Distribution Agreement In presenting this thesis or dissertation as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree from Emory University, I hereby grant to Emory University and its agents the non-exclusive license to archive, make accessible, and display my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known, including display on the world wide web. I understand that I may select some access restrictions as part of the online submission of this thesis or dissertation. I retain all ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis or dissertation. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. Signature: _____________________________ ______________ Richard A. Cook, Jr. Date “[T]heir dear Idol ye Charter”: The Second Charter of Massachusetts Bay By Richard A. Cook, Jr. Doctor of Philosophy History _________________________________________ [Advisor’s signature] Dr. John T. Juricek Advisor _________________________________________ [Member’s signature] Dr. Patrick A. Allitt Committee Member _________________________________________ [Member’s signature] Dr. James Roark Committee Member Accepted: _________________________________________ Lisa A. Tedesco, Ph.D. Dean of the James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies ___________________ Date “[T]heir dear Idol ye Charter”: The Second Charter of Massachusetts Bay Richard A. Cook, Jr. Master of Arts, History Advisor: John T. Juricek, Ph.D. An abstract of A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies of Emory University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History 2012 Abstract “[T]heir dear Idol ye Charter”: The Second Charter of Massachusetts Bay By Richard A. Cook, Jr. This dissertation is a history of the Second Charter of Massachusetts Bay. It compares the Second Charter with previous colonial governments, and outlines the history of the institutions created by the Second Charter. The contests in the early eighteenth century (roughly 1690 to 1750) over the meaning of Second Charter clauses, and over the limits of royal and provincial authority, took on a constitutional character. Those debates tended to involve competing analyses of the text of the Second Charter, and challenges, both provincial and royal, to the language and intent of the document. As a history of the second charter, it traces the Second Charter’s origins, significance, and ultimate eclipse at the time of the Revolution. It argues that the Second Charter was a true provincial constitution, and that the colonists as well as the Crown viewed it as such. They behaved as though its strictures were, if not sacrosanct, then at least possessed of a veneer of inviolability. While the outlines of its language and intent could be negotiated, contested, and occasionally circumnavigated, the text of the Second Charter mapped the essential political geography of the imperial relationship. Intended by the Crown to be an outline of the limits of provincial power, it had become a document that circumscribed royal authority as well. Through creative interpretations of the text, both the Crown and the provincials had transformed the document from a concession of royal power to a constitution. When, in the Revolutionary crisis, England appeared to be trampling on the constitutional understanding, the provincials had reason to reconsider their position in the English empire. “[T]heir dear Idol ye Charter”: The Second Charter of Massachusetts Bay By Richard A. Cook, Jr. M.A., History, 2006 Advisor: Dr. John T. Juricek A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies of Emory University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in 2012 Acknowledgements Completion of this – or any – dissertation is not the result of the work of one student alone. Much of the credit for its completion is due to people in both my academic and personal lives, and to submit it without acknowledging their contributions would be not merely an oversight, but an insult. First of all, my patient wife Kym deserves the foremost share of credit and praise. She has not only remained faithful to an academic dream that has given her nothing but privation and a somewhat non-communicative spouse, she has done so for more years than she deserves. In addition, her tirelessness in taking on a double share of family labors in order to give me time to work means that I owe her this degree, as well as many compensatory years of actual interaction and contact. My faculty advisor and mentor, Dr. John T. Juricek, has extended patience rivaling only that of my wife throughout this process. He struck a careful balance between pressing me forward, and pressing me farther and harder when necessary. His insights have been invaluable; he has forgotten more sources than I can ever hope to learn. Without his efforts, this dissertation would have remained unfinished, not to mention unreadable and unpolished. In addition to the efforts of Dr. Juricek, my colleagues and peers in the graduate student and professional ranks have colluded – usually unwittingly – to give me more and better support than I deserved. Dr. Patrick Allitt provided me with an incredible example, as well as indispensible advice, for teaching as well as writing, and Dr. James Roark generously offered his time to serve on my dissertation committee at the last minute, which is something I will remember when students need urgent letters of recommendation. Dr. Kenneth Lockridge, who motivated my pursuit of early American history and who helped me beyond measure to begin a program of graduate study, has been central to my work. To Joseph Renouard, whose professionalism and good work were models as much as his personality and friendship were the rocks on which I built my graduate school experience, I owe a lifetime of gratitude. My sister Stephanie has provided an exemplary work ethic, which I can only hope to mimic in some weaker form. My parents – Elaine and Richard A. Cook, Sr. – deserve more than simple gratitude for their tireless support. My in-laws, Ron and Cheryl Kelley, have also kept this enterprise afloat at critical moments, through both generosity and good counsel. Dr. Richard Rawls has kept me in strong spirits through semesters teaching at Georgia Gwinnett College. Finally, I want to acknowledge the friends – including but not limited to Jono Gray, Zachary Barbera, John Brown, Dave Parents, Joel Weingart, Caitlin Carenen, Jonathyne Briggs, Darryl Dee, Samir Singh, and Karen Houghton – who made all of this possible by shaping my mind towards academics; whether they did so with malice aforethought remains to be seen. Table of Contents Introduction 1. Commander in Chief 2. The Royal Governor and the General Court 3. The Royal Disallowance 4. The Right of Appeal 5. The Reservation Clause Conclusion: “Our Happy Constitution” Appendix I: The First Charter of Massachusetts Bay, 1629 Appendix II: The Second Charter of Massachusetts Bay, 1691 Appendix III: Royal Governors of the Province of Massachusetts Bay Appendix IV: Categories of Laws Disallowed, 1692 – 1750 Appendix V: Appeals from Massachusetts Bibliography - 1 - “[T]heir dear Idol ye Charter” Between 1629 and 1685, the English colony of Massachusetts Bay was governed under the charter granted by King Charles I to the Massachusetts Bay Company. As a corporate body, the Company was expected to oversee colonial affairs from Lon. Instead, the colonists decided to turn that corporate document into a form of government without royal sanction. The First Charter governed the colony for its first 55 years, developing its own unique organic structures and institutions, functional if without constitutional sanction. This regime lasted until the Crown revoked the First Charter in 1684. From 1685 to 1691 the area was consolidated, on the initiative of King James II, into one government, named the Dominion of New England. James appointed its first and only Governor, Sir Edmund Andros, who ruled over, at the Dominion’s height, the former colonies of Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, New Hampshire, Maine, New York, and New Jersey as a chief executive with a royally-appointed Council, but no representative colonial legislature. When James abdicated, William III and Mary II became monarchs; both of them Protestants. Massachusetts, after throwing off the Dominion in their paler shadow of the Glorious Revolution, was then able to negotiate a new charter, thanks largely to the work of Increase Mather. The Second Charter of Massachusetts Bay, passing the Great Seal in October of 1691, created a true colonial government, alloyed of both royal and provincial designs. The Second Charter was by far the most significant example of state creation in English North America during long eighteenth century. Its clauses provided fertile ground for constitutional and imperial debates throughout that century, and those debates - 1 - - 2 - may account for some of the Revolutionary heat in Boston during its later decades. This dissertation is a history of the second charter, its origins, significance, and ultimate eclipse at the time of the Revolution. By contrast with earlier historians, who have seen its significance largely as a matter of religious tolerance and enhanced royal control, I argue that the Second Charter was a true provincial constitution, and that the colonists as well as the Crown viewed it as such. They behaved as though its strictures were, if not sacrosanct, then at least possessed of a veneer of inviolability. While the outlines of its language and intent could be negotiated, contested, and occasionally circumnavigated, the text of the Second Charter mapped the essential political geography of the imperial relationship. When, in the Revolutionary crisis, England appeared to be unilaterally redrawing this map, the provincials had reason to reconsider their position in that geography.