Constitutional principles.—During the period from 1714 to 1740 the constitutional rights of the people in the colonies were defined more clearly than before. In 1720 the principle was established that the common law applied to the colonies as well as to England, but the question of whether English statute law extended to the colonies was not satisfactorily settled. The writ of habeas corpus was usually granted under the common law. Progress was also made toward gaining the freedom of the press. After a struggle in Massachusetts in 1721 the right of the governor to censor books was abridged. In 1735 Zenger, a New York publisher, was tried for libel. The court held that it should decide the libellous nature of the statements made, and that the jury should determine the fact of publication. Zenger's lawyer argued that the jury must decide on whether or not the publication was libellous. On this ground he won his suit, thereby greatly strengthening the power of the press.
Increasing power of assemblies.—English colonial policy does not appear to have aroused serious opposition. Each colony had its political parties, but no question arose which welded together any group of colonies, or of classes in various colonies. As in the earlier period there were frequent quarrels between the assemblies and the governors, control of finance being the most usual cause of friction. The governors demanded fixed salaries, while the assemblies insisted on making temporary grants. The assemblies also ignored the necessity of the governor's warrant in drawing money, and insisted that the councils should not amend money bills. In these controversies the governors were usually bested, and by the close of the Walpole régime, the principle was well defined that the assemblies should control the purse.
Paper money.—Closely allied to the question of control of taxation and the governor's salary was that regarding the issuance of paper money. A shortage of coin was usual, and the issuance of paper money was the remedy by which the assemblies and banks attempted to provide a medium of exchange. In general the governors opposed such issues as financially unsound, but their actions were frequently misunderstood and were considered tyrannous.
Friction between colonies.—The difficulties between the executives and the assemblies might have developed into a general opposition to English control had it not been for the quarrels between colonies over boundaries and trade laws. Boundaries were based upon charters, which in many cases were conflicting and almost every colony had chronic disputes with its neighbors. The trade laws of one colony frequently discriminated against its neighbors, the natural result being retaliatory legislation. The English government was often called in as umpire, but its decisions seldom met with the approval of both parties.
READINGS
Andrews, C.M., The Colonial Period, 128-154; Beer, G.L., "The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies," in Columbia University, Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, III, No. 2; Bingham, H., "Early History of the Scots Danen Company," in The Scottish Historical Review, January, April, July, 1906; Briscoe, N.A., "The Economic Policy of Robert Walpole," in Columbia University, Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, XXVII, No. 1; Channing, Edward, History of the United States, II, 217-281; Dickerson, O.M., American Colonial Government, 1697-1765; Egerton, H.E., A Short History of British Colonial Policy, 114-152; Greene, E.B., Provincial America, 166-207; The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North America; Root, W.T., The Relations of Pennsylvania with the British Government, 1696-1765; Pitman, Frank W., The Development of the British West Indies, 1700-1763, pp. 127-333.