afterwards the state broke in upon the broad and rational principles thus established, it was but a momentary deviation from the settled course of its policy.[1] At the present day, acting under this very charter, it continues to maintain religious freedom with all the sincerity and liberality and zeal, which belonged to its founder. It has been supposed, that in the laws passed by the general assembly first convened under this charter, (1664,) Roman Catholics were excluded from the privileges of freemen. But this has been very justly doubted; and indeed, if well founded, the act would deserve all the reproach, which has been heaped upon it.[2] The first laws, however, declared, that no freeman shall be imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, but by the judgment of his peers or the laws of the colony; and that no tax should be imposed or required of the colonists, but by the act of the general assembly.[3]
§ 99. It is said, that the general conduct of Rhode Island seems to have given entire satisfaction to Charles the Second during the residue of his reign.[4] Upon the accession of James, the inhabitants were among the first to offer their congratulations; and to ask protection for their chartered rights. That monarch however disregarded their request. They were accused of a violation of their charter, and a quo warranto was filed against them. They immediately resolved, without much hesitation, not to contend with the crown, but to surrender- ↑ 3 Hutch. Coll. 413, 415; 1 Chalm. Annals, 276, 284; 1 Holmes's Annals, 336.
- ↑ On this subject, see 1 Chalmers's Annals, 276, 284; and Doctor Holmes's valuable note to his Annals, vol. I. p. 336, and Id. p. 341; 3 Hutch. Coll. 413, 415; Walsh's Appeal, 429 to 435.
- ↑ 1 Chalm. Annals, 276; 1 Holmes's Annals, 336; R. Island Colony Laws, (1744,) p. 3.
- ↑ 1 Chalm. Annals, 278.
