The first of these charges is made by Chalmers,[[330]] whose situation, as chief clerk in the Plantation Office, in England, gave him access to original documents. He asserts, that at the meeting of the General Assembly, March 1, 1663–4, it was enacted, “that no freeman shall be imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or condemned, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the colony; that no tax shall be imposed or required of the colonists, but by the act of the General Assembly; that all men [professing Christianity] of competent estates, and of civil conversation, who acknowledge and are obedient to the civil magistrates, though of different judgments in religious affairs, [Roman Catholics only excepted] shall be admitted freemen, or may choose, or be chosen, colonial officers.”[[331]]
Such an act would, indeed, have been an anomaly in the legislation of Rhode-Island, and it has been alleged as an evidence of inconsistency in Roger Williams and the colony. The subject has, therefore, been examined with great care. The Hon. Samuel Eddy, for many years the Secretary of State in Rhode-Island, declares:[[332]] “I have formerly examined the records of the State, from its first settlement, with a view to historical information, and lately from 1663 to 1719, with a particular view to this law excluding Roman Catholics from the privileges of freemen, and can find nothing that has any reference to it, nor any thing that gives any preference or privileges to men of one set of religious opinions over those of another, until the revision of 1745.”
This testimony might, alone, be sufficient to disprove the allegation, though it is possible, that such an act might be passed, and not be recorded. But it is not probable, and when the uniform policy of the colony from the beginning, and other circumstances, are considered, it becomes morally certain, that no such act ever received the sanction of the Legislature of Rhode-Island.
That entire liberty was professed and maintained, from the commencement of the colony, is certain. It was one of the fundamental regulations in the respective towns, and when they were united, under the first charter, it was expressly enacted, that, while the civil laws should be obeyed, “all men may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God.”[[333]]
The second charter declared, that “no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be anywise molested, punished or disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion, in matters of religion, and do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony.”
It is utterly incredible, that the Assembly, while they were passing votes of thanks to the King for the charter, would enact a law in violation of his positive declaration in the instrument itself, and at variance with their previous policy and with all their institutions. An exclusion of Catholics, moreover, would not only have violated the charter, and thus offended the King, but the legislators of Rhode-Island had sufficient knowledge of Charles, to be aware, that nothing would be less acceptable to him than a law against the Catholics, for whom he endeavored to obtain toleration in England.
It may be added, that there were no Catholics in Rhode-Island, so late as 1695, according to Cotton Mather.[[334]] Mr. Eddy well remarks: “Why a law should be made to exclude from the privileges of freemen, those who were not inhabitants, by those who believed all to be equally entitled to their religious opinions, is difficult to conceive.”
At the next session, in May, 1664, the Assembly enacted, that, “at present this General Assembly judgeth it their duty to signify his Majesty’s gracious pleasure vouchsafed in these words to us, verbatim, (viz.)”—quoting the declaration from the charter which is cited above.
At the session in May, 1665, in answer to certain propositions of the King’s Commissioners, in which the King requires, that all the citizens shall enjoy equal civil and religious rights, without regard to their opinions, the Assembly say: “This Assembly do, with all gladness of heart, and humbleness of mind, acknowledge the great goodness of God and favor of his Majesty in that respect, declaring, that as it hath been a principle set forth and maintained in this colony, from the very beginning thereof, so it is much on their hearts to preserve the same liberty to all persons within this colony forever, as to the worship of God therein, taking care for the preservation of the civil government, to the doing of justice and preserving each other’s privileges from wrong and violence to others.”
Mr. Eddy accounts for the existence of the spurious words in the copy of the laws from which Mr. Chalmers quoted, by supposing, that they were inserted, without authority, at some period subsequent to 1719, by a revising committee, who might be desirous to please the government in England. Mr. Eddy says, in conclusion: “Thus you have positive and indubitable evidence, that the law excluding Roman Catholics from the privileges of freemen was not passed in 1663–4, but that they were by law, at this time, and long after, entitled to all the privileges of other citizens; and satisfactory evidence that these privileges were continued by law until 1719, when, or in one of the subsequent revisions, the words professing Christianity, and Roman Catholics only excepted, were inserted by the revising committee.”