The laws of the colony enacted by the authority of the Charter are decent in comparison with the Blue Laws. They make one thin volume in folio. Yet exceptions may justly be made to many of them—equal liberty is not given to all parties—taxes are unfairly laid—the poor are oppressed.—One law is intolerable, viz. When a trespass is committed in the night, the injured person may recover damages of any-one he shall think proper to accuse, unless the accused can prove an alibi, or will clear himself by an oath; which oath, nevertheless, it is at the option of the justice either to administer or refuse. Queen Ann repealed the cruel laws respecting Quakers, Ranters, and Adamites; but the General Assembly, notwithstanding, continued the same in their law-book, maintaining that a law made in Connecticut could not be repealed by any authority but their own. It is a ruled case with them that no law or statute of England be in force in Connecticut till formally passed by the General Assembly and recorded by the Secretary.[25] Above 30 years ago, a negro castrated his master’s son, and was brought to trial for it before the Superior Court at Hertford. The Court could find
no law to punish the negro. The lawyers quoted the English statute against maiming; the Court were of opinion that statute did not reach this colony, because it had not been passed in the General Assembly; and therefore were about to remand the negro to prison till the General Assembly should meet. But an ex-post-facto law was objected to as an infringement upon civil liberty. At length, however, the Court were released from their difficulty by having recourse to the vote of the first settlers at Newhaven, viz. That the Bible should be their law till they could make others more suitable to their circumstances. The court were of opinion that vote was in full force, as it had not been revoked; and thereupon tried the negro upon the Jewish law, viz. Eye for Eye, and Tooth for Tooth. He suffered accordingly.
The idea fostered by the colony of independence on Great Britain was not, as might be imagined, destroyed by the royal charter, but, on the contrary, was
renewed and invigorated by it. Indeed, the charter is as much in favour of Connecticut, and unfavourable to England, as if it had been drawn up in Boston or Newhaven. Had it been granted jointly by the King, Lords, and Commons, and not by the King solus, no one could dispute the independence of Connecticut on England, any more than they could that of Holland on Spain. The people at large did not discriminate between an act of the King solus and an act of the King, Lords, and Commons, conjointly; and, to prevent any-one from shewing the difference, the General Assembly made a law that “whoever should attempt to destroy the constitution of this Colony as by charter established, should suffer death.” The power of a British King was held up by them much higher than the constitution allowed. The King had authority, they said, to form palatinate states without consent of Parliament. Accustomed to doctrines of this tendency, the multitude concluded the General Assembly of Connecticut to be equal to the British Parliament.
Notions of this kind did not prevail in Connecticut alone; Massachusets-Bay still more abounded with them, and Rhode Island was not uninfected. What was the consequence? Complaints against those governments poured into the British court. A reformation, therefore, became indispensable in New-England, and was begun by a disfranchisement of the Massachusets province. The death of Charles II. put a temporary stop to proceedings against the other colonies; but James II. soon found it expedient to renew them. In July, 1685, the following instances of mal-administration were formally exhibited against the Governor and
Company of Connecticut, viz., “They have made laws contrary to the laws of England:—they impose fines upon the inhabitants, and convert them to their own use:—they enforce an oath of fidelity upon the inhabitants without administering the oath of supremacy and allegiance, as in their charter is directed:—they deny to the inhabitants the exercise of the religion of the church of England, arbitrarily fining those who refuse to come to their congregational Assemblies:—his Majesty’s subjects inhabiting there cannot obtain justice in the courts of that colony:—they discourage and exclude the government all gentlemen of known loyalty, and keep it in the hands of the independent party in the colony.” (New-Eng. Ent. vol. II. p. 241.) In consequence of this impeachment, James II. ordered a Quo Warranto to be issued against the Charter of Connecticut. The People perceived the King was in earnest; and their alarm manifested itself in humble sollicitations for favour: but, it being thought adviseable, on several accounts, particularly the extensive progress the French were making in Canada, to appoint one general Governor over New-England, the submissive applications of the Connecticut colonists could no further be regarded than in allowing them their choice, whether to be annexed to New-York or the Massachusets. They preferred the latter; and, accordingly, Sir Edmund Andros having been appointed Captain-general over all New-England, the charter of Connecticut was surrendered to him. It is very remarkable that Mr. Neal, Hutchinson, and other historians of New-England, have artfully passed over in silence this transaction of the surrender of Connecticut
Charter to Sir Edmund Andros, the General Governor over New-England. They have represented the magistrates of Connecticut as not having resigned their charter, but by an erroneous construction put on their humble supplication to James II. by the Court of London; whereas the fact is, they resigned it, in propria forma, into the hands of Sir Edmund Andros, at Hertford, in October, 1687, and were annexed to the Massachusets-Bay colony, in preference to New-York, according to royal promise and their own petition.[26] But
the very night of the surrender of it, Samuel Wadsworth, of Hertford, with the assistance of a mob, violently broke into the apartments of Sir Edmund, regained, carried off, and hid the charter in the hollow of an elm; and, in 1689, news arriving of an insurrection and overthrow of Andros at Boston, Robert Treat, who had been elected in 1687, was declared by the mob still to be Governor of Connecticut. He daringly summoned
his old Assembly, who, being convened, voted the charter to be valid in law, and that it could not be vacated by any power without the consent of the General-Assembly[27] They then voted that Samuel Wadsworth should bring forth the charter; which he did in a solemn
procession, attended by the High-sheriff, and delivered it to the Governor. The General Assembly voted their thanks to Wadsworth, and twenty shillings as a reward for stealing and hiding their charter in the elm. Thus Connecticut started from a dependent county