1778 Massachusetts constitutional draft

[Nanwe]

"The legislative body of Massachusetts, known as the Massachusetts General Court, instead drafted its own version of a constitution and submitted it to the voters, who rejected it in 1778. That version did not provide for the separation of powers, nor did it include a statement of individual rights"

This is not so much an AHC nor a WI. I'm largely trying to find information on the 1778 draft for the Massachusetts constitution that failed to be approved by the state's population. However, the link provided for in Wikipedia does not work and so I was wondering if anyone might know where I could find it.

Also, because I wonder what the drafter of the wiki article means by lack of separation of powers? A parliamentary system?

 

[Dan1988]

Here's a better version of that link:
http://www.mass.gov/courts/court-info/sjc/edu-res-center/jn-adams/mass-constitution-1-gen.html

Apparently some of the insights into why that constitution was rejected would be in Theophilus Parsons' pamphlet The Essex Result - mainly because he was among the group of opponents known as the Essex Junto. However, I'm finding it difficult to get information on it online and some of what I can Google is politically charged one way or another. So make of that what you will.

EDIT: Here's one potential link:
https://books.google.com/books?id=YvAnAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA16&pg=PA14&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Nanwe]

So after quite some digging I found this:

The established system would have sort of a bicameral structure (but not quite) consisting of a lower chamber (the House of Representatives) in which each town would have one representative but the largest ones no more than 4 or 5, and the in between in proportion to their population, that it could not have less than 80 seats. It would be elected by direct universal (manhood obv.) suffrage and that the towns would be able to recall their representatives.

The Governor and Lieutenant-Governor were to be members of the Senate (which seems to have operated more like the OTL Governor's council than an actual upper house), the Governor being the Senate's president. The Senate would have 28 members (excluding the Governor and Lt. Governor) chosen by the House. The Governor had no veto powers and its executive action was shared with the Senate. The Governor, Lt. Governor and the Speaker (of the House?) had pardon powers. The Senate (as a body) had collectively the power to succeed the Governor and Lt. Governor in case both died or became unable to perform their duties.

Only Protestants could be Governors, Lt. Governors, Senators, Representatives or Judges.

 

[Dan1988]

Sounds about right. Also, keep in mind that the Governor's Council in Massachusetts (and the similar Executive Council in New Hampshire) were designed to be equivalent to the Privy Council in the UK, making the Cabinet similar in design - though Massachusetts has warped that over time with Executive Offices and the like alongside Cabinet departments (and often times Executive Offices running several Cabinet departments at once!).

 

[Tripwire]

It would be elected by direct universal (manhood obv.) suffrage and that the towns would be able to recall their representatives.

You never know, there was a brief period of time in the 1830s in New Jersey when unmarried women of sufficient property could vote in state elections, and some of them did. This loophole got closed when New Jersey passed a law eliminating its property requirements, though.

I believe the same was true in England prior to the Great Reform Act, but by convention none of the very, very few women who would have been qualified to vote (the property requirements being significantly higher than in NJ) ever actually did so.

 

[Nanwe]

Sounds about right. Also, keep in mind that the Governor's Council in Massachusetts (and the similar Executive Council in New Hampshire) were designed to be equivalent to the Privy Council in the UK, making the Cabinet similar in design - though Massachusetts has warped that over time with Executive Offices and the like alongside Cabinet departments (and often times Executive Offices running several Cabinet departments at once!).

Yeah, but looking at this particular proposal, it does seem that way, albeit I suppose future developments would be interesting to see. I imagine however that this constitution implies a parliamentary system with some kind of enlarged cabinet.

You never know, there was a brief period of time in the 1830s in New Jersey when unmarried women of sufficient property could vote in state elections, and some of them did. This loophole got closed when New Jersey passed a law eliminating its property requirements, though.

I believe the same was true in England prior to the Great Reform Act, but by convention none of the very, very few women who would have been qualified to vote (the property requirements being significantly higher than in NJ) ever actually did so.

True. But no idea, since I couldn't actually find the original text.