Eighteenth-Century Colonial Legislatures and Their Constituents

Abstract

It has long been custom to speak of of colonial in first three-quarters of eighteenth century. Over forty years ago, Charles McLean Andrews said of period, the most conspicuous feature-and one that was common to nearly all colonies-was rise of colonial assembly with its growth to self-conscious activity and defacto independence of royal control. Somewhat more recently, Bernard Bailyn has used same term, of assemblies, in The Origins ofAmerican Politics, as has George Dargo, in Roots of Republic. Jack P. Greene has stated that the rise of representative assemblies was perhaps most significant political and constitutional development in history of Britain's overseas empire before American Revolution.' But what do we mean by term rise, and how do we measure it? One meaning of word, certainly most popular among historians recently, has been assemblies' wresting power from colonial governors and councils; using this definition, one measures rise by ticking off points assemblymen scored against governors: for example, voting of governors' annual salaries by assemblies; control of major provincial appointments, including those of agents to England; disqualification of placemen from assemblies; and setting of limits on fees charged by officeholders. The historians' emphasis on that meaning is not surprising given their reliance on such sources as governors' letters home, which emphasized assemblies' threats to imperial authority rather than their responses to local needs, and assembly journals, which were meant to put on record defense of legislatures' institutional position vis-a-vis governors. We have been further encouraged in this emphasis by assumptions of institutional historians that assemblies made few