History
Colonial Assemblies
Colonial assemblies were legislative bodies established in the American colonies during the 17th and 18th centuries. They were responsible for making laws, levying taxes, and overseeing local governance. These assemblies played a significant role in shaping the political and social landscape of the colonies, and were often a focal point for debates and conflicts with colonial governors and the British Crown.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
3 Key excerpts on "Colonial Assemblies"
- William J. Bulman(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
The Commons admitted private inter- est in its proceedings only when considering private bills. As noted earlier, these bills could easily be subject to divisions without adverse consequences. There is reason to think that analogous decisions in the companies would be made in a similar manner. It is also important to appreciate the Colonial Assemblies from the opposite angle, by considering the extent to which these assemblies did not initially exhibit the institutional elements that in the first place accounted for the consensualism of the pre-revolutionary English House of Commons. When colonial popular assemblies, whether cor- porate or proprietary in nature, became representative assemblies, they often did so for practical, not principled reasons. This tended to encour- age a delegatory understanding of representation, in stark contrast to the discretionary norms that prevailed in Parliament. In these Colonial Assemblies the represented tended to bind their representatives – whom they often meaningfully called “deputies” – to fixed positions. To the extent that this delegatory conception of representation prevailed, it prevented the emergence of consensus in Colonial Assemblies when that consensus did not already exist prior to the onset of deliberations. Second, it is important to appreciate the specific sense in which colo- nial assemblies were bodies politic, and why the colonies of which they were a part were sometimes referred to as “states.” While the assemblies were in many ways public, self-governing, and representative organiza- tions deeply concerned about their status, they did not represent a fully autonomous and sovereign entity connected to the entirety of a nation or country, as Parliament (monarch, Lords, and Commons) did. Every Little Parliaments in the Atlantic Colonies, 1613–1789 209 colonial assembly ultimately enjoyed its existence and authority at the pleasure of the monarch.
eBook - PDF- Randall M. Miller, Theodore J. Zeman, Francis J. Sicius, Jolyon P. Girard(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- Greenwood(Publisher)
. . . For the well governing of this Province and Territories, there shall be an Assembly yearly chosen, by the freemen thereof, to consist of four persons out of each county, of most note for virtue, wisdom and ability, . . . which Assembly shall have power to choose a Speaker and other officers; . . . prepare Bills in order to pass into Laws, impeach crimi- nals, and redress grievances; and shall have all other powers and privileges of an Assembly, according to the rights of the free-born subjects of England. Source: Francis Newton Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws . . . (Washington, DC, 1909), V:3076–81. Political Life 181 The Glorious Revolution, Thoughts on Monarchy, and the Rights of the Assembly 6. A Memorial on Leisler’s Rebellion in New York (1689) The Glorious Revolution in England set off rebellions against arbitrary authority in the colo- nies, especially in those places where King James II had tried to assert more direct crown con- trol by reorganizing colonial governments. His program included limiting the place and power of colonial legislatures; the revocation of the Massachusetts Bay Colony charter, which had given it virtual autonomy; more taxes and regulation of trade; protecting Indians; and other measures that undercut or threatened local political, social, and religious authority and prac- tices. There were many grievances, and popular uprisings broke out in Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland, especially, seeking to unseat the favorites and representatives of King James II after his removal as king. Local conditions varied, but the New York experience mir- rored events in other colonies in that political elites led the protests and wanted to restore the assembly, which had been suppressed during the reorganization of the colonial government under James II.
eBook - PDFPower Play
The Bush Presidency and the Constitution
- James P. Pfiffner(Author)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- Brookings Institution Press(Publisher)
But over the decades, as the local assemblies gradually gained power, they began to take some of that governmental power away from the royal gover-nors, gradually acquiring legislative and judicial powers. 4 The range of the powers of royal governors included an absolute veto over measures of the locally elected assemblies, the authority to appoint and dismiss judges and other officers of the government, the authority to grant pardons, and the ability to convene, dismiss, or dissolve the legisla-tive bodies entirely. The main, effective powers that the assemblies exer-cised—similar to the powers of Parliament in previous centuries—were those concerning revenue, taxation, and appropriation of funds. Like the parliaments of England over the previous several centuries, the power of the purse constituted a significant, though not always efficacious, tool for the assertion of power independent of the crown. Royal governors had to depend on their assemblies for funds because Parliament did not sub-sidize the governors from the royal treasury; it granted them authority, but the governors were required to raise their own funds from their colonies. Thus by skillful exercise of their control of the purse, over the years, assemblies gained increasing control over the royal governors. 5 Technically, the legitimacy of the governments of the colonies depended upon royal grants or charters. But the colonists began to see their elected assemblies and control of taxes as part of their own rights as Englishmen and not dependent on the acquiescence of the king, Par-liament, or the royal governors. By 1748 the colonial legislatures had gained control over most of the governmental powers formerly exercised exclusively by the royal governors. They came to see the edicts of Parlia-ment, such as the Stamp Act (1765) and the Townsend Duties (1767), as acts of oppression from a Parliament across the ocean in which they had no representation.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
