen, 328-329; into 
 Plymouth partnership, 340; into 
 freemanship, 341 ; of inhabi- 
 tants, 342-343; of inhabitants 
 to towns in Mass., 363; to 
 towns in N. H., 378; to towns 
 in Conn., 383-385; refusal to 
 grant, 385 ; of freemen, by local 
 officers, 413; of inhabitants, 421. 
 
 Agamenticus, Maine, city govern- 
 ment in, 350. 
 
 Age, as qualification of electors, 
 in England, 2; origin of legal 
 age, 2 note; twenty-one years 
 in Va., 35; twenty-one years in 
 N. C, 92, III; twenty-one years 
 in S. C, 140, 146, IS3, 155, 157; 
 twenty-one years in Ga., 172 ; in 
 N. Y., twenty-one years, 212; 
 in Del., twenty-one years, 270; 
 in Pa., twenty-one years, 275, 
 279, 282; in Mass., twenty-one 
 years, 310; in Mass., twenty- 
 four years in case of certain 
 town electors, 318; under law 
 of 1664, twenty-four years, 324; 
 town elections, twenty-four 
 years, 362; in Plymouth militia 
 elections, twenty years, 366; in 
 N. H., in 1680, twenty-four 
 years, 374; in 1682, twenty-one 
 years, 375 ; in Conn., twenty-one 
 years, 386, 388, 408; in colonies 
 generally, 474. 
 
 Albany, N. Y., suffrage in, 222- 
 223. 
 
 Aliens, as electors in S. C, 132, 
 135, 137. 138, 141; excluded 
 from assembly, 141. 
 
 Alms, persons receiving such dis- 
 franchised in England, 11; but 
 may vote in some towns, 15. 
 
 Altona, Del., 267. 
 
 Amsterdam, obtains settlement on 
 Delaware, 263 ; inducements to 
 settlers, 264; all Delaware lands 
 ceded to, 265 ; government of 
 colony, 267. 
 
 Andros, Sir Edmund, as governor 
 of N. Y., claims authority in 
 N. J., 237; in Mass., 334; arrest 
 of, 335; in N. H., 375, 377; in 
 Conn., 412. 
 
 Anglican party in S. C, influence 
 elections, 136. 
 
 Annapolis, Md., elections in, 72. 
 
 Annuities, as freeholds in Eng- 
 land, 9. 
 
 Antinomians in Mass., 307. 
 
 Apprentices, as electors in S. C, 
 147; excluded, 148; in Mass., 
 to be admitted as town inhabi- 
 tants, 363 note 2; copied by N. 
 H., in 1718 and 1719, 378; as 
 town inhabitants, in R. I., 468. 
 
 Aquedneck, R. I., settlement of, 
 433 > agreements among in- 
 habitants, ibid. 
 
 Archdale, John, governor of N. 
 C, 90; of S. C, 134. 
 
 Aristocracy, in Mass., 304. 
 
 Artisan class in S. C, 156; as 
 electors in Pa. under laws made 
 in England, 275; disfranchised 
 in Pa., 292. 
 
 Assembly, first representative in 
 America, 19-21 ; first in Caro- 
 lina, 84, 85 ; biennial, in N. C, 
 88, 97, 98 ; a grievance in N. C, 
 99; at Hemptead, L. I., called 
 by Col. Nicholls, ig8; suffrage 
 for, ibid.; promulgates Duke's 
 489 
 
490 
 
 Index. 
 
 Laws, 198 ; irregular, in N. J., 
 234; in West Jersey exercises 
 wide powers in election of offi- 
 cers, even of governor, 247; 
 number of members of, in N. J., 
 249; number of members of, in 
 Del., 270. 
 
 Association, revolutionary, in S. 
 C. in 1719, 150; Protestant, in 
 Md., 69. 
 
 Associators. See Regulators. 
 
 Attendance, at election, required 
 in England, 3 ; but perhaps not 
 required at early period, 3 note; 
 may not have been required in 
 early Va., 22; not required in 
 Long Island towns, 192, 207 
 note 4; not required in Mass., 
 312 note; not required in R. I., 
 463-464. See also Proxy 
 Voting. 
 
 Bacon's Rebellion, in Va., 32-33; 
 effect upon suffrage, ibid. 
 
 Ballot, in English univecsities, 16; 
 a grievance therein, ibid.; use 
 of in Virginia Company, 18, 22; 
 forbidden in Va., 26 ; or " sub- 
 scription" in Va., 1655, 28; es- 
 tablished in N. C, 92; method 
 of collecting, 102; abolished in 
 N. C, in 1760, iii; desired by 
 Regulators, 113; used in parish 
 elections, 118, but forbidden in 
 1764, 119; in S. C, in 1669, 124; 
 always used in colony, 141 ; ir- 
 regular, to be invalid, 146; in 
 1716, 145; in 1719, 151; elector 
 need not subscribe, ibid.; op- 
 posed by Governor Glen, 154, 
 156, IS7; used in West Jersey, 
 245; provided for in Del., 270; 
 description of, 271 ; in Pa., 27s; 
 used in elections in Pa., but 
 sometimes neglected, 277; beans 
 used in taking, ibid.; opposition 
 to, 278; written, 282; mode <3i 
 using, 283 note S; in Mass., 
 origin of, 310-312; beans used 
 in, 312; paper ballots, ibid.; in 
 Plymouth, 349 note; used in 
 Mass. town elections, 361 ; and 
 in militia elections, 365 note 4; 
 in New Haven, 397; in Conn., 
 effect of charter of 1662 upon, 
 407; in Conn., 407, 411, 413, 416- 
 
 417; in R. L towns, 437; in 
 R. I., 442-443; corruption of, 
 443 ; under charter of 1663, 447, 
 463-467 ; sick electors may send, 
 464; those received in town 
 meetings must be signed, 464- 
 465 ; irregularities concerning, 
 46s; must be given in town 
 meetings and not at Newport, 
 466. 
 
 Ballot-box in N. C. described, 
 102 ; in S. C, 141, 146 ; in West 
 Jersey, 246; in Del., described, 
 271; mentioned in Pa., 277; a 
 hat used for, 278; use of, in 
 Pa., 282; frauds of, 285. 
 
 Baltimore, Lord, charter to, 48. 
 
 Banishment a punishment for re- 
 ligious offences in Mass., 307. 
 
 Baptists in Mass., measures 
 against, 320-321 ; disfranchised, 
 in colonies generally, 475. 
 
 Barbadoes, proxy voting in, 141 
 note; laws of, a precedent for 
 S. C. legislation, 145 note. 
 
 Barclay, Robert, Quaker apologist, 
 governor of East Jersey, 239. 
 
 Bath, England, borough suffrage 
 in, 16. 
 
 Bath, town in N. C, suffrage in, 
 93, no, 114; law respecting, 115. 
 
 Baxter, George, of Gravesend, L. 
 L, 183. 
 
 Beans used in balloting in Pa., 
 277; in Mass., 312; in New 
 Haven, 397. 
 
 Beaufort, N. C, suffrage in, IIS, 
 116. 
 
 Bellomont, Earl of, opposes R. I. 
 ballot system, 466 note 7 ; _ op- 
 poses R. I. militia elections, 
 470-471. 
 
 Bergen, N. J., popular meeting in, 
 189; receives charter in 1661, 
 227; charter of, 249 note. 
 
 Berkeley, Lord, receives grant of 
 N. J., 228. 
 
 Berkeley, Sir William, governor 
 of Va., 29; receives new in- 
 structions, 33; one of Carolina 
 proprietors, 82. 
 
 Bicameral system in Md., S2. 
 
 Blake, Joseph, chosen governor in 
 
 S. c, 133-134- 
 
 Board of Trade, English. See 
 Lords of Trade and Plantations. 
 
Index. 
 
 491 
 
 Boatmen as electors in Campbel- 
 ton, N. C, 117. 
 
 Borough elections, in Pa., 296- 
 297. 
 
 Borough suffrage in England, 10- 
 16; in Va., 42-44; in Md., 73; 
 adopted in N. C. in 171S, 93; 
 described, 114-117; distin- 
 guished from county, in Pa., 
 27s; in colonies generally, 482- 
 
 483. 
 
 Boston, Mass., number of electors 
 in, 355-356. 
 
 Boys as electors in N. C, 91 ; in 
 Pa., 28s. 
 
 Brent, Mrs. Margaret, claims a 
 vote in Md., 53-54, 473. 
 
 Bribery punished in England, 7. 
 8; in Va., the briber disquali- 
 fied to sit in assembly, 35 ; ■ pun- 
 ished in N. C, 102; in S. C- 
 147 ; in Del., 270, 271 ; fine for, 
 in Pa., 283 ; in R. I. every free- 
 man required to take oath 
 against, 459. 
 
 Bristol, England, borough suf- 
 frage in, 14. 
 
 Bristol, Pa., called a town, 295 
 note; borough charter of 296- 
 297; town meetings in, ihid. 
 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., popular meeting 
 in, 189. 
 
 Brunswick, N. C, suffrage in, 
 116. 
 
 Bulkeley, Peter, criticises Conn, 
 revolution of 1689, 413; esti- 
 mate of number of freemen, 419. 
 
 Burgage tenure defined, 12; quali- 
 fication of electors, 12; number 
 of, 13. 
 
 Burgesses in New Haven to be 
 church-members, 392. 
 
 Burlington, N. J., suffrage in, 249 
 and note 3, 253, 255 ; charter of, 
 256 note. 
 
 Burrington, George, governor of 
 N. C., explains fundamentals. 
 87, go; commission of, 96; 
 writs of election, 96; desires 
 repeal of N. C. suffrage laws, 
 97; erects new precincts, 98. 
 
 Byllinge, Edward, proprietor of 
 West Jersey, 235, 244, 246. 
 
 Galvert, Charles, Lord Baltimore, 
 63, 67. 
 
 Calvert, Leonard, governor of 
 Md., 49; Mrs. Brent executrix 
 of, 54- 
 
 Cambridge, University of, suf- 
 frage in, 16. 
 
 Campbelton, N. C, suffrage in, 
 115. 
 
 Cape Fear colony in Carolina, 85, 
 122. 
 
 Cape Porpus, Me., annexed to 
 Mass., 352. 
 
 Capitulation, terms of, after Eng- 
 lish conquest of New Nether- 
 land, 197; after Dutch conquest 
 of Swedes on Delaware, 261 ; 
 on Delaware upon surrender to 
 Duke of York, 265, 267. 
 
 Carlisle, borough suffrage in, 
 
 14- , . 
 
 Carolina, division into colonies, 
 84, 122. 
 
 Carteret, Philip, governor of N. 
 C, 88; of N. J., 231^34. 
 
 Carteret, Sir George, receives 
 grant of N. J., 228. 
 
 Cary, Colonel, influence upon suf- 
 frage in N. C, 91. 
 
 Castle Rising, borough suffrage 
 in, 15. 
 
 Catholics, disfranchised 'in Eng- 
 land during Commonwealth 
 period, 3 ; probably excluded 
 after 1696, 4; disfranchised in 
 Va., 35; disqualified as wit- 
 nesses, 35 ; disfranchised in 
 Md., 56, s8, 69, 71-72, 74; in 
 S. C, in I7S9, 157, 158; in N. 
 Y. in 1689, 201 ; in 1701, 214 ; 
 in N. H. in 1680, 374; in R. I. 
 in 1719, 45 1 ; in colonies gen- 
 erally, 476 
 
 Cavaliers, influence in Va., 30. 
 
 Certificates, required of electors, 
 in Mass., under law of 1664, 324 ; 
 in Mass., freemen admitted 
 upon, 328-329; in Plymouth, 
 required of incoming settlers, 
 343; required of electors in 
 Conn., 404, 408, 413. 
 
 Chamber of Accounts of Dutch 
 West India Company, favor 
 representative government in 
 New Netherland, 177. 
 
 Character, good, as qualification 
 of electors in Pa., in 1682, 275; 
 in Mass. town elections, 318 ; re- 
 
492 
 
 Index. 
 
 quired in king's letter, 322, 323; 
 adopted in law of 1664, 324; in 
 Plymouth, 345, 347; in Mass. 
 town elections, 362; in N. H., 
 374; in Conn., 387, 388, 408-409; 
 towns, 422; in R. I., 448-449; 
 colonies generally, 476-477. 
 
 Charles II., correspondence with 
 Mass., 322; requires repeal of 
 Mass. freeman la.w, ibid.; favors 
 religious liberty, 323. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, all elections 
 held therein, 137, 143-144; op- 
 posed by proprietors, 144, but 
 later favored by them, ibid.; 
 corporate government proposed 
 for, ibid.; grand jury presents 
 elections therein as an evil, 
 ibid.; abolished by law, in 1716, 
 14s ; restored by proprietors, 
 149; again abolished, 151; eco- 
 nomic opposition to, 152; in- 
 corporated in I783,\ 159. 
 
 Charlestown, Mass., town suffrage 
 in, 360; rights of commonage 
 in, 367. 
 
 Charter, of Privilef^es of 1618 in 
 Va., 18; suffrage in the Md., 
 48; suffrage in the Carolina, 
 80-81 ; to Duke of York, 196- 
 197, 228; town, in N. J., 249 
 note; of privileges, granted by 
 Penn, 269; suffrage in Penn's, 
 273; Penn's to his province in 
 1701, 281 ; king's to Mass. Bay 
 Company in 1629, 301-302; for- 
 feited, 334; to Gorges, 350; to 
 Mass. in 1691, 3S3-3S4; am- 
 biguity concerning qualifications 
 of electors, 354; to Conn., 402; 
 analysis of, 405 ; abolished re- 
 ligious qualifications of New 
 Haven, 406; effect upon proxy 
 voting, 407; restoral of officers 
 under, in 1689, 412; to R. I. in 
 1644. 439-440; to R. I. in 1663, 
 446-448. 
 
 Chester, Pa., called a town, 295 
 note; borough charter of, 296- 
 297; town meetings in, ibid. 
 
 Chester County, Pa., petitions 
 against election evils, 284, 285. 
 
 Children, excluded from militia 
 elections, in Plymouth, 366. 
 
 Chimneys, significance of, in bor- 
 ough suffrage in N. C, 94. 
 
 Choristers, as electors in England, 
 
 9- 
 
 Christians, as electors, in S. C, 
 146, 153, ISS; in Pa- in 1682, 
 275,276; in R. I., 451. 
 
 Christina, Del., 267. 
 
 Church attendance in Mass. re- 
 quired of all electors, 321. 
 
 Church, offices in, as freeholds in 
 England, 9; definition of, in 
 Mass., 306; none formed with- 
 out approbation, ibid.; organi- 
 zation in Mass., 306; condition 
 of, in Mass. in 1646, 316; or- 
 ganization of, in New Haven, 
 392-393; controlled by govern- 
 ment, 396. 
 
 Church elections, in Mass., 363- 
 365; in N. H., by freeholders 
 alone, 378; by tax-payers, ibid.; 
 in Conn., 423-425. See also 
 Parish Elections. 
 
 Churches, elections in S. C. held 
 in, 145- 
 
 Church-members, colony franchise 
 limited to, iii Mass., 304 ; Cotton 
 favors this limitation, 305; dif- 
 ficulty of defining term, 305- 
 306; defined, 307; Half- Way 
 Covenant, 307; reluctant to be- 
 come freeman, 308; Half- Way 
 Covenant not adopted in politi- 
 cal sense, 318-319; Charles II. 
 opposes exclusive privileges of, 
 322-323; effect of law of 1664, 
 324, 329; Randolph writes con- 
 cerning, 331 ; still a favored 
 class in 1690, 336; but not after 
 1691, 337; in Plymouth, fran- 
 chise limited to, 346; electors 
 in Conn., 389 ; electors, in New 
 Haven, 390, 392 ; excluded when 
 members of irregularly organ- 
 ized churches, 396; all encour- 
 aged to become, 402 ; electors in 
 Conn, church elections, 425. 
 
 Church-wardens, election of, in 
 Va., 45 ; managers of elections 
 in S. C, 145. 
 
 Cinque ports, representation of, 2, 
 4- 
 
 Citizens (inhabitants of a city) 
 as electors in Maine, 351. 
 
 Citizenship as qualification of 
 electors, in England, 3; alien 
 Huguenots as electors in S. C, 
 
Index, 
 
 493 
 
 132 ; their naturalization 
 
 favored, 134; temporary act 
 passed, 134; permanent act, 
 141; in Albany, N. Y., 222, 
 223; in Del., 270; in Pa. in 
 1682, 276; in 1694 free deni- 
 zens, 279; in 1705, 282; in 
 Mass., in 1664, must be Eng- 
 lishmen, 324, 362; in N. H., 
 Englishmen, 374; in colonies 
 generally, 474-475. 
 
 City elections in New York City 
 under charter of 1683, 221; 
 charter of 1686, 221 ; method of 
 obtaining freedom, 221 ; charter 
 of 1730, 222; parish elections, 
 224 ; in Albany, N. Y., 222-223 ; 
 in Philadelphia, Pa., 298. 
 
 Claiborne, William, parliamentary 
 commissioner in Md., 57. 
 
 Clergymen, excluded from Md. 
 assembly, 71. 
 
 Coddington, William, 441. 
 
 Colleton, James, governor of S. C, 
 131- 
 
 Commissioners, parliamentary, in 
 Md., 57. 
 
 Commissioners, royal, to New 
 England, in Mass., 323-326; in 
 Plymouth, 347-348 ; pleased with 
 Plymouth government, 348; in 
 Conn., 409-410; in R. I., 448- 
 
 449- 
 
 Commissioners, town, in N. C, 
 elections of, 117, 118. 
 
 Commissions of royal governors, 
 with their instructions, furnish 
 suffrage qualifications, 209. 
 
 Committee of correspondence, ap- 
 pointed in Ga. in 1741, 167. 
 
 Commoners, as electors, in N. Y., 
 225; in Mass., 3S8-3S9. 367-369; 
 in Conn, and New Haven, 426- 
 429; in R. I., 436, 469. 
 
 Common land, suffrage concern- 
 ing. See Land Matters. 
 
 Common Prayer, Book of, Charles 
 II. commands Mass. to grant 
 liberty to use, 322 ; in Mass. its 
 use forbidden, 325. 
 
 Commonwealth, Connecticut, 381. 
 
 Commonwealth, English, engage- 
 ment to support, required of 
 voters in Md., 57; proclaimed 
 by inhabitants of Long Island, 
 186 note. 
 
 Communicants, of church, as 
 electors in Mass., 319; in Conn., 
 424. 
 
 Compulsory voting, in Va., 21, 26- 
 ^7, 36, 41; in Md., 73-74; in 
 N. C. vestry elections, 119; in 
 Del., 270; in Mass., paralleled 
 by compulsory freemanship, 
 308 ; in Plymouth, 341, 348 ; in 
 R. I., 450. 
 
 Concessions to settlers in Caro- 
 linas, 83, 123, 124; in N. J., 83; 
 in Ga., 164; in New Nether- 
 land in 1629, 174; in 1661 to 
 English settlers, 186; in N. J., 
 228, 229; interpretation of, 234; 
 in West Jersey in 1677, 245, 246. 
 
 Confederation, of towns on Rhode 
 Island, 438. 
 
 Congregationalism, dangers of, in 
 Mass., 306; theory of, 306 note; 
 opposed by Presbyterians, 314. 
 
 Connecticut, settlement of river 
 towns, 380; fundamentals of 
 1639, 381 ; freemanship and suf- 
 frage under fundamentals, 382- 
 384 ; oath of freeman, 383 note; 
 town restrictions upon freemen, 
 384-386 ; delegation of power to 
 admit freemen, 386; restriction 
 upon colony freemen, 387-389; 
 number of freemen admitted, 
 387, 390 ; religious qualifications, 
 389-390; suffrage in New 
 Haven, 390-405 (see New 
 Haven) ; charter of 1662, 402, 
 405-407; union with New 
 Haven, 402-405; colonial suf- 
 frage limited to freemen, 406- 
 407; new qualifications of elect- 
 ors, £20 estate, 408; many new 
 freemen, 408 ; royal commission- 
 ers in, 409-410; freemen's oath, 
 410; means to prevent election 
 frauds, 410-41 1 ; qualification of 
 £20 freehold in 1673, 411; of 
 £10 freehold in 1675, 412; land 
 assessments in, 412 ; Andros and 
 revolution of 1689, 412; forty- 
 shilling freehold required in 
 1689, 413; joined with ^40 per- 
 sonal estate in 1702, 414; elec- 
 tion irregularities, 414 ; mode of 
 admission of freemen, 415 ; 
 proxy system of balloting, 416, 
 417; nomination of candidates. 
 
494 
 
 Index. 
 
 417, 418; number of electors, 
 418-420; local suffrage, 420- 
 429; town suffrage, 420-423; 
 church elections, 423-425 ; 
 militia elections, 425, 426; suf- 
 frage concerning land matters, 
 426-429. 
 
 Conscience, liberty of, in Md., 57, 
 58; in S. C, to all but Papists, 
 135; in N. Y., 197; in Conn., 
 409, 410. 
 
 Constables' lists of taxables used 
 in Pa. by officers in judging 
 qualifications of electors, 285. 
 
 Convention, of representatives 
 among N. C. Regulators, 113; 
 revolutionary, in S. C. in 1719, 
 150; popular, in Ga. in 1749, 
 168; in Mass. after the over- 
 throw of Andros, 335 ; popular, 
 in Maine, 351 ; in N. H. in 
 1690, 375- 
 
 Conveyances, fraudulent, in order 
 to qualify voters in England, 8 ; 
 punishment for making, in Va., 
 39; in R. I., 461. 
 
 Convicts, disfranchised in^Va., 41, 
 477- 
 
 Coode, John, revolutionist in Md., 
 69. 
 
 Copley, Governor, of Md., 70. 
 
 Copyholders cannot vote in Eng- 
 lish counties, 9; permitted in 
 some boroughs, 12. 
 
 Cornbury, Governor, in N. J., 250 ; 
 indefinite election writs issue.d 
 by, ihid. 
 
 Corn in Mass. used in balloting, 
 312; in New Haven, 397. 
 
 Corporation franchise, restricted, 
 in England, 15, 16; in St. Mary's 
 in Md., 63 ; used for partisan 
 purposes, 63. 
 
 Corporation, town proposed in 
 Carolinas, 82; refused by pro- 
 prietors as opposed to rights of 
 people, ibid.; to be erected at 
 New Amstel on Delaware River, 
 264. 
 
 Corporations, economic, in Ply- 
 mouth, 338-340 ; in Mass. towns, 
 357. 358, 367; in Conn, towns, 
 385 ; in New Haven, 391 ; in 
 Conn, towns, 426; in R. I., 431. 
 
 Corporations, self-originating, 
 
 Plymouth, 338, 339; in Maine, 
 
 351; in N. H., 371, 372; in 
 Conn., 382 ; in New Haven, 391 ; 
 in Conn., 426; in R. I., 430-434. 
 
 Coroners, election of, in Del., 271 ; 
 in Pa., 283, 295. 
 
 Corruption in elections. See Ir- 
 regularities in elections. 
 
 Cotton, John, opposes democratic 
 government, 304, 305; antago- 
 nistic to Hooker, 380. 
 
 Council of State, English, a prece- 
 dent for Va., 29. 
 
 Counties, in Pa., origin of, 294. 
 
 County courts, powers of, in Del., 
 272 ; in Pa., 295. 
 
 County elections, in N. Y., 218- 
 220; in N. J., 255-256; in Pa., 
 283. 
 
 County franchise in England, 5- 
 10 ; distinguished from borough 
 in Pa., 275. 
 
 County government in Pa. and 
 Del., origin of, 2^. 
 
 Courts, local, on Delaware River, 
 266-268; influence upon county 
 organization of Pa. and Del., 
 269. 
 
 Covenant, church, in early Mass., 
 306 note; in New Haven, 392. 
 
 Covenant, Half-Way, 307, 318, 
 319. 
 
 Coventry, borough suffrage in, 14. 
 
 Coxe, Daniel, proprietor of West 
 Jersey, 244. 
 
 Craven, Charles, governor of S. 
 C, 142. 
 
 Cricklade, borough suffrage in, 12. 
 
 Criminals as electors in N. C, no. 
 
 Culpepper, Lord, commission as 
 governor of Va., 34. 
 
 Cultivation of lands required of 
 voting freeholders, in N. J., 239 ; 
 in Del., 270; in Pa., 276, 279, 
 281, 282. 
 
 Currency, paper, effect upon suf- 
 frage qualifications in S. C, I47, 
 148, ISS ; in Conn., 414 ; in R. I., 
 456, 457. 459. 460. 
 
 Cutt, President, of N, H., inter- 
 feres with suffrage, 373; law 
 concerning suffrage passed by 
 his assembly, 374; but repealed 
 by king, ibid. 
 
 Daniel, Robert, governor of N. C, 
 go. 
 
Index. 
 
 495 
 
 Darby, Pa., town meetings in, 293 
 note; called a town, 295 note. 
 
 Davenport, John, in New Haven, 
 gives advice concerning govern- 
 ment, 391, 392. 
 
 Delaware, Lord, possesses arbi- 
 trary power in Va., 19. 
 
 Delaware, character of early his- 
 tory, 259; early settlements by 
 Dutch, English, and Swedes, 
 259-261; Dutch conquest of 
 Delaware lands, 261; popular 
 government under Dutch, 262, 
 263 ; colony of city of Amster- 
 dam, 263-265 ; English conquest, 
 265 ; terms of capitulation, 265 ; 
 government under Duke of 
 York, 266; extension of Duke's 
 Laws to, 266, 267 ; court systenj, 
 267, 268; absence of popular 
 elections, 268; ceded to Penn, 
 269; separation from Pa., 269; 
 election act of 1734, 270; quali- 
 fications of electors, 270; de- 
 scription of election, 271 ; elec- 
 tions of sheriffs, 271 ; local 
 suffrage, 271, 272; borough 
 of Wilmington, 272; reasons 
 for separation from Pa., 280, 
 281. 
 
 Democracy to be avoided in Caro- 
 linas, 85 ; opposed by Cotton in 
 Mass., 304; unpopular with 
 Puritan leaders, 305 ; economic, 
 tends to disappear, 369; form 
 of government on R. I., 438; 
 again affirmed in 1647, 440. 
 
 Deputies in Plymouth, how 
 chosen, 344. 
 
 Deserted parishes in S. C, how 
 persons could vote by virtue of 
 land therein, 147. 
 
 Disfranchised persons fined for 
 voting in Va., 35, 41 ; in N. C, 
 102; in Del., 270; in Pa., 282; 
 vote in Philadelphia, 282; in 
 Pa., interfere in elections, 284- 
 286; number of, 286; in Mass. 
 in 1630, 303 ; in 1635-1637, 307 ; 
 must take oath, 309 ; proportion 
 of, 313; sometimes vote ille- 
 gally, ibid.; growing strength 
 of, 314; movement for political 
 rights in 1646, 314, 315; re- 
 strictive measures against, 316, 
 317; Quakers, Baptists, and 
 
 criticisers of church laws dis- 
 franchised, 320, 321 ; Charles IL 
 takes up cause of, 322, 323; in 
 Plymouth, exist in 1636, 342 ; do 
 not show discontent, 348; in 
 Conn., compared with Mass., 
 381 ; in New Haven, vote ille- 
 gally, 398 ; size of disfranchised 
 class, ibid., demand English 
 laws, 3p9; vote illegally, 401; 
 favor Conn, jurisdiction, 402. 
 
 Disfranchisement, in Va., of con- 
 victs, 41, 477; for political rea- 
 sons in Md., 59, 60 ; in N. J., of 
 those who refuse to re-patent 
 their lands, 233 ; in Mass., cases 
 of, for religious offences, 307; 
 of Quakers, Baptists, and those 
 criticising church laws, 320-321 ; 
 of those not attending church, 
 321 ; in Plymouth, of Quakers, 
 and their sympathizers, op- 
 ponents of established church, 
 liars, drunkards, etc., 346-347; 
 in Conn., of persons convicted 
 of crime, 384 note; in Conn, 
 causes of, 408 ; in R. I., of those 
 not yielding to English Com- 
 monwealth, 442 ; for refusing to 
 take oaths, 448-449 ; for bribery, 
 459; for election frauds, 461, 
 462 note. 
 
 Dissenters, as electors in N. C. 
 parish elections, 119; excluded 
 from S. C. assembly, 138-139; 
 attitude of Mass. towards, 314- 
 318, 320-321 ; admitted to free- 
 dom of colony, 320; favored by 
 Charles IL, 322 ; change in atti- 
 tude toward, 330 ; relieved from 
 payment of tithes, 364; but ex- 
 cluded from church elections, 
 ibid. 
 
 District, incorporated, a municipal 
 unit in Pa., 298-299. 
 
 Districts, election, size causes in- 
 convenience in N. J., 250; the 
 counties adopted as, 253 : in Pa., 
 called hundreds, 284 note 4. 
 
 Dobbs, Arthur, governor of N. C, 
 instructions to, 106-107; brings 
 on confusion in elections, 109- 
 iio; opposition to assembly, 
 
 Ill- 
 Dominion of New England, N. J. 
 included in, 241. 
 
496 
 
 Index. 
 
 Dorchester, Mass., ballot used in, 
 361 note; rights of commonage 
 in, 367. 
 
 Dover, N. H., settlement of, 37,0; 
 compact of settlers, 371 ; re- 
 quests union with Mass., 372; 
 number of voters in, 373 note 4. 
 
 Droitwich, borough suffrage in, 
 
 13- 
 
 Drummond, William, governor of 
 Albemarle County, N. C, 84. 
 
 Duke's Laws, code promulgated 
 at Hempstead, L. I., ig8; 
 changed slightly by later legis- 
 lation, 208; extended to upper 
 Hudson and Delaware settle- 
 ments, 208; put in force on 
 Delaware, 266. 
 
 Durham, borough suffrage in, 14. 
 
 Easthampton, L. I., admission of 
 inhabitants, 204; proxy voting 
 in, 210 note. 
 
 East Jersey, separated from West 
 Jersey, 235 ; difficulties with 
 settlers upon NichoUs's grants, 
 236-237; contest with New 
 York, 237; demand for rights 
 of Englishmen, 237; continued 
 confusion, 238; transfer to 
 Quaker proprietors, 238-239 ; 
 fundamental constitutions, 239- 
 240 ; seventeenth century theory 
 of political rights, 240; funda- 
 mentals not enforced, 241 ; at- 
 temps to compel re-patenting of 
 lands, 241-242 ; revolutionary 
 period, 242-7243. 
 
 Eaton, Samuel, 392. 
 
 Eaton, Theophilus, 392. 
 
 Economic influence upon political 
 development, in Carolinas, 84; 
 in S. C, 152. 
 
 Edenton, N. C, suffrage in, 114, 
 115- 
 
 Education as qualification of 
 electors, favored in N. J., 251. 
 
 Eight Men, the, in New Nether- 
 land, 176. 
 
 Elections, personal control of, in 
 Va., 24; machinery of, in Va., 
 35, 36 ; Hooker's theory of, 380. 
 
 Elective officers, in New York 
 City, 208. 
 
 Electors, rights of, as interpreted 
 by N. C. Regulators, 113; to be 
 
 free from civil writs in S. C, 
 147. 
 
 Elizabeth, N. J., origin of early 
 patents, 231 ; patentees refuse 
 to re-patent lands, 232; refuse 
 to pay quit-rents, 233; general 
 treatment of inhabitants, 238. 
 
 England, Church of, in Mass., 315; 
 favored by Charles II. in 
 quarrel with Mass., 322; for- 
 bidden use of Prayer-Book, 325 ; 
 rights demanded for, 326 ; mem- 
 bers not disfranchised in Mass., 
 333; position of members, 337; 
 in N. H., 371 ; in Conn., mem- 
 bers excluded from church elec- 
 tions, when they do not con- 
 tribute to support, 424. 
 
 England, laws of, as precedents 
 for the colonies, 7; quoted as 
 justifying property qualification 
 in Va., 31 ; in Md., 66 ; as prece- 
 dent for opposing proxy system 
 in S. C, 131 ; for opposing per- 
 sonal property qualifications, 
 133; for opposition to aliens, 
 136; opposing residence restric- 
 tions, 149 ; for opposing elective 
 officers, 156; demanded in Ga., 
 167; as precedent for colonial 
 legislation in N. J., 253 ; desired 
 by agitators in Mass., 314 ; com- 
 pared with those of Mass., 317; 
 demanded by disfranchised per- 
 sons in New Haven, 399. 
 
 England, suffrage in, age qualifi- 
 cation of electors, 2; sex, 2; 
 proxy voting illegal, 3; citizen- 
 ship, 3; oaths and political 
 qualifications, 3 ; position of 
 Catholics, 4; the county fran- 
 chise, s-io ; breadth of early suf- 
 frage, 5 ; restriction of 1430, 5 ; 
 residence at first required of 
 elector, later discontinued, 6; 
 proportion of non-resident 
 voters, 6; election machinery, 
 7-9; laws against fraud, 8-9; 
 extension of suffrage by multi- 
 plication of freeholds and by 
 changing meaning of term free- 
 hold, 9; borough and corpora- 
 tion franchise, 10-16; inhabi- 
 tant franchise, lo-ii; potwal- 
 loper franchise, ii ; burgage ten- 
 ure franchise, 12; freeman 
 
Index. 
 
 497 
 
 franchise, 13; restricted cor- 
 poration franchise, 15 ; univer- 
 sity franchise, 16; as inter- 
 preted by New Haven, 399. 
 
 Hnglish government, influence in 
 favor of suffrage qualifications, 
 484-487. 
 
 Englishmen, petition in S. C. that 
 suffrage be limited to, 134; on 
 Long Island, peculiarly favored 
 by Dutch authorities, 185, 190, 
 193 ; _ as electors, in Mass. town 
 elections, 362: as electors, in 
 
 N H.,374. 
 
 Englishmen, rights of, interpreted 
 by East Jersey assembly in 1680, 
 237; demanded in Mass. in 
 • 1646, 315. 
 
 Exeter, borough suffrage in, 14. 
 
 Exeter, N. H., settlement of, 370; 
 compact of settlers, ibid.; num- 
 ber of voters in, 373 note 4. 
 
 Faggot voters, in England, g. 
 
 Fairfield, Conn., popular move- 
 ment in, 399. 
 
 Families, Heads of. See Heads. 
 
 Fendall, Governor, in Md., 59-60. 
 
 Fenwicic, John, in West Jersey, 
 244, 245. 
 
 Fletcher, Governor, of Pa., atti- 
 tude towards suffrage, 278. 
 
 Flushing, L. I., charter of, 190, 
 igi ; suffrage in, 206. 
 
 Fort Beversrede, Dutch settlement 
 on Schuylkill, 260. 
 
 Fort Casimir, Dutch settlement 
 near Newcastle, Del., 260; 262; 
 name changed to New Amstel, 
 263. 
 
 Fort Christina, Swedish settle- 
 ment on the Delaware, 260. 
 
 Fort Nassau, Dutch settlement in 
 N. J., 260. 
 
 Forty-shilling freehold, as quali- 
 fication of electors, in England, 
 I, Si 6, 9; origin of, in English 
 statute of 1430, 5-6 ; adopted in 
 N. Y. in 1683, 200 ; the legal 
 qualification in N. Y. in 1691, 
 210 ; compared with Mass. quali- 
 fication of 1690, 336 note; in 
 Mass. charter of 1691, 354; 
 adopted in N. H. in 1699, 376; 
 in Conn, in 1689, 413; >« R- I-. 
 454. 460. 
 
 Fractional voting, in Va., 40, 41 ; 
 
 in Southampton, L. I., 207 note; 
 
 on Long Island, 225. 
 Frame of government, in Pa., in 
 
 1682, 274. 
 
 Free, qualification of electors in 
 N. C, 92; in S. C. in 1719, 151 ; 
 in 1721, 153; in 1745, 155; in 
 I7S9. 157; in Ga., 172. 
 
 Free men as electors, in England 
 at early period, S; in Va., 21, 
 29, 33 ; in Md., 53 note, 55. 
 
 Free Society of Traders, incor- 
 porated by Penn, and given 
 manorial powers, 294. 
 
 Freedom, of English towns, how 
 obtained, 14 ; of New York City, 
 how obtained, 220-222; of Al- 
 bany, N. Y., how obtained, 222. 
 
 Freehold, definition of, in Va., 34, 
 36; in N. C, 102; in N. Y, in 
 
 1683, 200, 213; in N. J., diffi- 
 culty of determining, 231, 232; 
 fixed by proprietors, 234; in R. 
 I., 461. 
 
 Freehold, extension of meanmg of 
 in England leads to extended 
 suffrage, 9. 
 
 Freehold, qualification of electors 
 in Va., 31; in 1676, 34; in 
 
 1684, 34 ; of 100 acres unsettled 
 land, or 25 acres with house 
 and plantation, in Va., 1736, 38 ; 
 lowered to 50 acres unsettled 
 land in 1762, 40 ; in Md., 62, 71 ; 
 in Md., in governor's instruc- 
 tions, 70; in S. C, fifty acres, 
 148, 153; three hundred acres, 
 or settled plantation, or sixty 
 pounds value in town lots, 155; 
 reduced to one hundred acres in 
 1759. 157; in Ga., fifty acres, 
 170 ; opposed by assembly, 172 ; 
 established by law, 172; in N. 
 Y., 198, 199, 200, 201, 205-207; 
 in 1691, 210; in 1699, changed 
 to forty pounds value, 212; in 
 county elections, 219, 220; in 
 town elections, 223 ; in N. J. in 
 1665, 230 ; in 1668, 232 ; in East 
 Jersey fundamentals of 1683, 
 fifty acres, ten cultivated, or 
 house and three acres in bor- 
 ough, 239 ; in West Jersey, 247, 
 248; in N. J. in 1702, one hun- 
 dred acres, 249; opposition to. 
 
 32 
 
498 
 
 Index. 
 
 251 ; amount repealed, 252; one 
 hundred acres again adopted, 
 252 ; finally adopted by law, 254- 
 255 ; in Del., fifty acres, twelve 
 cleared, 270 ; in Pa., under laws 
 made in England, 275 ; in 1682, 
 276; in 1693, undefined in 
 Fletcher's Frame, 278; in 1694, 
 fifty acres, ten cleared, 279; 
 twelve cleared, 281 ; in Pa., pro- 
 posal to change to fifty pounds 
 value of, 282; fifty acres re- 
 tained, ibid.; in Pa. in local 
 elections, 295 note 7, 296; in 
 Mass., demanded by Charles II. 
 in letter, 322; under law of 
 1664, 324; in 1690, 336; in 
 Maine by Gorges's charter, 350; 
 in Mass. under charter of 1691, 
 3S4 ; in Plymouth, 343 ; in N. 
 H. in 1680, 374; in 1682, 375; 
 not strictly enforced after 1692, 
 376; fifty pounds value in 1727, 
 377; required of electors in 
 town elections, 378; in Conn., 
 in 1673, twenty pounds value, 
 411 ; forty shilling income, in 
 1689, 413 ; town elections, 422 ; 
 in R. I. in 1724, £100 value or 
 40 shilling income, 454; in 1730 
 £200 value, or £10 income from, 
 4S7; must be held continuously 
 in order to qualify freemen, 458 ; 
 in 1746, £400 value or £20 in- 
 come from, 4S9 ; £40 value or 40 
 shillings income, 460; in col- 
 onies generally, 478-480. 
 
 Freeholders and inhabitants, in N. 
 Y. believed to be synonymous 
 with inhabiting freeholders, 219, 
 220, 223, 224; interpretation of 
 the phrase in N. J., 256, 257. 
 
 Freeholders, electors in England 
 bv act of 1430, 5, 12 ; opposed to 
 landless men, in Md., 61, 62, 64- 
 65 ; electors, in Carolinas, 81, 
 82, 86, 87 ; in N. C, 96, 98, but 
 not enforced, 99 and note; es- 
 tablished by law, 100; owning 
 one hundred acres, 109; owning 
 fifty acres, iii; electors in N. 
 C. boroughs, 116, 117; in S. C, 
 in 1670, 123, 124; in 1672, 128, 
 140; favored by proprietors, 
 133 ; in 1717, 148 ; in 1721, 153 ; 
 in 1745, iss; in 1759, 157-158; 
 
 probable electors in N. Y., in 
 1665, 198 ; electors in N. Y. in 
 
 1683, 199, 200; in 1689, 201; 
 electors in West Jersey, 245 ; as 
 town electors in N. J., 255, 257; 
 electors in Mass., 363. See 
 Freehold. 
 
 Freemanship, idea opposed by 
 Governor NichoUs in N. Y., 
 202-^203; qualification of elect- 
 ors, in colonies generally, 481- 
 482. See also Freemen. 
 
 Freemen, as electors in English 
 boroughs, 13-iS; 4SS-4S6; in 
 Md., 49, S3 ; in Carolinas, 81, 83 ; 
 in N. C, 92; disfranchised in 
 N. C. unless otherwise qualified, 
 100; electors in S. C, 123, 124, 
 127, 128 ; synonymous with free- 
 holder in early S. C, 130 ; elect- 
 ors in N. Y. in 1665, 198; of 
 municipal corporations, electors 
 in N. Y., 200; electors in New 
 York City and Albany, 208, 210, 
 212, 221, 222; proportion of in 
 New York City, 218; electors 
 in N. J., 230, 239; electors in 
 Pa., 273, 274 ; term defined, 275, 
 279; electors in Pa., 283; in 
 county elections, 295; in Mass. 
 charter of 1629, 302 ; number of, 
 in 1630, 303 ; must be church- 
 members, 304; other require- 
 ments for admission, 307-310; 
 oath of, 309; how admitted in 
 distant places, 309; number of, 
 in 1640, 313-314; those not at- 
 tending public worship disfran- 
 chised, 321 ; non-church-mem- 
 bers may become, under law of 
 1664, 324 ; number admitted un- 
 der this law, 328-329; probation 
 of one year required in certain 
 cases, 330; Randolph's estimate 
 of number, 331 ; number in 
 
 1684, 334; in Plymouth, origin 
 of term, 341 note; method of 
 admission, 341 ; in N. H., ad- 
 mitted to Mass. freedom, 350; 
 in Maine inhabitants admitted 
 to Mass., 352; in Mass., given 
 control of town affairs, 361 ; 
 only to be chosen to offices, 365 ; 
 have a vote in militia elections, 
 ibid.; in N. H. towns, 350; 
 electors in N. H., by law of 
 
Index. 
 
 499 
 
 1680, 374, 376; electors in Conn., 
 under orders of 1639, 382; ad- 
 mitted by magistrates, 386; 
 number of admissions, 387; 
 property qualification upon, 388 ; 
 restriction of number, ibid.; 
 number of, 390 ; in New Haven, 
 as electors, 393 ; required to take 
 declaration of obedience, ibid.; 
 number of, 398; request for 
 admission to Conn., 403; ad- 
 mitted to Conn., 404; in Conn., 
 how admitted under charter of 
 1662, 405-406; suffrage limited 
 to, 407; new qualifications for, 
 408; unjust exclusion of, 410; 
 list of to be made by town 
 clerks, 411; new qualifications 
 of forty-shilling freehold, 413; 
 admitted by local officers, 413 ; 
 personal property qualification, 
 414; method of admission, 415; 
 qualifications of, 415-416 ; num- 
 ber of, 418-420; in R. I., must 
 first be accepted by towns, 432; 
 town freemen, 434 note 2, 435- 
 436 ; under charter of 1644, 440- 
 442; how admitted under char- 
 ter of 1663, 446-448 ; refusal to 
 admit, 447; all admitted who 
 desire it, 449; method of ad- 
 mission in 1666, 449-450; com- 
 pulsory admission, 450; great 
 increase in number, 453-454; 
 property qualification upon, in 
 1724, 454; eldest sons of free- 
 men may obtain franchise, 454- 
 456 ; English precedent for, 455- 
 456; effect of paper currency 
 upon qualifications, 457; raised 
 to £200 value of freehold or £10 
 income, 457; £400 value of 
 freehold, or £20 income re- 
 quired, 459; must take oath 
 against bribery, 459; £40 value 
 of freehold, or 40 shilling in- 
 come required, 460; method of 
 admission, 461 ; town freemen, 
 467-468 ; number of colony free- 
 men, 471-472; electors, in col- 
 onies generally, 481-482. 
 
 French Huguenots, opposed as 
 alien electors in S. C, 132. 
 
 Fundamental Constitutions of 
 Carolinas, 85-87; enforced in 
 N. C. but not in S. C, 87-88; 
 
 not respected, 91 ; in N. C. in- 
 fluence upon later legislation, 
 88, 97; in S. C, 123; of East 
 Jersey, 239-240; not put into 
 execution, 241. 
 Fundamental Orders of Conn., 
 381-384. 
 
 Georgia, reasons for settling, 163; 
 terms of royal charter, 163 ; con- 
 cessions to settlers, 164; author- 
 ity of Oglethorpe, 164; power 
 of storekeeper, 165; division 
 into counties, 165; popular 
 meetings, 165-167; reasons for 
 failure of colony, 167; develop- 
 ment of representative system, 
 168-169; limited powers of first 
 assembly, 169 ; strange qualifica- 
 tions of members, 169-170 ; sur- 
 render of colony to crown, 170; 
 establishment of representative 
 system in governor's instruc- 
 tions, 170-171 ; consideration of 
 suffrage, 171 ; petition to adapt 
 qualifications to town popula- 
 tion, 172; election act of 1761 
 limited suffrage to freeholders 
 of fifty acres, 172; general con- 
 duct of elections, 173. 
 
 Germantown, Pa., scot and lot 
 voters in, 279; charter of, 279 
 note; origin of borough govern- 
 ment in, 293; called a town, 
 295 note; borough charter of, 
 296-297. 
 
 Gibbes, Robert, elected governor 
 of S. C, 142. 
 
 Glen, James, governor of S. C, 
 154; opposed to ballot, 156-157. 
 
 Gloucester, N. J., Dutch fort near, 
 260. 
 
 Gorgeana, Maine, 351 ; annexed to 
 Mass., 3S2- 
 
 Gorton, Samuel, 431. 
 
 Governors, colonial, instructions 
 to. See Instructions. 
 
 Grand Model of government in 
 S. C, 123, 128; effect of upon 
 representative government, 129. 
 
 Gravesend, L. I., charter of, 190, 
 191 ; admission of inhabitants, 
 192 ; case of woman suffrage in, 
 192. 
 
 Gray, Edmund, agitator in Ga., 
 171. 
 
500 
 
 Index. 
 
 Great Law, the legislation of first 
 Pa. assembly, 277. 
 
 Greenwich, Conn., inhabitants ad- 
 mitted to Conn, freemanship, 
 402. 
 
 Guilford, Conn., agreements of 
 settlers, 391 ; origin of govern- 
 ment, 394; non- freemen re- 
 quired to attend town-meeting, 
 397 ; popular movement in, 401 ; 
 inhabitants admitted to Conn, 
 freemanship, 402. 
 
 Half-Way Covenant, 307, 318-319. 
 
 Halifax, N. C, suffrage in, 115. 
 
 Hamilton, Andrew, governor of 
 East Jersey, 242-243. 
 
 Hampton, N. H., town suffrage in, 
 359; settlement of, 370; number 
 of voters in, 373 note 4. 
 
 Harlem, N. Y., popular meeting 
 in, 189. 
 
 Hartford, Conn., religious contro- 
 versy in, 318; terms of admis- 
 sion of inhabitants in, 385 ; re- 
 fusal to admit, 385; political 
 meeting at, in 1689, 412; land 
 matters in, 427. 
 
 Harvey, Governor, forcibly ex- 
 pelled from Va., 23 ; restored by 
 king, 24. 
 
 Hastings, borough suffrage in, 14. 
 
 Hat, in Pa. used for ballot-box, 
 278; in R. I., used for ballot- 
 box, 46s note 2, 466. 
 
 Haverhill, Mass., town suffrage 
 in, 360; ballot used in, 361 note; 
 suffrage concerning land mat- 
 ters, 367. 
 
 Haynes, Governor, of Conn., 386. 
 
 Heads of families, as electors, in 
 Carolinas, 87; in New Nether- 
 land, 175 ; in Plymouth, 344 ; 
 in Mass. towns, 360; in R. I. 
 (Providence), 432. 
 
 Heath, Sir Robert, royal charter 
 to, 80. 
 
 Hempstead, L. I., charter of, igo, 
 191 ; admission of inhabitants, 
 iga; assembly in 1665, 198; ad- 
 mission of inhabitants, 204; dis- 
 puted election in, 207; suffrage 
 in, 225. 
 
 Hereditary freemanship, in R. I., 
 454-456, 460-462. 
 
 Heresy, origin of, in Mass., 306; 
 defined, 306 note. 
 
 Higginson, Francis, reasons for 
 settlement of New England, 
 301. 
 
 Hillsborough, borough in N. C, 
 erected for political reasons, 
 113; suffrage in, 115. 
 
 Honiton, borough suffrage in, 11, 
 12. 
 
 Hooker, Thomas, an antagonist to 
 Cotton, 380 ; theory of elections, 
 389., 
 
 Householders, as electors in Eng- 
 lish towns, 10; in Va., 31; iji 
 N. C. boroughs, 116; in N. Y. 
 towns, 205 ; in N. J. towns, 249, 
 256, 257; in Wilmington, Del., 
 272; in Pa. boroughs, 297; in 
 Mass. under law of 1664, 324; 
 in Mass. local elections, 359, 360, 
 362; in militia elections, 366; 
 in Conn., 386; in church elec- 
 tions, in Conn., 424 ; in colonies 
 generally, 483. 
 
 Housekeepers, only electors in 
 Va., 1655, 28. 
 
 House of Commons, English, con- 
 stitution of, 2. 
 
 Huguenots, in S. C, their num- 
 bers, 131 ; act for naturalization 
 of repealed by proprietors, 132; 
 growth of opposition to, 133; 
 more friendly feeling, 134; nat- 
 uralization of, 134, 141. 
 
 Hundred, in Pa., a sub-division of 
 county for election purposes, 
 284 note 4. 
 
 Independency, spirit of, in N. C. 
 in 1760, III. 
 
 Indians, disfranchised in Va., 36; 
 disfranchised in N. C, 92. 
 
 Indigenous political organization. 
 See Corporations, Self-origi- 
 nating. 
 
 Indirect elections, on Long Island, 
 199, 200-201; in N. J. in 1^3, 
 23s note; proposed in Mass., 
 3". 
 
 Inducements to settlers, in colony 
 of city of Amsterdam on Dela- 
 ware, 264; by Wm. Penn, 274. 
 See also Concessions. 
 
 Ingle, Richard, leader of Protes- 
 tant rebellion in Md., 56. 
 
Index. 
 
 501 
 
 Inhabitant, definition of, in N. Y., 
 20s; in Mass., 358-359, 360. 
 
 Inhabitants, admission of, in Ply- 
 mouth, 343-344; in N. H., 378; 
 in Conn., 385; in New Haven, 
 400; in R. I. towns, 434-436. 
 
 Inhabitants, as electors in English 
 boroughs, 10; the original 
 electors in towns, 11; in burg- 
 age towns, 12; as electors in 
 N. C, go, 92, 109, 110; in N. C. 
 boroughs, 116; in N. Y. towns, 
 205; in New York City and 
 Albany, 208; in Albany, N. Y., 
 222-223; in West Jersey, 245; 
 in N. J. towns, 249, 256, 257 ; in 
 Pa., 257, 283; in Mass. under 
 law of 1664, 324; in Plymouth, 
 344; in Mass. towns, 358-360, 
 362, 363; in church elections, 
 364; in Plymouth militia elec- 
 tions, 366; in N. H., 374, 37S, 
 376; in town elections, 378; in 
 Conn., under orders of 1639, 
 382, 384; term defined, 384; 
 conditions imposed by towns, 
 385 ; suffrage qualifications 
 upon, 386 ; in New Haven, 395 ; 
 discontinued by charter of 1662, 
 406; in relation to common 
 lands, 426-427; in R. I. (Provi- 
 dence), 432; in R. I., towns, 
 467-468; in colonies generally, 
 483. See also Householders. 
 
 Inhabitants-householders, as elect- 
 ors in N. J. towns, 249, 253; 
 under instructions of royal gov- 
 ernors, 254. 
 
 Initiative, popular, of laws, in R. 
 
 I' 444- , . . ^ , 
 
 Inspectors of elections, m Del., 
 270; in Pa., 282; irregularities 
 in choice of, 284; change in 
 method of choosing, 285. 
 Instructions, of royal governors, 
 favor freehold suffrage, in Va., 
 J4; in Md., 70; in N. C, 96; 
 significance of in colonies, 95, 
 and in N. C, 96 ; forbid change 
 of suffrage qualifications in N. 
 C, 107; in S. C, 152, 154; in 
 Ga., 170; in N. Y., 210; in N. 
 J., 249, 254; but inhabitant 
 franchise in towns, ibid.; in Pa., 
 278; in N. H., 375. 376; in col- 
 onies generally, 486-487. 
 
 Instrument of Government, Eng- 
 lish, terms adopted in Va., 1655, 
 28 note. 
 
 Interest in the country, electors 
 should be persons who possess, 
 in S. C, 14^, 149 ; in N. J., 241, 
 253- 
 
 Irregularities in elections, in Eng- 
 land before 1430, 5 ; after 1439, 
 7; a reason for abolition of 
 manhood suffrage in Va., 31 j 
 protested against by Governor 
 Spotswood in Va., 37 ; a reason 
 for restrictive act of 1736, 38; 
 in Md., 69, 70; in N. C, 8g, 91, 
 97, 99, 100, 109, no; in N. C. 
 parishes, 119; in S. C, 137, 142; 
 in N. Y., 202, 211, 212; in N. J., 
 250 ; in Del., 271 ; in Pa., 277, 
 283, 284, 285 ; in Mass., 313 ; 
 laws against in Mass., 330; in 
 Conn., 410, 423; in R. I., 443, 
 458-459, 465. 
 
 Israel, New Haven likened to, 402. 
 
 Jamaica, L. I., charter of, 191, 193. 
 
 Jamaica, West Indies, laws of, a 
 precedent for S. C. legislation, 
 145 note. 
 
 Jennings, Samuel, governor of 
 West Jersey, 246. 
 
 Jesuits, banished from Mass., 320. 
 
 Jews, as electors in S. C, 138; 
 disfranchised in N. Y., 214-215 ; 
 in R. I., 452; in colonies gen- 
 erally, 476. 
 
 Johnson, Robert, governor of S. 
 C, popular movement against, 
 149-156; again governor, 154. 
 
 Johnson, Sir Nathaniel, governor 
 of N. C, 88. 
 
 Johnston, Gabriel, governor of N. 
 C., secures limitation of suffrage 
 to freeholders, loo-ioi ; desires 
 repeal of election laws, loi ; ap- 
 portionment contest, 102-106. 
 
 Joint-tenants, determination of 
 their rights as voters in Va., 38, 
 
 41- 
 
 Judicial officers as freeholds in 
 England, 9. 
 
 Jurors, grand, to be freeholders, 
 in Md., 63. 
 
 Jury, grand, a means of express- 
 ing popular opinion in Ga., 165, 
 166. 
 
502 
 
 Index. 
 
 Justices of peace, chosen by popu- 
 lar election in N. Y. in 1689, 201. 
 
 Kieft, William, director of New 
 Netherland, 175-176 ; replaced 
 by Stuyvesant, 177. 
 
 Kitchen, elections in, in R. I., 466. 
 
 Kittery, Maine, inhabitants admit- 
 ted to Mass., 352. 
 
 Labor, price of, fixed in Mass. 
 towns, 361. 
 
 Laborers, as electors in Campbel- 
 ton, N. C, 117. 
 
 Lancaster County, Pa., election 
 evils in, 285 ; town meetings in, 
 293 note. 
 
 Lancaster, Pa., borough charter 
 of, 296-297; town meeting in, 
 297. 
 
 Land, ease of obtammg, mfluences 
 the suffrage, in S. C., 130; in 
 N. J., 229-230; assessed valua- 
 tion of, in Conn., 412. 
 
 Land matters, suffrage concerning, 
 in N. Y., 224-225; in Mass., 
 367-369; in N. H., 378; in New 
 Haven, approaches a political 
 power, 398; non- freemen may 
 vote upon, 401 ; in Conn., 426- 
 429; in R. I., 436, 469. 
 
 Land system, on Long Island, 
 191-192, 205-206; in N. Y., 224- 
 225; in Mass., 3S7-363, 367-369; 
 in N. H., 378; in Conn., 384- 
 386 ; in New Haven, 391 ; in 
 Conn., 421, 426-429; in R. I., 
 
 430-437, 469- 
 
 Lands, terms upon which they 
 were granted to settlers, in 
 Carolinas, 82, 86 ; in S. C, 123 ; 
 in Ga., 164, 167, 171 ; in N. J., 
 228-230 ; in West Jersey, 245. 
 
 Leaseholders, electors, in English 
 boroughs, 12 ; in N. C. bor- 
 oughs, 116; in East Jersey fun- 
 damentals, 239; in Lancaster, 
 Pa., 297. 
 
 Lechford, his estimate of propor- 
 tion of freemen in Mass., 214. 
 
 Lectureships, as freeholds in Eng- 
 land, 9. 
 
 Leisler, Jacob, heads revolution in 
 N. Y., 201 ; favors popular elec- 
 tions, ibid.; disfranchises Catho- 
 lics, ibid.; calls representative 
 
 meetings, 202; interferes with 
 elections, ibid.; called a tyrant, 
 ibid.; compared with Mass. 
 revolutionists, 337. 
 
 Lewes, Del., called a town, 295 
 note. 
 
 Lists of taxables, to be used in 
 Pa., by election oiBcers in 
 judging qualifications of elect- 
 ors, 285. See also Taxables. 
 
 Liverpool, borough suffrage in, 
 14- 
 
 Local suffrage, in Va., 45-46; in 
 Md., 7(f-77; in N. C, 94, 117- 
 120; in S. C, 159-161; in New 
 Netherland, in Dutch towns, 
 188-190, in English towns, 190- 
 194, in New Amsterdam, 194- 
 196; in N. Y., 202-209, 218- 
 226; in N. J., 255-257; in Del., 
 272; in Pa., 292-299; in Mass., 
 357-369; in N. H., 377-378, in 
 Conn., 420-429 ; in R. I., 467-471. 
 
 London, suffrage in, 14, 359 note. . 
 
 Long Island, proxy voting in 
 towns, 176 note; English favor 
 Stuyvesant, 182 note; English 
 Commonwealth proclaimed in 
 Gravesend, 186; English towns * 
 independent of Dutch, 187.; 
 charters of English towns, 190- 
 191 ; town meetings of, 191, 194 ; 
 towns off-shoots of New Eng- 
 land, 196; NichoUs promises 
 privileges to, 197, 198; proxy 
 voting, 207, 210 note. 
 
 Long Parliament, of Va., 29^30. 
 
 Lords of Trade and Plantations, 
 favor restricted suffrage in Va., 
 38; consider suffrage in N. J., 
 252; favor tax-paying basis of 
 suffrage in Mass., 332; criticise 
 R. I. government and suggest 
 union with N. H., 455. 
 
 Lot, election by the, in Ports- 
 mouth, R. I., 437. 
 
 Lovelace, Lord, governor of N. J., 
 254- 
 
 Ludlow, borough suffrage in, 14. 
 
 Ludwell, Philip, governor of S. 
 C, 132. 
 
 Lygonia, Maine, popular govern- 
 ment in, 351 ; annexed to Mass., 
 352. 
 
 Lyme, Conn., question of inhabi- 
 tancy in, 421 note 4. 
 
Index. 
 
 503 
 
 Maine, admission of inhabitants 
 to Mass., freedom, 309, 320; 
 advice from Mass., concerning 
 new freemen, 330; government 
 at Saco, 3S0 ; charter of 1639 to 
 Gorges, 350; city erected, 350- 
 351 ; popular convention and 
 combination, 351 ; other settle- 
 ments, 351-352; union with 
 Mass., 352 ; non-church-mem- 
 iDers admitted, 352. 
 
 Maiden, Mass., rights of common- 
 age in, 367. 
 
 Management of elections by gov- 
 ernors, in Md., 63 ; in N. C, 89, 
 95 note, 103 note, 104, iii; in 
 S. C, 137- 
 
 Marblehead, Mass., defect of free- 
 men in, 308. 
 
 Markham, Governor, of Pa., 
 adopts new suffrage law, 279. 
 
 Maryland, character of suffrage in, 
 48; terms of Baltimore's char- 
 ter, 48 ; confusion between free- 
 men and freeholders, 48-49; 
 first primary assembly, 49; de- 
 velopment of representative sys- 
 tem, 49-55 ; character of assem- 
 blies, 51; broad interpretation 
 of word freeman, 53; petition 
 for woman suffrage, 53-54; 
 proxy system, 55 ; disfranchise- 
 ment of Catholics during Com- 
 monwealth period, 56-58; Ingle's 
 rebellion, 56; English commis- 
 sioners, 57; act for religious 
 toleration, 58 note; restoration 
 of province to Baltimore, 5a; 
 Fendall's conspiracy, 60; char- 
 acter of period 1649-1661, 60; 
 conflicting interests of freemen 
 and freeholders, 61-62; suffrage 
 limited in 1670 by proprietary 
 writs, 62; St. Mary's mcorpo- 
 rated, and used for partisan pur- 
 poses, 63 ; quarrel between pro- 
 prietor and people, 63-64; popu- 
 lar rebellion, 64; theory of suf- 
 frage and representation, 65; 
 suffrage restricted by law of 
 1678, 65-66 ; but law disallowed 
 and terms enforced by proprie- 
 tary ordinance, 67; Coode's re- 
 bellion, 68-70 ; Protestant Asso- 
 ciation, 69; Catholics tempora- 
 rily disfranchised, 69 ; similarity 
 
 to movement in N. Y., 70 ; Bal- 
 timore's rights forfeited and 
 royal government established, 
 70 ; royal instructions limit suf- 
 frage to freeholders, 70; elec- 
 tion act of 1692, 70-72 ; Catholics 
 excluded from assembly, but not 
 from suffrage, 71-72; removal 
 of seat of government to An- 
 napolis, 72 ; suffrage under char- 
 ter of Annapolis, 72-73; com- 
 pulsory voting, 74; restoration 
 of Calverts, 74; permanent dis- 
 franchisement of Catholics, 74- 
 75 ; local suffrage, 76-77 ; parish 
 elections, ibid.; summary of 
 suffrage provisions, 77-78. 
 Massachusetts, reasons for found- 
 ing Bay Colony, 300-302 ; royal 
 charter of 1629, 301-302; re- 
 moval of charter, 302 ; first com- 
 pany meeting in America, 303; 
 first court of election, 304; ad- 
 mission of new freemen, 304 ; 
 freemanship restricted to church- 
 members, 304-305 ; disadvan- 
 tages of, 305; heresy and at- 
 tempt to control church organi- 
 zation, 306 ; disfranchisement of 
 dissenting freemen, 307 ; method 
 of admission of freemen, 307- 
 310; compulsory freemanship, 
 308; magistrates may admit 
 freemen, 308-309; freeman's 
 oath, 309; representative sys- 
 tem, 310; ballot and proxy 
 voting, 310-312; size of dis- 
 franchised classes, 312-313; ap- 
 pearance in elections, 313-314; 
 agitation of Presbyterians for 
 extended suffrage, 314-317; de- 
 mands for English laws, 315; 
 extension of town franchise, 
 317-318 ; Half- Way Covenant 
 and effect upon suffrage, 318- 
 319; attitude toward New 
 Hampshire and Maine settlers, 
 320; attitude toward Jesuits, 
 Quakers, and Baptists, 320-321 ; 
 correspondence with Charles II., 
 322-323 ; royal commissioners in 
 Mass., 323-326 ; law of 1664 for 
 admission of non-church-mem- 
 bers to freedom, 324; commis- 
 sioners' opinion of law, 325- 
 326; refusal to permit use of 
 
504 
 
 Index. 
 
 Book of Common Prayer, 325; 
 administration of law of 1664, 
 326-329; advice to Maine con- 
 cerning new freemen, 330; con- 
 test with Randolph and English 
 government, 330~334 ; over- 
 throw of charter, 334; number 
 of freemen about 1685, 334~33S ; 
 arrest of Andros, 335; revolu- 
 tion of 1689, 335-337 ; extension 
 of suffrage in 1690, 336-337; 
 reason for failure of religious 
 policy of Mass., 337 ; suffrage in 
 Plymouth Colony, 337-349 (see 
 Plymouth) ; suffrage in the 
 northern teritories, 349-353 (see 
 Maine and New Hampshire) ; 
 Mass. charter of 1691, 3S3-"354; 
 suffrage under, 354 ; number of 
 electors under, 355-357; com- 
 pared with N. Y. and Va., 357; 
 local suffrage, 357-369; town 
 elections, 357-363; community 
 of lands a feature of town life, 
 357-358; definition of word in- 
 habitants, 358-361 ; control by 
 central government of town suf- 
 frage, 361-363; church elec- 
 tions, 363-365 ) under charter of 
 1629, 364; under charter of 
 1691, ibid.; militia elections, 
 365-366 ; voting concerning land 
 matters, 367-369; separation of 
 inhabitants from commoners, 
 367-368; decline of towns as 
 economic land corporations, 
 
 369- 
 
 Mayflower, compact on board, 338. 
 
 Meeting-house, in Watertown, 
 Mass., town lots to be near, 360 ; 
 elections in R. I. held in, 466. 
 
 Merchant Adventurers of Eng- 
 land, 455. 
 
 Middletown, Conn., terms of ad- 
 mission of inhabitants, 385. 
 
 Milford, Conn., proposed settle- 
 ment of inhabitants in Dutch 
 territory, 193 ; agreements of set- 
 tlers, 391 ; origin of government, 
 394 ; non-church-members as 
 freemen, 394. 
 
 Militia elections, open to soldiers 
 in Va. in 1676, 33 ; in N. Y., by 
 popular choice, 201, 204, but dis- 
 continued in 1691, 218 note; in 
 Mass., 365-366; discontinued in 
 
 1669, 366 ; in Plymouth, 366 ; in 
 New Haven limited to church- 
 members, 395, 400, 425; in 
 Conn., 425-426; in R. I., 438 
 note, 470-471. 
 
 Miller, Thomas, President, in N. 
 C, 89. 
 
 Ministers, how chosen in Mass., 
 364; in N. H. by freeholders 
 alone, 378 ; in Conn., 424. 
 
 Minors, as electors in Conn., ex- 
 istence denied, 383. See also 
 Boys, Young People. 
 
 Mob, as electors in Va., 37. 
 
 Monmouth, N. J., charter of, 249 
 note. 
 
 Monmouth Patent, in N. J., origin 
 of, 231 ; patentees refuse to re- 
 patent land, 232; excluded from 
 suffrage, 233; refuse to pay 
 quit-rents, ibid.; general treat- 
 ment of inhabitants, 238. 
 
 Moody, Lady, as elector in 
 Gravesend, L. I., igz-igZi 473- 
 
 Moore, James, elected governor in 
 S. C. 136. 
 
 Mortgagees, as electors, 8. 
 
 Mortgages upon freeholds in N. 
 Y., effect upon suffrage, 213. 
 
 Mulatto, definition of, in Va., 36 
 note. 
 
 Mulattoes, disfranchised in Va., 
 36; in N. C, 92. 
 
 Naturalization, in S. C, of Hu- 
 guenots, 132, 133; favored by 
 assembly, 134 ; acts for, 134, 141 ; 
 act for in Pa., 276, 281 ; in 
 Mass., 355. See also Citizenship. 
 
 Nature, laws of, justify the repre- 
 sentative system, 184; appealed 
 to in N. J., in 1704, 251. 
 
 Negroes, as real estate in Va., 36; 
 disfranchised in Va., 36; in N. 
 C, 92; restriction in N. C. re- 
 moved, loo-ioi ; as electors in 
 S. C, 137. See also Race. 
 
 New Amstel, Del., 267. 
 
 New Amsterdam, popular meeting 
 in, 189 ; burgher government es- 
 tablished, 194 ; exclusive burgh- 
 errecht established, 195. 
 
 New England Confederacy, dis- 
 cusses attack upon New Amster- 
 dam, 398. 
 
 New England, Dominion of, 377. 
 
Index. 
 
 505- 
 
 New England, laws of, copied by 
 Governor Nicholls of N. Y., 
 202-203. 
 
 New Hampshire, dissenters in, ad- 
 mitted to Mass. freedom, 320; 
 suffrage in, under Mass. juris- 
 diction, 349, 353; early settle- 
 ments in, 370; town agreement 
 of Exeter, 370; of Dover, 371; 
 of Portsmouth, 371 ; no union 
 of towns, 371-372; union with 
 Mass., 372 ; non-church-mem- 
 bers admitted, 372; suffrage 
 under Mass. rule, 373 ; royal 
 government established, 373 ; 
 suffrage under President Cutt, 
 373-374; suffrage qualifications 
 by law of l68o, 374; royal in- 
 structions require freehold 
 qualification, 375 ; but are not 
 uniformly enforced, 375-376 ; 
 act of 1699 established freehold 
 or personal property requisite, 
 376 ; act of 1727 limited suffrage 
 to freeholders, 377; local suf- 
 frage, 377-378; church elec- 
 tions, 378; similarity of N. H. 
 to Mass. legislation, 378-379. 
 
 New Haven, Gonn., founds settle- 
 ment on Delaware, 260; theo- 
 cratic ideals of, 390-391 ; self- 
 incorporating communities, 391 ; 
 origin of government in New 
 Haven, 391-394; religious re- 
 strictions upon freemen, ibid.; 
 origin of government in Milford, 
 Guilford, and Southold, 394; 
 fundamentals of 1643, 395; ne- 
 cessity for controlliner churches 
 as sources of freemanship, 396; 
 disfranchisement of members of 
 irregular churches, ibid.; proxy 
 system established, 397 ; dissatis- 
 faction over suffrage restric- 
 tions, ibid.; attempts to extend 
 suffrage, 397-402; included un- 
 der Conn, charter of 1662, 402- 
 403 ; negotiations for union, 403- 
 404 ; Conn, makes no concession 
 upon religious qualifications, 
 404-405 ; freemen incorporated 
 into Conn., 410. 
 
 New Jersey, lack of political life 
 under Dutch, 227 ; grant to Lord 
 Berkeley and Sir George Car- 
 teret, 228; concessions to set- 
 
 tlers, 228-231 ; ease of obtaining 
 land, 229-230; suffrage in con- 
 cessions, 230; difficulty of de- 
 fining freehold, 231; the 
 Nicholls's grants, 231-232 ; those 
 refusing to re-patent lands to be 
 disfranchised, 232-234 ; Dutch 
 reoccupation, 234-235; division 
 of province, 235; quintipartite 
 deed, 235-236; suffrage and 
 representation in East Jersey, 
 236-243 (see East Jersey) ; suf- 
 frage and representation in 
 West Jersey, 243-248 (see 
 West Jersey) ; transfer of Jer- 
 seys to crown, 248-249: rights 
 demanded for settlers, 248; 
 royal instructions establish rep- 
 resentative system and freehold 
 suffrage in 1702, 239; election 
 evils, 250; objections to free- 
 hold qualification, 251 ; new in- 
 structions, 252; proprietors op- 
 pose personal property qualifica- 
 tion in interesting paper, 253- 
 254; election act of 1709, 254- 
 255; local suffrage, 255-258. 
 
 New Netherland Company, 174. 
 
 New York, under the Dutch, 174- 
 196; the provincial suffrage, 
 174-188 ; patroon concessions, 
 174; the Twelve Men, 174-175; 
 the Eight Men, 175-177; ap- 
 pointment of Governor Stuy- 
 vesant, 177; the Nine Men, 177- 
 181 ; representative conference, 
 179; increased inducements to 
 settlers, 180; general character 
 of representative boards, 181 ; 
 representative assembly of 1653, 
 182-185 ; laws of nature appealed 
 to against Stuyvesant's actions, 
 184; assembly of 1654, 185-186; 
 encroachments of Conn., 186; 
 favorable concessions to English 
 settlers, 186; assembly of 1663, 
 187; President Scott on Long 
 Island, 187-188; last assembly 
 of New Netherland, 188; local 
 elections under Dutch, 188-196; 
 in the Dutch towns, 188-190 ; in 
 the English towns, 190-194; 
 woman suffrage, 192; in New 
 Amsterdam, 194-196; the suf- 
 frage in the early English 
 period, 1664-1691, 196-209 ; 
 
5o6 
 
 Index. 
 
 Duke of York's charter, 196- 
 197; articles of capitulation, 
 197; promise of NichoUs to 
 Long Island settlers, 197-198; 
 Hempstead assembly of i66s, 
 198; Duke of York in 1683 au- 
 thorizes an assembly, 199 ; unit 
 of representation in 1683, 199; 
 suffrage limited to forty-shilling 
 freeholders and freemen in cor- 
 porations, 200; Leisler's rebel- 
 lion, 201-202; Catholics dis- 
 franchised, 201 ; local suffrage 
 in Duke's Laws, 202-^09; 
 NichoUs refuses to adopt free- 
 man principle of New England 
 colonies, 203; terms of admis- 
 sion to towns, 204; elective pf- 
 ficers, 204 ; confusing terms ap- 
 plied to electors, 205; all be- 
 lieved to be equivalent to in- 
 habiting freeholders,' 205-206 ; 
 no definite amount of freehold, 
 206-207; extension of Duke's 
 Laws to upper Hudson and to 
 Delaware settlements, 208; elec- 
 tions in N. Y. city, 208-209; 
 suffrage in later English period, 
 1691-1775, 209-226; the pro- 
 vincial suffrage, 209-218; royal 
 instructions as basis for suf- 
 frage, 209; act of 1691 limits 
 suffrage to forty-shilling free- 
 holders, 210 ; election difficulties, 
 1698-1702, 211-213; act of 1699 
 changes qualification to £40 
 value of freehold, 212; defini- 
 tion of freehold, 213; disfran- 
 chisement of Catholics, 214; of 
 Jews, 214-215 ; non-residents as 
 electors, 215-216 ; plural voting, 
 215-217; number of electors, 
 217-218, 357; local suffrage, 
 218-^226; county elections, 218- 
 220; city elections, 220-223; 
 terms of admission of freemen 
 in N. Y. city and Albany, 222; 
 town elections, 223 ; parish elec- 
 tions, 224; suffrage concerning 
 land matters, 224-225; general 
 character of local electors, 225- 
 226; number of electors com- 
 pared with New England, 357. 
 New York City, municipal gov- 
 ernment organized by Governor 
 Dongan, 208; elections in, 220- 
 
 222; parish elections in, 224; 
 see also New Amsterdam. 
 
 Newark, N. J., charter of, 249 
 note. 
 
 Newbern, N. C, suffrage in, 114, 
 115- 
 
 Newbury, Mass., ballot used in, 
 361 note. 
 
 Newcastle, Del, court established 
 at, 267; analysis of activities of 
 court, 268 ; town officers at, 268 ; 
 called a town, 295 note. 
 
 Newcastle-on-Tyne, borough suf- 
 frage in, 14. 
 
 Newport, R. I., union with Ports- 
 mouth, 431 ; town agreement, 
 433; organization of govern- 
 ment, 437; union with Ports- 
 mouth, 438; proxy system in, 
 443> 463; elections held in, 464, 
 466 ; number of freemen in, 472. 
 
 Newtown, L. I., charter of, 190, 
 191. 
 
 NichoUs, Colonel Richard, prom- 
 ises popular government to 
 Long Island, 197, 198; publishes 
 Duke's Laws, 198; excludes 
 freemanship principle from the 
 Laws, 202-203; opposes grant 
 of N. J. to Berkeley and Car- 
 teret, 228; gives lands in N. J. 
 to settlers, 231. 
 
 Nicholson, Sir Francis, governor 
 of Md., 72; of S. C, 152-153; 
 of N. Y., 209. 
 
 Nine Men, the, in New Nether- 
 land, 177-180. 
 
 Nobility, lack of, in Carolinas, 89 ; 
 place of, in Carolina parliament, 
 128; in East Jersey, 240. 
 
 Nomination of officers, method of, 
 in Mass., 311, 312 note; in 
 Conn., 417-418, 425; see also 
 plural nomination. 
 
 Non-conformists, as electors in 
 Conn., church elections, 425. 
 
 Non-freemen, in Mass. invited by 
 royal commissioners to attend 
 election, 325; in Guilford, 
 Conn., required to attend town- 
 meeting, 397. 
 
 Non-jurors, in R. I., 449. 
 
 Non-residents, as electors, in Eng- 
 land, 6, 14-15 ; in borough of 
 Campbelton, N. C, n6; in N. 
 Y., 215-216. 
 
Index. 
 
 507 
 
 Northampton County, England, 
 proportion of non-resident 
 voters in, 6. 
 
 North Carolina, general character 
 of history, 79-80; suffrage un- 
 der proprietory government, 80- 
 95 ; royal charters, 80-81 ; con- 
 cessions to settlers, 81-82; pro- 
 prietors oppose a close corpora- 
 tion, 81-83 ; concessions of 1665, 
 83; use of terms freeman and 
 freeholder, 83 ; attempt to divide 
 province into colonies, 84; ori- 
 gin of representative organiza- 
 tion, 84-85 ; fundamental con- 
 stitution of 1669, 85; terms 
 respecting the suffrage, 86 ; suf- 
 frage terms in later fundamen- 
 tals, 86-87; status of funda- 
 mentals in South and North 
 Carolina, 87-88; suffrage down 
 to 1715, 88-91 ; governors' com- 
 missions, 88-89; irregularity in 
 elections, 89; biennial assem- 
 blies, 90; suffrage affected by 
 Car/s rebellion, 91 ; election 
 writs, 90-;9i notes; law of 171S 
 disfranchises negroes, and re- 
 quires electors to be tax-payers, 
 91-92 ; beginning of town repre- 
 sentation, 93 ; suffrage in towns, 
 93-94 ; local suffrage under pro- 
 prietary government, 94; sum- 
 mary of suffrage during proprie- 
 tary period, 95; suffrage under 
 the royal government, 95-121; 
 use of royal instructions and ve- 
 toes in N. C, 96; instructions 
 limit suffrage to freeholders, 96; 
 Burrington's quarrel with peo- 
 ple over suffrage and representa- 
 tion, 96-100 ; he erects new pre- 
 cincts, 98; sends writs to free- 
 holders only, 98-99; act of 173S 
 limits suffrage to freeholders of 
 fifty acres, 100; elaborate elec- 
 tion act of 1743. I0I-I02; pro- 
 vision for ballot, 102 ; apportion- 
 ment contest, 102-107 ; Governor 
 Johnson favors southern part of 
 province, 103-104; attitude of 
 English government toward N. 
 C. legislation, 106; number of 
 repealed laws, ic6 note; instruc- 
 tions to new governor, 106-107; 
 repeal of election law leads to 
 
 confusion, 108-110; election ir- 
 regularities, no; election act of 
 1760 establishes freehold suf- 
 frage and abolishes ballot, in; 
 the Regulator movement and 
 the suffrage and ballot, 112-113; 
 theory of representation, 113; 
 borough franchise, 114-117; 
 local suffrage, 117-120; parish 
 elections, 118-120; summary of 
 suffrage in N. C, 120-121. 
 
 Northern Liberties, Pa., incorpo- 
 rated district of Philadelphia 
 Co., 299. 
 
 Nottingham, borough suffrage in, 
 14 ; 456 note 3. 
 
 Number of voters, in Va., 46-47; 
 in S. C, 1669-1670, 124, 129; 
 in New Netherland, 175; in N. 
 Y., 217-218; in N. J. in 1665, 
 227; in Pa., 286-292; city and 
 country compared, 289, 292 ; rea- 
 son for disparity, 290 note; in 
 Mass. in 1630, 303, 304 ; in 1640, 
 313-314; in 1664, 326, 328-329; 
 in 1684, 334-335; in 1690, 336- 
 337; in Plymouth, 348-349; m 
 Maine, 352 note; in Mass. imder 
 charter of 1691, 355-357; in 
 New England compared with 
 N. Y. and Va., 357 ; in N. H., in 
 1680, 373; in Conn. 1639 to 
 1662, 387 and note 4, 388, 390; 
 in New Haven, 393, 398; in 
 Conn., after 1662, 408, 418-420; 
 in R. I., 453, 471-472; in col- 
 onies generally, 487-488. 
 
 Number of representatives, in Pa., 
 274, 282. 
 
 Oath of allegiance required of 
 electors in Md., 51, 56 ; in N. J., 
 232 ; in Mass., 322, 325, 331, 332 ; 
 in Plymouth, 342, 347 ; in N. H., 
 374 ; in Conn., 409 ; in R. I., 448. 
 
 Oath of fidelity, required of elect- 
 ors in Mass., 308; oath given, 
 309 note; of inhabitants, 309; 
 of town electors, 318; in Ply- 
 mouth, required of freemen, 342, 
 343, 345. 366; in Mass., 362, 366; 
 in Conn., 382-384. 386, 410; m 
 New Haven, 395, 400; in R. I. 
 towns, 435 ; in R. I., 442. 
 
 Oath of inhabitants, in Mass., 359 ; 
 in Plymouth, 342, 343- 
 
5o8 
 
 Index. 
 
 Oath of supremacy, in Mass., 331. 
 
 Oaths as qualifications of electors, 
 in England, 3, 4, 6, 7 ; in Va. in 
 1652, 27 ; in Md., 75 ; in N. C, 
 92, 108; in S. C, 140, 146; in 
 Ga., 173; in N. Y., 212, 214; in 
 R. I., 458 ; against bribery, 459, 
 461. 
 
 Oaths required of representatives, 
 92. 
 
 Office-holding, as qualification of 
 electors, in Mass., 362 ; in Conn., 
 386, 388. , ^ , , 
 
 Officers, elective under Dukes 
 Laws in N. Y., 204. 
 
 Oglethorpe, James, military gov- 
 
 ■ ernor of Ga., 164, 165, 167. 
 
 Ordinance, proprietary, fixes suf- 
 frage qualifications in Md., 67. 
 
 Orthodoxy, defined in Mass., 306, 
 and note; required of electors 
 in Mass. in law of 1664, 324; 
 in Plymouth, 346; required of 
 ministers in Mass., 364 ; in New 
 Haven, required of all churches, 
 396. 
 
 Outvoters. See Non-residents. 
 
 Owen, William, leads factious op- 
 position in S. C. in 1669-1671, 
 124-126. 
 
 Oxford, University of, suffrage in, 
 16. 
 
 Oyster Bay, L. I., union with New 
 Haven, 401 note. 
 
 Parish elections, in Va., 33, 45 ; in 
 Md., 7(1-77 ; in N. C, 118-120; 
 voting in, made compulsory, 
 119; compared with other south- 
 ern colonies, ibid.; in S. C, 
 159-160; compared with other 
 southern colonies, 160; in N. 
 Y., limited to inhabiting free- 
 holders, 224; in N. H., by tax- 
 payers, 378. See also Church 
 Elections. 
 
 Parliament, proposed for Va., 18; 
 in Carolina, 123-127. 
 
 Parochial burgesses, in Va., 24-26. 
 
 Particulars, a class of settlers in 
 Plymouth, 339; a dissatisfied 
 faction, 340. 
 
 Partners, admission of in Ply- 
 mouth, 303 note. 
 
 Patroons, concessions to, in New 
 Netherland, 174. 
 
 Patuxett, R. I., freemen admitted, 
 441. 
 
 Penn, William, interested in West 
 Jersey, 244; receives charter 
 from king, 273; promises self- 
 government to his settlers, 274; 
 laws made in England, 275; 
 arrival in province, 276 ; govern- 
 ment restored to, 279; grants 
 charter to province, 281 ; by 
 charter receives power to incor- 
 porate towns, 294. 
 
 Pennsylvania, position of Dela- 
 ware lands before Penn's con- 
 trol, 273 ; royal charter to Penn, 
 273 ; Penn's promise of popular 
 government, 274; plans of gov- 
 ernment, 274; freeman and 
 freeholder, 27s ; qualifications of 
 electors in Laws made in Eng- 
 land, 275 ; naturalization act, 
 276; suffrage under the Great 
 Law, 276; use of ballot, 277- 
 278; Penn dispossessed of his 
 territory, 278; Fletcher's frame, 
 278-279 ; Markham's frame, 
 279; fines upon counties re- 
 fusing to elect representatives, 
 280; separation of lower coun- 
 ties, 280-281 ; suffrage act of 
 1700, 281 ; act of 1706, 282-283 ; 
 election evils, 283-285 ; effort to 
 strengthen election laws, ibid.; 
 tax-list of 1693, 286 ; tax-list of 
 1754, 287 ; tax-list of 1776, 288- 
 289; tax-list of 1775, 290-291; 
 observations upon the suffrage 
 based on these lists, 290-292; 
 local suffrage, 292-299 ; difficul- 
 ties of subject, 292-293; early 
 local organization, 294-295 ; 
 county elections, 295; township 
 officers, 296; borough elections, 
 296-297; suffrage in Philadel- 
 phia, 297-298 ; incorporated dis- 
 tricts, 298-299. 
 
 Perth Amboy, N. J., suffrage in, 
 249, 253, 255. 
 
 Petition, from non-freemen jn 
 Mass., 316 ; of N. H. settlers for 
 union with Mass., 376. 
 
 Petition of Right, of Pa., 278. 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., scot and lot 
 voters' in, 278; charter of, 279 
 note; election irregularities in, 
 282 ; effect of property qualifica- 
 
Index, 
 
 509 
 
 tion upon voters in, 282 note; 
 petitions against election law, 
 283 ; bloody election in, 285 ; 
 lists of taxables in, 286-292; 
 number of electors, ibid.; rea- 
 son for restricted suffrage, 290 
 note; compared with N. Y., 292 ; 
 absence of early records, 293 ; 
 called a town, 295 note; may 
 have received a borough charter, 
 296 note 2 ; charter of 1691, 297 ; 
 charter of 1701, 297; absence of 
 popular government in, 297-298 ; 
 administrative boards in, 298; 
 electors in local elections, ibid. 
 
 Pirates, as electors in S. C, 133. 
 
 Places of election, in England, 7, 
 
 Plebsbytery, 316. 
 
 Plowden, Sir Edmund, palatinate 
 of, 260. 
 
 Plural nomination for office, in N. 
 C, 117, 118; in New Nether- 
 land, 177, 178, 189, 19s, 196; in 
 N. J., 227, 23s, 242 ; in Del., 262, 
 264, 268, 271 ; in Pa., 283, 29s ; 
 in Plymouth, 366. 
 
 Plural voting, in England, 6 ; per- 
 mitted in Va., 39; permitted in 
 S. C. after 1745, 156; in N. Y., 
 based on English custom, 215 
 and note 2, 216-217; in Pa., pro- 
 posed for Philadelphia inhabi- 
 tants, 282 ; instances of illegal, 
 28s ; adopted by the Free So- 
 ciety of Traders in Pa., 294; in 
 N. H., 377; in Conn., illegal, 
 to be punished with fine, 410. 
 
 Plymouth, admission of partners, 
 303 note; Mayflower compact, 
 338; nature of association, ibid.; 
 stock company, 339-340; gen- 
 eral and particular settlers, 340 ; 
 latter admitted to corporation, 
 341 ; code of laws of 1636, 341- 
 342 ; position of freemen, 342 ; 
 control over town inhabitants, 
 342-343 ; religious qualifications, 
 343~344; non-freemen as elect- 
 ors, 344; inhabitants admitted 
 irregularly, 344-345; terms of 
 admission of freemen, 34S~346; 
 religious qualifications, 346-347; 
 royal commissioners' visit, 347" 
 348; religious liberty, ibid.; 
 number of freemen, 348-349; 
 included under Mass. charter 
 
 of 1691, 353; local elections, 
 357-369 passim. 
 
 Political tests as qualification of 
 suffrage, in England, 3; in 
 Mass., 362. 
 
 Polls, method of taking in Eng- 
 land, 7; time for holding in 
 N. C., 102; in S. C, 141, 14s; 
 method of conducting in N. Y., 
 212 ; time for holding, 217 ; ^ in 
 N. J., 250 ; in Del., 270 ; in Pa., 
 282. 
 
 Poll-tax, importance of, in N. C, 
 92. 
 
 Pomfret, borough suffrage in, 13 
 note. 
 
 Popular elections, of governor, in 
 Va., 23; of governor, proposed 
 in Dutch concessions, 186 note; 
 of " President" John Scott on 
 Long Island, 187; of president, 
 in N. J., in 1672, 234; did not 
 exist in Swedish settlements on 
 Delaware, 259-261 ; beginnings 
 of under the Dutch, 262 ; fa- 
 vored by Stuyvesant, 262 note; 
 demand for, 263 note; popular 
 election in colony of city of 
 Amsterdam, 264; absence of 
 under Duke of York's govern- 
 ment, 267-268; non-existent on 
 Delaware before Penn's time, 
 274; promised by Penn, 274. 
 
 Popular meetings, in Dutch settle- 
 ments on Delaware, 262, 263. 
 
 Portsmouth, N. H., settlement 
 of, 370; compact of settlers, 
 371 ; requests union with 
 Mass., 372; number of voters 
 in, 373 note 4. 
 
 Portsmouth, R. I., union with 
 Newport, 431 ; town agreement, 
 433; organization of govern- 
 ment, 437; union with Newport, 
 438. 
 
 Potential voters, number of, in 
 Mass., 356-357- 
 
 Potwallopers, defined, 1 1 ; as elect- 
 ors in England, ibid. 
 
 Preparatory meeting, in R. I., for 
 admission of freemen, 450 note 
 2. 
 
 Presbyterians, in Mass., demand 
 political rights in 1646, 315. 
 
 Printz, Governor, of New Sweden, 
 261. 
 
Sio 
 
 Index. 
 
 Probation, term of, required of 
 freemen, in Mass., admitted 
 under law of 1664, 330 ; repealed, 
 330 note, 333 ; required of free- 
 men, in Plymouth, 345, 346; in 
 Conn., 408-409; abolished, 413; 
 in R. I., three months, 461. 
 
 Property, general, as qualification 
 of electors, attempt to obtain in 
 Va., 30; in S. C, 146; pro- 
 posed in Mass. in 1646, 316; in 
 Plymouth, 347; in Mass. town 
 elections, 362, 363 ; in N. H., .in 
 1680, 374; in Conn., 386, 404, 
 408-409; in R. I., 448-449; in 
 colonies generally, 478. 
 
 Property, personal, as qualifica- 
 tion of electors in Md. in 1670, 
 62, 71; in S. C. in 1692, 132; 
 opposed by proprietors, 133; 
 again enacted, 135; an alterna- 
 tive to freehold, 140; in East 
 Jersey fundamentals, as alterna- 
 tive to freehold, a rented house 
 and iso stock, 239; favored by 
 governor in N. J., 251, 255; £50. 
 accepted by Board of Trade, 
 252; opposed by proprietors, 
 253-^54; in Del., £40, 270; in 
 Pa. in 1694, £50, 279, 281; in 
 170S, 282; in Mass. under char- 
 ter of 1691, 354; controversy 
 concerning amount, ibid.; in N. 
 H. in 1699, 376; in Conn, in 
 1659, 388; in 1702, £40, 414; in 
 colonies generally, 480-481. 
 
 Property, real, as qualification of 
 electors. See Freehold. 
 
 Property, taxable, S. C. in 1717, 
 149; in 1721, 153; in 1734, 154; 
 in 1739, ibid.; in 1759, 158. 
 
 Proportional voting, in Mass., 
 concerning land matters, 368; in 
 N. H., 378; in Conn., 427-428; 
 in Providence, R. I., 435. 
 
 Proprietors, as electors in West 
 Jersey, 245; opposed extension 
 of suflfrage, 253 ; responsible for 
 high suffrage qualifications, ibid. 
 
 Proprietors of town lands. See 
 Corporations, Economic, and 
 Commoners. 
 
 Providence, R. I., agreement 
 among settlers, 432; admission 
 of inhabitants, 434-43S ; quarter- 
 right inhabitants, 435; freemen 
 
 in, 436 ; organization of govern- 
 ment, 437; freemen admitted, 
 441 ; laws read in town meet- 
 ing, 445; commoners in, 469; 
 number of freemen in, 472. 
 
 Proxy voting, illegal in English 
 elections, 3 ; permitted in House 
 of Lords, 3 note; in Va., 22 ; for- 
 bidden, 26; in Md., 50-55; dis- 
 courages personal attendance, 
 130; arose in S. C, 130; op- 
 posed by proprietors as contrary 
 to English precedent, 131 ; for- 
 bidden, 140; in Barbadoes, 141 
 note; not adopted in New 
 Netherland, 176; existed on 
 Long Island, 176 note, 192, 207, 
 210 note; in Mass., 311 ; only a 
 method of balloting, ibid.; in 
 Plymouth, 349 note; in New 
 Haven, 397; in Conn., discon- 
 tinued for a time under charter 
 of 1662, 407; restored, 411; 
 again temporarily forbidden, 
 413 ; general history of, 416-417 ; 
 concerning land matters, 429; 
 in R. I., 437-438, 439. 442-444, 
 447, 463-467 ; Lord Bellomont 
 believes it illegal, 466 note 7. 
 
 Public Houses, thrown open at 
 election times in Pa., 285. 
 
 Purchasers, in Providence, R. I., 
 469. 
 
 Puritans, ideals of, 300; motive 
 for founding colony of Mass., 
 300-301 ; political ideals of, 304- 
 305; church organization, 363- 
 364 ; early settlers of Conn., 380 ; 
 their persecution of dissenters, 
 430. 
 
 Quakers, excluded from Hemp- 
 stead, L. I., 192; cause dis- 
 turbances in elections, ibid.; in 
 Mass., measures against, 320- 
 321 ; in Mass., change in atti- 
 tude toward, 330; in Plymouth, 
 disfranchised, 346; restored to 
 franchise, 347; in Conn., ex- 
 cluded from church elections, 
 when they do not contribute to 
 support, 424; disfranchised, in 
 colonies generally, 475. 
 
 Qualifications of electors. See Age, 
 Borough Franchise, Character, 
 Citizenship, Freehold, Freemen, 
 
Index. 
 
 511 
 
 Inhabitants, Oaths, Property, 
 Race, Religion, Residence, Sex, 
 Tax-paying. 
 
 Quarry, Colonel, reports election 
 irregularities in N. J., 250; ad- 
 vises Board of Trade respecting 
 N. J., 254. 
 
 Quarter-right inhabitants, in 
 Providence, R. I., 435, 469. 
 
 Quintipartite deed, between N. J. 
 proprietors, 235. 
 
 Quit-rents, proprietary, in N. J., 
 influence the suffrage, 231, 233, 
 241-242. 
 
 Quorum of assembly, in N. C, 92, 
 103, 104, 107, 110. 
 
 Race, as qualification of electors, 
 free negroes, mulattoes, and In- 
 dians disfranchised in Va. in 
 ^7^2i 36; opposition to dis- 
 franchisement in England, 37; 
 negroes, mulattoes, and Indians 
 excluded in N. C, 92; negroes 
 occasionally vote in S. C, 137; 
 suffrage limited to white race in 
 S. C. in 1716, 146, IS3, ISS, 157 ; 
 white race in Ga., 172; in col- 
 onies generally, 474. 
 
 Raleigh, Sir Walter, royal charter 
 to, 80. 
 
 Randolph, Edward, opposes Mass. 
 suffrage restriction, 319 note 3; 
 general attitude, 330; criticises 
 Mass., 331 ; secures separation 
 of N. H. and Mass., 373. 
 
 Re-apportionment of representa- 
 tives, contest over in N. C, g^r; 
 opposed by people, 98 ; economic 
 reasons for, 103; ordained by 
 irregular assembly, 104; refused 
 by English government, 107, 
 108. 
 
 Referendum, popular, in R. I., 
 444-445 ; discontinued under 
 charter of 1663, 447. 
 
 Refusal to admit freemen, in 
 Conn., 409, 414 ; in R. I., 447 ; to 
 admit inhabitants to towns, in 
 R. I., 467 note 2. 
 
 Refusal to elect representatives in 
 Del., 269, 280; punishment for, 
 ibid. 
 
 Register of county, in N. C, elec- 
 tion of, 117. 
 
 Regulators, in N. C, 112-113. 
 
 Religion, as qualification of elec- 
 tors, in England, 3, 4; re- 
 cusant convicts disfranchised in 
 Va., 35; Catholics excluded in 
 Md., 56, 58, 69, 71-72, 74, 78; 
 Christians only as electors in 
 S. C, 146, 153, 155 ; Protestants 
 after 1759, 157; conformists 
 only in parish elections, 160; 
 jDatholics disfranchised in N. Y. 
 in 1689, 201 ; permanently in 
 1701, 214; Jews disfranchised 
 in 1737, 214-21S ; in Pa. in 1682, 
 belief in Jesus Christ, 275, 276; 
 in Mass. must be church-mem- 
 bers, 304; evil consequences of, 
 305-306 ; church-membership 
 defined, 306-307 ; Quakers, Bap- 
 tists, and opposers of church 
 laws disfranchised, 320-321 ; op- 
 posed by Charles II., 322-323, 
 and by his commissioners, 
 323-326; effect of law of 1664, 
 324; Randolph's opinion of, 
 331; denied by Mass. agents, 
 331 ; members of Church of 
 England not excluded, 333; 
 electors must be Protestants, 
 333; in force in 1690, 336; but 
 not after charter of 1691, 337; 
 in Plymouth, 343-344; mem- 
 bership in approved churches, 
 346; in Mass., not required of 
 Maine inhabitants, 352; but 
 later restored, ibid.; repealed by 
 charter of 1691, 353-354; but 
 foreign Catholics excluded, 355; 
 church elections, only communi- 
 cants could vote, 364; later at- 
 tendants, ibid.; not enforced in 
 N. H. towns, 372; in N. H., 
 Protestants only in ■ 1680, 374 ; 
 in early Conn., 384-385, 389; in 
 New Haven, 390-405 ; proposed 
 by Conn, in negotiations with 
 New Haven, 404; in New 
 Haven, overthrown by Conn, 
 charter of 1662, 406 ; royal com- 
 missioners oppose, 448 ; in R. I., 
 Catholics and Jews excluded in 
 1719, 451-452; in colonies gen- 
 erally, 475-476. 
 
 Religious liberty, promised by 
 Charles II., 322 ; cause espoused 
 by Charles, 323; royal com- 
 
512 
 
 Index. 
 
 missioners' opinion upon, 326; 
 in Plymouth, 347. 
 
 Reluctance to perform political 
 duties, in Mass., 308. 
 
 Rent-charges, as freeholds in 
 England, 9. 
 
 Repeal of colonial legislation, in 
 N. C, 106 and note; by S. C. 
 proprietors, 149, 152; in N. Y., 
 by partisan legislature, 212; by 
 Queen, 213. 
 
 Representation, theory of, in Md., 
 65; among N. C. Regulators, 
 113; as held by Governor John- 
 son in S. C, in 1719, 150; held 
 by Stuyvesant in New Nether- 
 land, 178, 185; by English on 
 Long Island, 182 note; by New 
 Netherland assembly of 1653, 
 184; in N. Y., 213 note 2; in 
 assembly of East Jersey, 237; 
 held by George Scot in 1685, 
 240; in West Jersey, 246; held 
 by N. J. proprietors, 253-254; 
 by Pa. assembly in 1699, 280; 
 in England in eighteenth cen- 
 tury, 354; in Conn., 406; on 
 Rhode Island, 438-439. 
 
 Representative institutions, first 
 assembly in Va., 19-21 ; estab- 
 lished under royal instructions, 
 23; in Md., 50-55; among the 
 N. C. Regulators, 112-113; in 
 S. C., 123, 125 ; favored by pro- 
 prietors, 127; early origin of, 
 129; origin of, in Ga., 166-168; 
 relation to slavery, 168 ; recog- 
 nized by trustees, ibid.; pur- 
 pose of according to trustees, 
 169; established by royal in- 
 structions, 171 ; origin of in 
 New Netherland, 174; the 
 Twelve Men, ibid.; the Eight 
 Men, 176; they demand repre- 
 sentative system, 177; Cham- 
 ber of Accounts of West India 
 Company recommend represen- 
 tative government, 177; the 
 Nine Men, 177-180; States- 
 General favor, 180; character 
 of early representative boards, 
 181 ; proposed assembly of 
 Sept., 1653, 182; assembly of 
 Dec, 1653, 183-185; assembly 
 of 1663, 187; of 1664, 188; ori- 
 gin of in N. Y., Hempstead 
 
 meeting of 1665, 198; assembly 
 of 1683, 199 ; Leisler's assembly, 
 201-202 ; permanently estab- 
 lished in 1691, 210; in N. J., 
 230, 232; irregular assemblies, 
 234 ; Andros assembly, 237 ; un- 
 der East Jersey Fundamentals, 
 240; conditioned upon payment 
 of quit-rents, 242 ; in West Jer- 
 sey concessions, 246-247; as 
 suggested to king by proprie- 
 tors, 248; as adopted under 
 royal government, 249; in Pa., 
 origin of, 273, 274, 276; origin 
 of, in Mass., 310; origin of, in 
 Maine, 350-351 ; in N. H., 375, 
 376 note I ; origin of, in Conn., 
 381 ; as determined by charter, 
 405 ; in R. I., 438, 440, 442-444, 
 446. 
 
 Representatives, apportionment 
 of, in S. C, 131 ; character of, 
 in N. Y., 211; number of, in 
 West Jersey, 247; number of, 
 in R. I., 446. 
 
 Representatives, qualifications of, 
 in Va., in 1655, 28; in N. C, 
 100 ; in S. C, 147, 148, 151, 153, 
 156; in Ga., silk culture re- 
 quired, 169-170, 171, 173; in N. 
 Y., 212 ; in N. J., proposed, 248 ; 
 fixed, 249 ; opposition to, 251 ; 
 belief in Christ, in Pa., 281 ; in 
 Mass., 319 note 4; in N. H., 377. 
 
 Residence as qualification of elec- 
 tors, early required in England, 
 6; but later not enforced, ibid.; 
 in English boroughs, 11, 12, 13, 
 14; in county, required in Va. 
 in 1705, 36; abolished in Va. 
 in 1736, 39; in Md., 73; in N. 
 C, one year, 92; six months, 
 100, III ; S. C. proprietors favor 
 and repeal law not providing 
 for, 133; three months in col- 
 ony, 136; three months in pre- 
 cinct, 140; six months in prov- 
 ince, 146 ; six months in parish, 
 148; one year in province, ^53, 
 iSSj 157; in Ga., six months in 
 province, 172; in N. Y., required 
 of freemen electors, 212; in 
 New York City, 221-222 ; in Al- 
 bany, N. Y., 223; in Del., two 
 years in colony, 270; in Pa. in 
 1694, two years in province, 279, 
 
Index. 
 
 513 
 
 282 ; in Lancaster, Pa., 297 ; in 
 Conn., 383; in colonies gen- 
 erally, 477-478. 
 
 Residenters, taxed in N. Y., 223 
 note. 
 
 Residents, as electors in early 
 Conn., 382. 
 
 Retford, East, borough suffrage 
 in, 14. 
 
 Returns of elections, in N. C, 92. 
 
 Revolutionary movements, in Md., 
 in 1689, 69-70; in N. C, 89; 
 in S. C, in 1719, 150; in N. Y., 
 in 1689, 201-202; in East Jer- 
 sey, 242-243 ; in Mass., in 1689- 
 1690, 335; in N. H., 375 ; in 
 Conn., in 1689, 412. 
 
 Rhett, William, unpopular friend 
 of proprietors in S. C, 143. 
 
 Rhode Island, influence of Mass. 
 in forming, 430; indigenous 
 political organization in R. I. 
 towns, 430-431 ; town associa- 
 tions, 431 ; union of towns, 431- 
 432; town freemanship ante- 
 dated colony freemanship, 431- 
 432; organization of Provi- 
 dence, 432 ; town agreements of 
 Portsmouth and Newport, 433; 
 terms of admission of new set- 
 tlers, 434-437; development of 
 town organization, 437; union 
 of towns on Rhode Island, 438- 
 439; union under charter of 
 1644, 439-440; qualifications of 
 freemen, 440-442; ballot and 
 proxy system, 442-443; repre- 
 sentative system, 443-444 ; popu- 
 lar initiative of laws, 444 ; popu- 
 lar referendum, 444-445; union 
 under charter of ITO3, 446; 
 terms of charter, 446-447 ; ad- 
 mission of freemen under, 447; 
 good character and indefinite 
 property qualification upon free- 
 men, 448-449 ; compulsory free- 
 manship, 450; freemanship re- 
 stricted to Protestant Chris- 
 tians, 451-452 ; increase in num- 
 ber of freemen, 453; franchise 
 limited to freeholders of £100 or 
 forty shillings income in 1724, 
 454; eldest sons of such free- 
 holders also admitted, 454-455; 
 English precedent for this, 455- 
 456 ; effect of paper money upon 
 
 suffrage qualifications, 456-457; 
 nominal qualifications increased 
 in 1730, 457; stringent legisla- 
 tion against fraud in elections, 
 457-458 ; qualifications again in- 
 creased in 1746, 458; freemen 
 required to be permanently pos- 
 sessed of freehold, 458; oath 
 against bribery, 459; freeman's 
 qualifications based upon procla- 
 mation money, 460; elaborate 
 election laws of 1762 and 1767, 
 460-462; summary of property 
 qualifications, 462; proxy sys- 
 tem and balloting, 463-467; 
 ballot evils, 466; local suffrage, 
 467-471 ; town elections, 467- 
 468; suffrage concerning land 
 matters, 469; militia suffrage, 
 470-471 ; number of freemen 
 and electors, 471-472. 
 
 Richmond, borough suffrage in, 3 
 note, 13 note, 14. 
 
 Rights, natural, appealed to in 
 New Netherland, 184; in N. J. 
 in 1704, 251. 
 
 Rights, of Englishmen. See Eng- 
 lishmen, rights of. 
 
 Rye, borough suffrage in, 14. 
 
 Saco, Maine, settlement at, 350. 
 
 Sailors, as electors in S. C, 138, 
 147; excluded, 149. 
 
 Salem, N. J., suffrage in, 253, 255 
 note. 
 
 Salisbury, N. C, suffrage in, 115. 
 
 Sandwich, borough suffrage in, 14. 
 
 Sandys, Sir Edwin, favors Puri- 
 tans in Virginia Company, 18. 
 
 Sanhedrim, applied to ruling party 
 in Mass., 331. 
 
 Sarum, Old, borough suffrage in, 
 
 13- 
 
 Sayle, William, governor of S. C, 
 124. 
 
 Scot and lot, payment of, as quali- 
 fication of electors, in England, 
 II, 15; in Pa. under Laws made 
 in England, 275, 276; omitted 
 in 1693, 278. 
 
 Scott, John, by popular choice 
 ^elected "president" on Long 
 Island, 187, 194. 
 
 Scrutiny, term used for ballot in 
 English universities, 16. 
 
 Separatists, 301. 
 
 33 
 
514 
 
 Index. 
 
 Sergeant-major-general, in Mass., 
 how elected, 365 note 4. 
 
 Servants as electors in N. C, no; 
 in S. C, 137, 147; excluded, 
 149; disfranchised in Albany, 
 N. Y., 223; when freed, in Pa., 
 required to possess only fifty 
 acres of land as voters, 276; 
 vote in Philadelphia, 282; as 
 electors in Pa., 284; excluded 
 from militia elections in Mass., 
 365, and in Plymouth, 366. 
 
 Sex, as qualification of electors, in 
 England, 2, 3 note; women ex- 
 cluded in Va., 35; woman suf- 
 frage refused in Md., 54; in S. 
 C. in 1716, limited to men, 146, 
 IS3, ISS, 157; Lady Moody as 
 elector in Gravesend, L. I., 192- 
 193 ; in Del., male sex required, 
 270; in R. I., women in town 
 elections, 434 note i ; in colonies 
 generally, 473-474. 
 
 Sheriffs, election of, in Del., 271 ; 
 mode of electing in Pa., 283, 295. 
 
 Silk culture, in Ga., fostered by 
 trustees, 164; made a qualifica- 
 tion of representatives, 169. 
 
 Simsbury, Conn., land matters in, 
 
 427. 
 Slaughter, George, governor of N. 
 
 Y., 209. 
 Slaveholders, as electors in S. C, 
 
 15^154- 
 
 Slavery, forbidden in Ga., 164; 
 petitions in favor of, 166; de- 
 sire f6r, leads to popular gov- 
 ernment, 168. 
 
 Slaves, value of, compared with 
 that of land in S. C, 154. 
 
 Smith, John, in Va., 19. 
 
 Sojourners, taxed in N. Y., 223 
 note; perhaps included in term 
 inhabitants, in Mass., 359. 
 
 Soldiers, as electors, in Mass., 
 365-366; in Plymouth, in militia 
 elections, 366; in Cona. militia 
 elections, 425; in militia elec- 
 tions, in R. I., 470-471. 
 
 Sons, eldest, of freeholders, in R. 
 1., to be admitted as freemen, 
 454 ; English precedent for, 455. 
 
 Southampton, L. I., terms of ad- 
 mission of inhabitants, 204 ; suf- 
 frage in, 206, 225. 
 
 South Carolina, division of Caro- 
 lina into distinct provinces, 122 ; 
 legal name of S. C, 122 note; 
 instructions for settlement of 
 government, 123; concessions to 
 settlers, 123-124 ; arrival of set- 
 tlers and first election, 124; first 
 assembly, 125; early representa- 
 tive organization, 126-127; pro- 
 ;prietors attempt to establish par- 
 liaments, 127-129 ; distinction be- 
 tween freemen and freeholders, 
 130,- Huguenots and the suf- 
 frage, 130-132, 133-135; prop- 
 erty qualification upon electors 
 in 1692, 132; law opposed by 
 proprietors, 133; naturalizatioii 
 acts, 134, 141-142; election act 
 of 1703, 135-136; contest be- 
 tween Anglicans and dissenters, 
 136-140; members of assembly 
 must be communicants of 
 Church of England, 139; elec- 
 tion act of 1704 fixes suffrage 
 qualifications at fifty acres of 
 land or iio personal estate, 140 ; 
 use of ballot in all elections, 
 141 ; election evils, 142 ; reasons 
 for discontent in 1717, 142-143; 
 all elections held in Qiarleston, 
 144; abolished in 1716, 145; 
 election act of 1716, £30 prop- 
 erty required of electors, Jews 
 and negroes excluded, 146; 
 paper currency and its effect 
 upon suffrage, 147 ; in 1717 elec- 
 tors must hold fifty acres pi 
 land or pay taxes, 148; pnjprie- 
 tors repeal acts of 1716 and 
 1717, 149; revolutionary move- 
 ment, 150-152; election act of 
 1719, 151; of 1721 requires elec- 
 tors to possess fifty acres of 
 land, or pay twenty shillings 
 taxes, 153 ; meaning of tax-pay- 
 ing, 154 ; qualifications of elec- 
 tors increased in 174s, iSS; 
 plural voting permitted, 156; 
 Governor Glen opposes ballot, 
 156^1^; qualifications of elec- 
 tors lowered in 1759, 157; at 
 same time Catholics disfran- 
 chised, 157-158; local suffrage, 
 159-161; parish elections, 159- 
 161 ; character of S. C. church. 
 
Index. 
 
 513 
 
 160; summary of suflfrage pro- 
 visions, 161. 
 
 South Company, Swedish, 260. 
 
 Southold, L. I., agreements of 
 settlers, 391 ; origin of govern- 
 ment, 394; popular movement 
 in, 400 ; sends deputies to Hart- 
 ford, 402. 
 
 Southwark, Pa., an incorporated 
 district in Phila. Co., 299. 
 
 Splitting of freeholds, in England, 
 8, 9 ; in Va., 38 ; in N. Y., 206. 
 "Spotswood, Governor, of Va., 37. 
 
 Springfield, Mass., method of ad- 
 mitting freemen, 309. 
 
 St. Albans, borough suffrage in, 
 
 St. Mary's, Md., elections in, 63, 
 66. 
 
 Stamford, Conn., popular move- 
 ment in, 399-400; inhabitants 
 admitted to Conn, freemanship, 
 402. 
 
 Stephens, Samuel, governor of N. 
 C, 8s. 
 
 Stockholders, in Plymouth, 339- 
 
 341. 
 
 Stone, Governor, of Md., 57. 
 
 Strangers, as electors in S. C, 138. 
 
 Stratford, Conn., admission of 
 freemen in, 386. 
 
 Strawberry Bank, N. H. See 
 Portsmouth. 
 
 Stuyvesant, Peter, governor of 
 New Netherland, 177; attitude 
 toward Nine Men, 178-179; 
 theory of popular government, 
 178, 185 ; last assembly of New 
 Netherland called by, 188 ; con- 
 quers Swedes on Delaware, 261. 
 
 Stidbury, borough suffrage in, 14. 
 
 Safltrage, extension of, in S. C. 
 and Va. before Revolution, 159 ; 
 in N. J., 249 note; demanded in 
 N. J. at outset of American 
 Revolution, 255; in Mass. not 
 advanced by agitation, 318 ; pro- 
 posed in 1663, 323 note; in i6go, 
 335-337; in Plymouth, 340; in 
 New Haven, 410; in Conn, in 
 
 1689,413- . ,. . 
 Suffrage, popular, did not exist m 
 
 Delaware lands before Penn's 
 
 time, 273. 
 SofTrage, qualifications for. See 
 
 Qualifications of Electors. 
 
 Suffrage, restriction of, favored 
 by governor in N. C, 97 ; oppo- 
 sition to in N. J., 250, 251; in 
 Philadelphia, Pa., reason for, 
 290 note; in Conn., 389. 
 
 Swaanendael, Dutch settlement on 
 Delaware, 259. 
 
 Swedish South Company, 260. 
 
 Synod, Cambridge, 1646-1647, 307. 
 
 Tarborough, N. C, suffrage in, 
 "5. 
 
 Taunton, borough suffrage in, 12. 
 
 Taxables, classes comprising, in 
 Va. in 1659, 28 note; defined in 
 N. C, 93 note; list of, used in 
 Pa. in judging qualifieations of 
 electors, 285; list for Phila., 
 1693, 286; I7S4, 287; for part 
 of Phila. Co., 1776, 288-^289; for 
 Berks Co., 1774, 289; for Phila. 
 Co., 177s, 290-291 ; number of, 
 in Mass., 327-328 ; lists, of Bos- 
 ton, 327-328 ; number of, in Ply- 
 mouth in 1633, 348; lists of, in 
 Conn., used to judge qualifica- 
 tions of freemen, 410 note 5. 
 
 Taxation, in Mass., method and 
 amount of, 327 ; in Conn., 412. 
 
 Taxation and representation, in 
 Va., 32; demand for union of, 
 in Mass., 315; theory of in Ply- 
 mouth, 344. 
 
 Tax-paying, as qualification of 
 electors, in England, 8; in Va., 
 21, 28; in N. C, 92, 109 note; 
 in S. C, 148, 153, IS7. iS8; in 
 parishes, 160 ; in N. Y., in 1665, 
 198 ; in Mass. under law of 1664, 
 324, 332, 336; in N. H. town and 
 parish elections, 378; in col- 
 onies generally, 481. 
 
 Tenants as electors in Va. bor- 
 oughs, 42-43; in N. C. bor- 
 oughs, 114; in N. J. towns, 257. 
 
 Tenth, a political division in N. J., 
 
 244, 245. 
 
 Test oaths, administered to repre- 
 sentatives in Del., 270; in Pa., 
 281. 
 
 Tinicum Island, Pa., court estab- 
 lished at, 267; perhaps contin- 
 ued at Upland, 268 note. 
 
 Title, proprietary, an essential 
 tQ a legal freehold in N. J., 231, 
 233. 234, 236r237. 
 
5i6 
 
 Index. 
 
 Town houses, as qualification of 
 electors, requirements concern- 
 ing, in Va., 41. 
 
 Town lots, as qualification of elec- 
 tors, in Va., 38, 39 note; requi- 
 sites for " saving" in N. C, 93. 
 
 Town meetings, in N. J., 255, 257 ; 
 not established on the Delaware 
 by Duke's Laws, 267; in bor- 
 ough of Wilmington, Del., 272; 
 in Pa., occasionally existed, 293 
 note; in the boroughs, 296--297; 
 in New England, effect upon 
 number of actual voters, 357; 
 in R. I., 437. 
 
 Town representation, m Va., 20. 
 
 Town suffrage, in Va., 46; in N. 
 Y., limited to inhabiting free- 
 holders, 223 ; in N. J., 249 note, 
 253, 255-257; in Pa., 295, 296,' 
 in Mass., 316 ; in 1635 limited to 
 freemen, 317 ; extended to some 
 non-freemen, 318; in Plymouth, 
 345 ; in Mass., 357-363 ; limited 
 to freemen, 361 ; non-freemen 
 may become electors, 361-362; 
 in N. H., 377-378; in New 
 Haven, limited to church-mem- 
 bers, 395, 420-421 ; in Conn., 
 420-423; in R. I., 467-468. 
 
 Towns, military reason for estab- 
 lishing, in Ga., 171 ; Dutch, of 
 New Netherland, possessed few 
 features of popular government, 
 189; English, of New Nether- 
 land, possessed popular govern- 
 ment, 190-191 ; origin of, in 
 Mass., 357 note; importance of 
 in R. I. institutional develop- 
 ment, 431. 
 
 Township, in Pa., doubt as to 
 origin of, 293; compared with 
 New England town, ibid. 
 
 Transient persons, electors in 
 Campbelton, N. C, 117; electors 
 in S. C, 148; excluded, 149. 
 
 Tregony, borough suffrage in, 12. 
 
 Trenton, N. J., charter of, 256 
 note. 
 
 Triennial assemblies, in N. C, 
 112; in N. H., 377. 
 
 Trott, Nicholas, unpopular friend 
 of proprietors in S. C, 143. 
 
 Trustees, as electors, in England, 
 8 ; not to vote in N. Y. in virtue 
 of trust freeholds, 213. 
 
 Trustees of Georgia, their powers 
 under charter, 163; the board 
 abolished, 170. 
 
 Tryon, William, governor of N. 
 C, opposes triennial assemblies, 
 112; proclamation against Regu- 
 lators, 113. 
 
 Twelve Men, the, in New Nether- 
 land, 174-175- 
 
 Tynte, Edward, governor of S. C, 
 142. 
 
 Unit of representation, parishes 
 and counties in Va., 22, 24-25; 
 in N. C, 93 ; in N. Y., in 1683, 
 ipg; exceedingly large in N. J., 
 250. 
 
 University franchise, in Oxford 
 and Cambridge, 16; College of 
 William and Mary in Va., 44, 
 483. 
 
 Upland, Pa., court established at, 
 267; analysis of activities of 
 court, 268; perhaps a continua- 
 tion of court at Tinicum, 268 
 note. 
 
 Usselinx, William, 260 note. 
 
 Vestries, select, in N. C, 118. 
 
 View, deciding elections upon the, 
 in England, 7; in Va., 35; in 
 Pa., 277. 
 'Virginia, character of early years 
 of colony, 17; charters of Vir- 
 ginia Company, 17 ; the company 
 called seditious, 17; influence 
 of Puritans, 18; improved eco- 
 nomic conditions, in Va., 18; 
 despotic governors, 19; charter 
 of privileges for colony, 19-20; 
 ordinance of 1621, 20; first as- 
 sembly, 20-21 ; suffrage in early 
 elections, 21 ; ballot or proxy 
 voting, 22; Governor Yeardley's 
 rule, 22-23 ; revolution against 
 Governor Harvey, 23-24 ; unit of 
 representation, 24-25 ; parochial 
 burgesses, 25-26 ; compulsory 
 viva voce suffrage, 26 ; influence 
 of English Civil War, 27-29; 
 attempt to limit franchise to 
 hoiisekeepers, 28; life council, 
 29; suffrage under Governor 
 Berkeley, 29-30; the Va. long 
 parliament, 30 ; attempt to limit 
 suffrage to freeholders, 30; in 
 
Index. 
 
 S17 
 
 1670, limited to freeholders and 
 housekeepers, 31 ; Culpepper 
 grants, 31-32 ; causes of Bacon's 
 Rebellion, 32 ; Bacon's attempt to 
 widen suffrage basis, 33; royal 
 instructions of 1676 limit fran- 
 chise to freeholders, 33-34; act 
 of 1684 adopts this provision, 
 34; women and Catholics ex- 
 cluded in 1699, 35 ; election de- 
 tails, 35-36; negroes excluded 
 in 1705, 36; election evils, 37; 
 minimum freehold established 
 in 1736, 38-40 ; fractional voting, 
 40; act of 1763 lowers suffrage 
 qualifications, 40-41 ; borough 
 suffrage, 42-44; political repre- 
 sentation of College of William 
 and Mary, 44; local suffrage, 
 45-46; number of electors, 46- 
 47; compared with Mass., 47, 
 357. 
 
 Virginia Company, charters of 
 1606, 1609, 1612, 17; changes in 
 organization, 18. 
 
 Viva-voce voting, in Va., 22, 27J 
 adopted in N. C. in 1760, iii; 
 made compulsory, ibid.; in N. 
 Y., 212, 218; in Pa., 277, 281, 
 284; in Mass. town meetings, 
 360-361 note; in R. I. towns, 
 
 437- ^ . 
 
 Vote-houses, term used m some 
 
 English boroughs, 12, 13. 
 Voters. See Electors. 
 Voters, actual. See Actual. 
 Voters, potential. See Potential. 
 
 Wagoners, as electors in Campbel- 
 ton, N. C, 117- 
 
 Warwick, R. I., agreement among 
 settlers, 431; admission of in- 
 habitants, 436; organization of 
 government, 437. 
 
 Watertown, Mass., town suffrage 
 in, 360; rights of common in, 
 
 367- 
 
 Wells, borough suffrage m, 14. 
 
 Wells, Maine, annexed to Mass., 
 352. 
 
 Weobley, borough suffrage in, 12. 
 
 West India Company, Dutch, op- 
 poses popular government, 262 
 note; cedes land to city of Am- 
 sterdam, 263, 265. 
 
 West Jersey, separated from East 
 Jersey, 235; general character 
 of history, 243; title-changes, 
 243-245 ; Fenwick's colony, 245 ; 
 concessions to settlers of 1677, 
 245 ; political provisions of, 245- 
 246; suffrage under, 246; ballot, 
 246; popular participation in 
 government, 246-247 ;• represen- 
 tation of towns, 247 ; number of 
 representatives, 248; transferred 
 to crown, 248. 
 
 West, John, elected governor in 
 Va., 24. 
 
 West, Joseph, chosen governor in 
 S. C, 126. 
 
 Westbury, borough suffrage in, 12, 
 
 13- 
 
 Westchester, N. Y., charter of, 
 191, 193. 
 
 Wethersfield, Conn., church-mem- 
 bership in, 385 ; land matters in, 
 427. 
 
 Wheelwright, John, exiled from 
 Mass., 307; in N. H., 370; in 
 Maine, 372. 
 
 Whorekill, Del., court established 
 
 at 267. 
 
 Williams, Roger, exiled from 
 Mass., 307, 430; articles of as- 
 sociation with other settlers, 
 431, 432, 434; theory of religious 
 liberty, 452. 
 
 Wilmington, Del., Swedish settlers 
 near, 261 ; court established at, 
 267; charter of, 272; suffrage 
 in, ibid. 
 
 Wilmington, N. C, 114. "S- 
 
 Windsor, Conn., church election 
 in, 423; land matters in, 427. 
 
 Winthrop, Fitz-John, governor of 
 Conn., 402 ; secures charter, 405. 
 
 Winthrop, John, reasons for set- 
 tlement of New England, 300, 
 301; elected governor in 1647 
 by large majority, 317. 
 
 Woodbridge, N. J., charter to, 
 233; land-holders refusing to 
 patent lands to be disfranchised, 
 233; charter of, 249 note. 
 
 Writs of election, provided for by 
 English statute, 7; in M^., 51. 
 S3; limit suffrage, 62; conten- 
 tion concerning in Md., 63-04; 
 terms of, 66 ; in N. C, 90 ; cause 
 dissatisfaction, 96; in S. C, 136; 
 
5i8 
 
 Index. 
 
 necessary before people can elect 
 representatives, 150; in N. J. 
 in 1703 fail to provide for elec- 
 tion districts, 250. 
 Wyatt, Governor, of Va., 20 ; con- 
 tinues assembly system, 22. 
 
 Yeamans, Major William, pro- 
 poses to settle colony in Caro- 
 lina, 83. 
 
 Yeardley, Governor of Va., calls 
 representative assembly, 20; 'de- 
 sires to continue it, 23. 
 
 York County, Pa., election evils 
 in, 285. 
 
 York, Duke of, receives N. Y., 
 
 196; his representative gr»its 
 
 terms of capitulation to Dttteh, 
 
 197. 
 York, Maine, city government in, 
 
 350; annexed to Mass., 352. 
 Yorkshire, a county of N. Y., 
 
 197- 
 Young people, in Mass. as political 
 
 agitators, 316; in Coim., as 
 
 voters, 423; as electors in R. I., 
 
 471. 
 Youngs, John, leader of pofwlar 
 
 movement in Southold, L. I., 
 
 400. 
 
 THE END.