Full text of "Colonial self-government, 1652-1689"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

r^'vr*lliti?*.j«h.

THE AMERICAN NATION : A HISTORY

VOLUUB S

COLONIAL
SELF-GOVERNMENT

1652-1689

CHARLES McLEAN ANDREWS. Ph.D.

NEW YORK AND LONDON

HARPER «5f BROTHERS PUBLISHERS

1904

Publiihcd Navmbcr, i^d

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAOB

Editor's Introduction xiii

Author's Prbfacb xvii

i/ 1. Navigation Acts and Colonial Trade

(1651-1672) 3

Ui* English Administration of the Colonies

(1660-1689) ,22_

III. Reorganization of New England -(1660-

1662) 41

nr. Territorial Adjustment in New England

(1662-1668) 57 {

V. New Amsterdam becomes New York (165^- | \

1672) 74 '^ *^

VL The Province of New York (1674-1686) . 90

* VII. Foundation of the Jerseys (1660-1677), . loi
^'viii. Development of the Jerseys (1674-1689) . 113

• rx. Foundation of the Carolinas (1663-1671) . 129
X. Governmental Problems in the Carolinas

(1671-1691) 145

xj. Foundation of Pennsylvania (1680-1691) . 162
XII. Governmental Problems in Pennsylvania

(1681-1696) 185

i xiii. Development of Virginia (1652-1675) . . 202

;

^^^^^

xii CONTENTS

CBAy. PAGE

• XIV. Bacon's Rbbbllion and its Results (1675-

1689) 215

•XV. Dbvblopmbnt OP Maryland (1649-^1686). . 232

XVI. DiFFICULTIBS IN NbW ENGLAND (1675-1686) 252

XVII. Thb Revolution in America (1687-1691) 273

XVIII. Social and Religious Life in the Colonies

(1652-1689) 288

XIX. Commercial and Economic Conditions in

THE Colonies (1652-1689) 314

XX. Critical Essay on Authorities .... 337
Inde? 355

MAPS
Extent of Settlement (1652) (in colors) . facing 41
Colonial Grants and Boundaries (1612-1681). . 112

Virginia and the Carolinas (1689) 204

Pennsylvania, West New Jersey, Delaware, and

Maryland (1689) (*♦* colors) facing 255

New England, New York, and East New

Jersey (1689) (in colors) " 273

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

IN the history of the English colonies there comes
a natural break at the point where the original
system of charter colonies directed from England
was thrown into confusion by the disruption of
the English monarchy. The year 1652 marks this
change, for in that year the southern colonies yielded
to a parliamentary fleet ; and soon after began a hos-
tile feeling towards the Dutch, which ended ten
years later in the annexation of their American pos-
sessions. It is at 1652, therefore, that Tyler's Eng-
land in America ends and this volume begins.

The period is further characterized by the develop-
ment of a new colonial system, which for a century
and a quarter was consistently followed by the Eng-
lish government ; hence chapters i. and ii. are devoted
to a study of the navigation acts and of the ad-
ministrative councils to which eventually the name
Lords of Trade was applied. Upon both subjects
Professor Andrews has found new material and ex-
poimds new views. The neglected problem of the
execution of the acts of trade has been fairly faced,
and by delving in manuscript records Professor An-
drews has, for the first time, been able to disen-

• • •

xiv EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

tangle the early council of trade and council of
foreign plantations.

Chapters iii. and iv. describe the territorial and
political readjustment in New England, and throw
new light on the charters of Connecticut and Rhode
Island and the first movement against the Massa-
chusetts charter, subjects which heretofore have been
involved in much confusion. Closely connected
with the status of New England are the annexation
and organization of the new colony of New York
(chapters v. and vi.) ; and this volume solves some of
the most perplexing problems as to the motives for
the conquest and the status of the Duke's Laws.

Chapters vii. to x. deal with the foundation and
development of the Jerseys and the Carolinas. Here
the English archives have jrielded rich material on
the underlying motives for these simxiltaneous colo-
nies, on the personal influences behind them, and on
the perplexing questions of territorial claims and
transfers. New Jersey has always been a specially
difficult subject; but Professor Andrews disentan-
gles the various threads of proprietary, Qtiaker, and
Puritan settlements. In the Jerseys and the Caro-
linas appear the Concessions, which were a sort of
popular constitution bestowed by the proprietor ; and
in the Carolinas there is opportunity for the dis-
cussion of John Locke's celebrated Grand Model, an
example to succeeding generations of what a colonial
constitution could not be.

On the beginnings of Pennsylvania, the same care-

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION xv

fill investigation of out-of-the-way sources, both
printed and manuscript (chapters xi. and xii.), has
given to Professor Andrews control over the difficult
subject of the circumstances of Penn's grant and his
efforts to establish a free government in a prosperous
colony. The place of Pennsylvania is made clear,
as the seat of German and other foreign immigration,
the first on any considerable scale.

In chapters xiii. to xv. the author takes up the
account of Virginia and Maryland where Tyler left it
oS in the preceding voltmie ; but, besides his lucid ac-
coimt of the conunercial and political development
of the two colonies, he has a fine field for treating a
dramatic episode in his accotmt of Bacon's Rebel-
lion.

This period of disttu^bance in the South was also a
period of unrest and contentions in New England;
and in chapters xvi. and xvii. Professor Andrews
depicts Sir Edmund Andros, the representative of a
purpose to make one colony out of the whole New
England group, together with New York and New
Jersey.

The voltune is concluded by two chapters describ-
ing the social and economic conditions of the colo-
nies about 1689, especially interesting as showing
the wide conmiercial relations of New England and
the middle colonies.

The most commanding figure of this period is
William Penn, at the same time a great English-
man and a great American, whose portrait is pre-

xvi EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

fixed to this volume. An unusual opportunity to use
unpublished records has been improved, so that the
foot-notes to this volume are very full and explicit ;
and in the bibliographical essay the most signifi-
cant of the secondary and primary materials on each
colony are selected.

The importance of the volume in the American
Nation series is that it includes colonies of the three
tjrpes which persisted down to the Revolution — the
crown colonies of Virginia and New York and New
Hampshire ; the proprietary colonies in the Jerseys,
Pennsylvania and Delaware, Maryland, and the
Carolinas ; and the three New England charter colo-
nies, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
On one side the volume emphasizes the variety of
conditions and experiments in government. On
the other side it brings out that characteristic which
gives the volume its name, the steady determina-
tion of the colonists in all three types of colony to
enjoy self-government in internal affairs. This per-
sistent and unquenchable determination made the
English colonies of that time different from all other
colonies in the world. In vain did the English gov-
ernment set up a system of commercial restriction ;
the colonies evaded or ignored it. In vain did the
English government, through Andros and through
the cotirts, seek to annul the charters of New Eng-
land; by passive resistance and by active protest
the colonists reasserted their privilege of discussion
and of legislation.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

THE period of colonial history dealt with in this
volume presents certain well-defined charac-
teristics. By 1650 each community had settled its
government along democratic lines — that is, had
put into practice the principles of manhood suffrage,
proportional representation, and the co-operation
of the people in legislation. The direction that
government was to take in America was already
definitely determined.

Yet dtiring the period of this volume, 165 2-1 689,
conditions in England underwent a great change.
Constitutional monarchy was definitely established ;
national life quickened; new interests, fostered by
men who had gained experience in trade and com-
merce under Cromwell, supplanted the old ; and an
era essentially modem began. Enthusiasm spread
for whatever would strengthen commerce and ex-
tend the revenue; the plantations assxuned a place
undreamed of before.

Such interest in the colonies took the form of the
navigation acts; the fotmding of new colonies; the
establishment of Privy Council committees, and of
separate but subordinate boards and cotmcils for

xvii

xviii AUTHOR'S PREFACE

trade and plantations ; the regulation of the planta-
tion revenue and the appointment of new revenue
officials both in England and in America; the de-
spatch of special commissioners to New England in
1664, and of Randolph in 1675; the ordering of
troops to Virginia and New York ; and, finally, the
attempt to unite the northern colonies more closely
to the crown, which centred in the mission and gov-
ernment of Andros.

In consequence of this attempt to formulate and
put in force a system of colonial management, trouble
inevitably arose between the people and the royal
and proprietary governors in New York and the
southern colonies; and between New England and
the crown. With a government in England en-
deavoring to shape a definite programme of control,
and a king on the throne who had no patience with
the colonial demand for English liberties, it is lit-
tle wonder that the era culminated in a series of
exciting and dramatic episodes.

A part of the labor of investigation for this vol-
tmie has been borne by two of my students, Miss G.
Albert, who has aided me both in England and
America, and Miss H. H. Hodge, who has helped me
with the history of the Massachusetts Bay colony.
I have also had the advantage of seeing Miss Kel-
logg's essay on The American Colonial Charter.

Charles M. Andrews.

COLONIAL
SELF-GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER I

NAVIGATION ACTS AND COLONIAL TRADE

(1651-1672)

BY the middle of the seventeenth century the
first period of colonization had come to an end,
and the English settlers were scattered in isolated
communities all the way from the far-lying fishing
villages of the Maine and New Hampshire coasts to
western Long Island, where a few towns accepted
the jurisdiction of the government of New Nether-
land. Separated by a wide space from their fellow-
countrymen of the north were the colonists of Mary-
land and Virginia, who occupied a coast low-lying
and deeply indented with wide river-mouths. In
1650 all these settlements contained something more
than forty thousand people, of whom about twenty-
five thotisand were New-Englanders.

Between the settlements of the north and south
lay a wide stretch of coast, practically uninhabited,

4 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1655

except by the Dutch on the Hudson and the islands
adjoining, and by the Swedes at Fort Christina
(Wilmington), New Gtottenburg, and New Elfsborg,
who laid claim to the territory from the Schuylkill
to Bombay Hook for a Swedish colony in America.
Traders from New Haven also sought opportimities
for business on the lower Delaware, but met with
such opposition from both Dutch and Swedes that
they were compelled to withdraw. With the ap-
proach of the mid-year of the century began the
struggle for supremacy between the Dutch and the
Swedes. Five years later (1655) the Swedish colony,
unable to obtain support from the home govern-
ment, surrendered; and henceforth the region from
the Hudson to the Chesapeake was claimed by the
Dutch, and, at a few points, occupied by Swedish
and Dutch farmers and traders.

During the early years of colonization the ma-
chinery for controlling the colonies was little de-
veloped. In 1622, King James I. appointed a com-
mittee of the coimcil to dontrol navigation and trade ;
and later Charles I. did the same. After 1643 the
Long Parliament took control and appointed a com-
mission of prominent parliamentarians, headed by
Robert, earl of Warwick, as govemor-in-chief of all
the colonies in America.

After the execution of Charles I. in 1649, Parlia-
ment directed the colonies to maintain their existing
governments, and in 1651 despatched a fleet to
Barbadoes, and a commission to Virginia and

i66o] NAVIGATION ACTS 5

Maryland, to reduce those provinces to their due
obedience to the Commonwealth of England/

About the same time the control of the colonies
was placed in the hands of the Council of State,
one of whose committees formed a council of trade,
which met at Whitehall and for a few years trans-
acted business. References to its meetings still
exist. But in 1655 a separate board was establish-
ed, consisting of six lords of the council, seven chief
judges, ten gentlemen of distinction, and about
twenty officials and merchants of leading seaport
towns. This body, the precursor of the councils of
the Restoration and the first Board of Trade prop-
erly so called, was authorized to consider " all ways
and means for advancing, encouraging, and reg-
ulating the trade and navigation of the Common-
wealth." It sat in the Star Chamber at West-
minster, and was responsible for a number of the
ordinances issued by the Protector and Council of
State for the promotion of commerce.'

During the Commonwealth came the beginning '>>
also of that far-reaching system of control of co-
lonial commerce to which the names "Navigation
Acts," "Acts of Trade," and "Colonial System"
have been applied indifferently. Although, from
the point of view of English state policy, the English

• Schombiirgk, Hist, of Barbadoes, 268-285; Thurloe, State
Papers, I., 197.

' Thurloe, State Papers, IV., 177; British Museiun, Additional
MSS., 12438, iii., f. 17.

6 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1660

colonies in America enjoyed a large degree of self-
government, they were not legally independent, but
formed a part of a colonial empire founded and
maintained for the glory and interest of the mother-
cotmtry. Like France, Spain, and Holland, Eng-
land was confronted with a situation that was new
in her history, and was called upon to perform a
task for which she had no precedent. It is hardly
' to be wondered at that, during the great crises of
revolution through which England passed in the
seventeenth century, English statesmen should have
failed to formulate any uniform or consistent plan
of colonial management or to have grasped the
\ significance of a colonial empire. It is, however, a
• fact of equal interest, that from the days of the Long
Parliament to the reign of William III. the colonial
and commercial policy, such as it was, suffered
fewer changes than did any other department of
national administration. Even Charles II. was
obliged to carry out the commercial schemes of
Cromwell, because they were in accord with the
needs and interests of the English people.

Inasmuch as the discovery and development of
the New World had been due to the rise of national
states like Portugal, Spain, France, and England,
it naturally followed that in governing the colonies
of the newly discovered continent these states should
adopt a policy national in character — that is, one
having as its main object the strengthening of the
state. This policy was based, not on any theory.

i66o] NAVIGATION ACTS 7

but on the needs of states which were outgrowing
their mediaeval Uf e and were raising the interests of
the king and central government — that is, of the
whole nation — above those of the towns and
boroughs. A larger life had come into being; and
as states began to compete with states in the field
of commerce and colonization, England became in a
new sense the rival of Spain, France, and Holland.
To meet the new situation, each state desired to
become the absolute mistress of all its resources, and
to prevent rivals from sharing in any of the advan-
tages it possessed. Out of this international com-
petition a doctrine of national expediency took
shape during the seventeenth century, to which has
been given the name of '* Mercantile System."

The underiying ptapose of this doctrine was the
strengthening and preserving of the state, into
whose hands had now come the control of industry,
trade, and commerce. To the statesmen of the ^
seventeenth century the welfare of corporation and ,
individual was of secondary importance as com- J
pared with the welfare of the state. A strong state
demanded a full treasury, a large population, and
an efficient navy and merchant marine. To these
ends, each state sought to increase its available
wealth by monopolizing specie wherever fotmd; by
fostering trade for the sake of increasing the customs
revenues; and by creating a favorable balance of
trade, so that exports, which brought coin into the
realm, might exceed imports, bought from other

8 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1660

countries with money, and hence draining coin out
of the kingdom. _.

That it might have a large stock of available
goods for export, each state imported, as far as
possible, only raw materials, which it could work up
at home ; and England in particular encouraged the
immigration of foreign workmen, not only on the
ground of efficiency, but also of fashion ; for French
patterns and styles had such popularity at the court
of Charles II. as to disconcert the advocates of the
mercantile policy.* Furthermore, each state en-
couraged agriculture, that the supply of men might
be sufficient for the army and navy ; and each labored
with exceptional zeal to extend shipping, by en-
couraging such subsidiary interests as fishing and
ship-building, and by arranging treaties with coun-
tries that controlled the supply of "naval stores" —
that is, raw materials, such as timber, tar, pitch,
hemp, and flax, which were needed for the equip-
ment of the navy and the commercial marine.

The colonial policy of all Europe was shaped by the
principles thus laid down. Colonies were valued
only so far as they contributed to the strength and
wealth of the mother-state; and for more than a
century their number was increased, not only for the
purpose of extending the territory and prestige of
the state, but of enlarging its resources also. The in-
dustry of the colonies was confined to raw materials,
not from any desire to curtail the activities of the

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, I., 84-90.

i66ol NAVIGATION ACTS 9

colonies, but in order that the state might obtain
from its own colonies, in return for manufactured
goods, those supplies which must otherwise be bought
from rival states. The trade of the colonies was
restricted to the home market, for the double pur-
pose of preventing other states from sharing in
its advantages and of swelling the revenue from
customs.

Thus the colonies were subordinated, as were in-
dividuals and mtmicipalities at home, to the one
great end of increasing the power and wealth of the
state. To the statesmen of the seventeenth century,
colonies were valuable only so far as they extended
trade and offered a market for English manufactured
goods, furnished naval supplies and other raw
materials, opened up mines of precious metals, em-
ployed English ships in the fisheries and carrying-
trade, and added to the king's revenue for the ex-
penses of the kingdom by paying duties on the
commodities which they sent to England. Colonial
self-government and colonial administration were
considered of importance only so far as they affected
the efficiency and productiveness of the colonies,
and made them more useful to the home govern-
ment.

Nor were Englishmen of this period without a
precedent for this policy of protection. In the
reign of Richard II., long before the era of coloniza-
tion, a law was passed restricting imports and ex-
ports to ships owing allegiance to the crown of

lo COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1644

England; a statute of Henry VIII. estabKshed a
second principle, that such a vessel must be English-
built and a majority of the sailors must be Eng-
lish-bom ; legislation of Elizabeth's reign also dealt
with this question, and, according to contempo-
rary opinion, caused a large increase of merchant
shipping. Soon after actual settlements had been
made in America a distinct colonial policy began
to develop. In 1624 a proclamation was issued,
followed at a later date by orders in cotmcil, prohibit-
ing the use of foreign bottoms for the carriage of
Virginia tobacco; and in 1641 a number of English
merchants urged that these rules be embodied in
an act of Parliament. The Long Parliament, in
1644, with the double purpose of conciliating the
colonies and encouraging English shipping, forbade
the shipment of whale-oil, fins, and gills, except in
English-built ships; prohibited the importation of
wine, wool, and silk from France; and enacted that
no export duty be levied on goods intended for the
colonies, provided they were forwarded in English
vessels.

It was necessary that England should be on the
alert in these matters, for the Dutch had for forty
years been gaining control of the carrying-trade of
the world. These rivals were not only a maritime
people; they built vessels more rapidly and more
cheaply than their neighbors, because they knew
how to gather their materials at the point where
they were to be used ; or because, as an English critic

i6si] NAVIGATION ACTS ii

said, "they knew how to congregate at one point
all the subservient trades that concur towards the
fabrick of a ship."* The low customs duties in
Holland also cheapened ship-building, facilitated
business, and enabled the Dutch to have more ships
^ than the English, and to charge lower freight rates
than any other maritime state in Europe could
afford to do. To break this monopoly was Eng-
land's object ; and to raise his country to a position
of leadership in the commercial world was one of
the greatest ambitions of Cromwell.

The first so-called ** Navigation Act" was an
ordinance of 1651. Qontemporaries ascribed the
act to the influence of the lord chief-justice, Oliver
St. John, who had been sent as an ambassador to
negotiate a treaty with the Dutch. According to
Ludlow, St. John, angry because of the failure of
the negotiations, prevailed with the council to move
Parliament to pass the act.' Clarendon, while
acknowledging the influence of St. John, believed
that the passage of the measure was in the main
due to Cromwell, who wished to provoke war with
the Dutch in order to avoid disbanding the army.'
From the tone employed by Parliament towards
the Dutch ambassadors who were sent to expostulate
against this act, there can be little doubt but that

* Downing, in journal of the Lords of Trade, I., 91.

' Ludlow, Memoirs (ed. 1698), 345, 346; Cobbett, HisU of Par-
liameta. III., 1363; Clarendon, Hist, of the Rebellion (ed. 1888),
v., 251, 25a.

■ Clarendon, Hist, of the Rebellion, V., 260.

12 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1651

both the Parliament and the people of England were
in sympathy with the measure.

The act of 1651 declared that only those ships
of which the owner, the captain, and the majority
of sailors were Englishmen or colonials had the
right to carry on : (i) the trade between England and
her colonies; (2) the coasting trade, whether between
English or between colonial ports ; and (3) the foreign
trade of England so far as it concerned the planta-
tions. The only exception to this act was the
permission given to other nations to bring the
products and commodities of their own country in
their own ships, an exception which did not lessen
the severity of the blow to Holland, inasmuch as
that country had relatively few manufactures of
her own, except woollens. But the exception made
the operation of the act less injurious to such
countries as France and Spain, with whom England
had important trade relations. In forbidding the
Dutch to carry any goods from the English colonies
to England or her dominions, England indirectly
deprived them of the lucrative privilege of storing
such goods in their own warehouses before shipping
them to England, and so destroyed an important
source of their wealth.

Had the enforcing of the act been as skilful as the
draughting, it would have ruined the United Prov-
inces; but the Dutch colony on the Hudson River
enabled them to evadie the aict in America with
little difficulty. When war broke out in 1652 be-

i6s4] NAVIGATION ACTS 13

tween England and Holland, Cromwell sent an ex-
pedition commanded by Major Robert Sedgwick to
New England to demand aid of the colonies and
to overthrow New Netherland. Sedgwick obeyed
his orders, and with a force of nine hundred men
and a troop of horse prepared to advance from
Boston upon New Amsterdam; but before the
expedition could start, peace was made between
England and Holland (1654) and the attempt was
given up.*

Though for the moment Massachusetts, Connecti-
cut, and Rhode Island prohibited the export of
provisions to the Dutch or French in i^erica;
and though Virginia, ostensibly possessing the
right of free-trade by the terms of her surrender
to Parliament in 1652, was compelled to see, in
some cases at least, the act of 1651 enforced, little
more was done; and after 1654 the old conditions
were in the main re-established. Rhode Island re-
sumed her trade with the Dutch; New England
traders, as well as the Virginians themselves, car-
ried Virginia tobacco to New Amsterdam and there
reshipped it to Holland ;' and free-trade was in full
operation in Massachusetts.' '

The restoration of the Stuarts in 1660 marks an
epoch in the history of the colonies and of colonial

^ Cal, of State Pap., Col., 1574-1660, pp. 386, 387; Thurloe,
State Papers, I., 722; XL, 418, 419, 425, 583.

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 48; Thurloe, State Papers,
v., 80. 81. •

* Hutchinson, Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, I., 189.

14 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1660

administration. Royalists in exile, like Prince
Charles and the dtike of York, Clarendon, Carteret,
Berkeley, Craven, and others, who were watching
the course of events, appreciated the importance of
the navigation act, and were prepared to re-enact
the greater part of it. Parliamentarians like Ashley
Cooper, Monck, Colleton, Noell, Povey, Digges, and
others, some of whom had been resident in the colo-
nies or had sat on special colonial boards and com-
missions at home, were ready to serve the new
government and to uphold a vigorous colonial
policy.

Inmiediately after the Restoration the ordinance
of 1651 was renewed in what is known as the ** Navi-
gation Act of 1660." The passage of this statute
has been ascribed to Sir George Downing, graduate
of Harvard College, English resident at The Hague
for many years, and one of the most influential,
though not one of the most trustworthy, advisers in
matters of trading policy. Downing, an enemy of
the Dutch and an ardent mercantilist, threw all his
weight in favor of the measure; but many other
forces were at work also. The encouragement of
trade was a cardinal tenet of the king and his
ministers throughout the entire reign ; and Clarendon
fully appreciated the importance of the plantations,
as well as of the fisheries and of the great trading
companies, as a means of increasing the revenue.
He urged upon the king, both in exile and after
his return, ** a great esteem for his plantations and

i66o] NAVIGATION ACTS 15

the improvement of them by all the ways that could
reasonably be proposed to him."* He urged upon
Parliament in 1660 the "infinite importance of the
improvement of trade," and whenever possible
sought to demonstrate to king and Parliament the
desirability of extending the navy in order to check
the "inmioderate desire" of England's neighbors
and rivals **to engross the whole traffic of the
universe."'

The merchants, too, who had gained their ex-
perience under the protectorate, '* lamented the
obstructions and discouragements which they had
long fotmd in their commerce by sea with other
nations," due, they said, to "the pride and in-
solence of the Hollanders," and were eager to
destroy the supremacy of Holland.* When the
speaker of the House of Commons presented the bill
to the king to sign, he said: "The act will enable
your Majesty to give the law to foreign princes
abroad, and is the only way to enlarge your Majesty's
dominions all over the world; for as long as your
Majesty is master at sea, your merchants will be
welcome wherever they come, and that is the easiest
way of making whatever is theirs ours, and where it
is ours, your Majesty cannot want it."*

The king was "upon all occasions very zealous to

* Life of Clarendon, written by himself (ed. 1798), V., 171.
*Cobbett, Hist, of Parliament, IV., 128, 250.

* Life of Clarendon, written by himself (ed. 1798), III., 201.

* Cobbett, Hist, of Parliament, III., 121, 122; cf. Journal of
fjbr House of Commons, VIII., 548.

i6 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1661

increase the trade of the nation,"* and was taught
by Clarendon that the receipts from the plantation
trade could repair some of the deficiencies of his in-
come. It is significant that in 1661 a new royal
officer was created — the receiver-general of the rev-
enues of foreign plantations — ^with Thomas Povey
as the first appointee.' Parliament, while making
grants for the expenses of the government, as-
sumed no responsibility for the actual collecting of
the money, and the emptiness of the treasury in
1672, known as the '*Stop of the Exchequer,"
showed that an increase of the revenue was a royal
necessity.

For this purpose Charles II. encouraged the
plantations and added to their number; he labored
to improve the Newfotmdland trade and fisheries;*
he made treaties with Portugal, yielding to certain
unsatisfactory conditions **for trade's sake";* and
in negotiating with Savoy, Denmark, Spain, France,
and Holland, he kept trade advantages always first
in mind.* He turned into the treasury the dowry
received from Catherine of Braganza (;£5oo,ooo),
and the money received from the sale of Dunkirk
(£225,000), and he borrowed from private individ-
uals as well as from the farmers of the customs and
the goldsmiths in order to meet current expenses,

* Historical MSS. Commission, Report, XII., pt. vii., 7a.
*Cal, of State Pap., Dom., 1663-1664, ( 408.

* Historical MSS. Commission, Report, XII., pt. vii., 1x7.
*Cobbett, Hist, of Parliament, IV., 189.

•/Wa., IV.,4S7,4S8.

i663] NAVIGATION ACTS 17

partictilarly after the disasters of the Dutch war of
1664-1666,* The king's interest in his revenues, as
well as the demands of commerce and trade, the
nation's jealousy of Holland, and the influence of
men like Clarendon and Downing, must be taken
into accotmt if we would tmderstand the navigation
acts, the founding of new colonies, the establishment
of new boards and committees, and the quo warranto
proceedings to annul colonial charters between 1660
and 1688. The colonies were the king's colonies,
and his also was the burden of providing money for
the expenses of the kingdom.

Since the attempt to cripple the Dutch by the
navigation act of 1651 proved a failure, the act of
1660, in repeating the shipping clause of the earlier
act, made it more rigorous. Thenceforth ships
must not only be owned and manned by English-
men (including colonists), but they must also be
built by Englishmen, and two-thirds of the seamen
must be English subjects. In later acts of 1662 and
1663, provision was made whereby real or pre-
tended misimderstandings of this clause might be
prevented ; and one of the most important functions
of the later committees of trade and plantations
was, by means of rules as to passes, denization and
naturalization, and foreign -built ships, to prevent
trade from getting into the hands of foreigners.

•Co/, of State Pap., Dom,, x66x--x66a, ( 613; 1663-1664,
II 251, 252; Life of Clarendon, written by himself (ed. 1761),
III., 9x9.

TOL. T.— t

i8 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1660

More famous than the shipping clause of the
act of 1660 is that dealing with the "enumerated"
commodities. This clause, though not added, curi-
ously enough, till the third reading of the bill, and
seemingly as an afterthought, marks a new step in
the development of the mercantilist idea. It de-
clared that sugar, tobacco, cotton -wool, fustic,
and other dye - woods — the most important raw
materials exported by the colonies — should all be
carried directly to England. This provision gave
legal force to a principle of colonial management
that Cromwell never grasped, whereby the colonies
were to become a source of raw materials for the
manufactures of the mother-cotmtry. Cotton-wool
and dye-woods were needed in England for the
growing textile industries there ; tobacco, a product of
Maryland and Virginia, was enumerated because the
government believing it to be of mutual advan-
tage Jp limit the colonial market to England and her
dominions, had forbidden the culture of tobacco at
home; and sugar, a product of the West Indian
colonies in great demand at home, and also cocoa
(added in 1672, when the drinking of chocolate
became a prevailing fashion) were enumerated to
prevent their direct shipment to continental coun-
tries, notably to Spain.* Cotton-wool and dye-
woods were listed for the sake of the manuf acttirers ;
sugar, tobacco, and cocoa were listed for the sake
of the customs revenue. In each case England be-

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, ( 375.

1663] NAVIGATION ACTS 19

lieved that the monopoly which she offered was a
sufiScient compensation for the loss of free-trade,
for the increase in freights, and for the higher rate of
customs duties charged in England, in comparison
with other countries.

In a revision of 1663 another new and far-reaching
clause was added: all European commodities des-
tined for the colonies must first be carried to Eng-
land and there be unloaded and put on shore before
they could be transported to America; or, in other
words, all the foreign import trade of the colonies
had to pass through England's hands, and all ships
had to touch at England on their way to the colonies.
The object of the law was to make England a staple
for all European commodities sent to the colonies,
and to prevent the colonies from building up an
independent import trade of their own. If their
market for the sale of raw materials was to be
limited, so also must be their market for the pur-
chase of manufactured goods. Should the colonies
be free to purchase their woollens where they wished,
without any restriction, they^ would defeat Eng-
land's mercantile policy, which demanded that
colonial raw materials be paid for in England's
manufactured articles and not in coin; and they
wotild take advantage of the low price of French
and Dutch woollens to buy their goods in France
and Holland, to the serious injury of England's trade.
England alone must be the staple, the vent, and the
market, so far as her colonies were concerned.

30 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1660

The Cromwellian act carried with it no provision
for the execution of the law, except the promise that
half of the value of the forfeited cargo and ships should
go to the informer : but in the act of 1660 a bond and
security were required of all ships leaving England
for the colonies, and of all ships clearing from
colonial ports with a cargo of enumerated com-
modities; and an effort was made to interest the
colonial governors in the enforcement of the acts
by granting them a third of all goods confiscated
for illegal trading The act of 1663 demanded that
the colonial governors take oath, before assuming
office, to do all in their power to enforce the laws,
under penalty of ;£iooo, loss of office, and ineligi-
bility for another governorship. Collectors of cus-
toms who disobeyed the law were to lose their
positions and to pay a fine equal to the value of
the ship's cargo.

A noteworthy advance in the systematic execu-
tion of the laws was made in 1672. Aroused by
the reports of illegal trade in tobacco. Parliament
enacted that in case the ustial bond or promise to
carry the enumerated commodities directly to Eng-
land were not given, a duty should be paid to the
collector at the port of clearance, as, for exam-
ple, of a penny a pound on tobacco, which was to
form part of the royal revenue. The object of this
regulation was to put a stop to the carriage of goods
to other plantations and their shipment thence to a
foreign country on the ground that the requirements

1672]

NAVIGATION ACTS

had been fulfilled. Though the machinery for the
execution of this act was imperfect and its provisions
were never fully carried out, yet the king by farming
out the plantation duty during the Restoration was
able to add to his revenue ^£700 a year.

CHAPTER II

ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION OP THE COLONIES

(1660-1689)

/ IN England, after 1660, the management of trade
1 and plantations was placed in the hands, first •
of special boards, and afterwards of committees of •
the Privy Council. A plan for such a body was .
drawn up, some time during the later years of the
Protectorate, by Martin Noell, one of the commis-
sioners for Jamaica, and Thomas Povey, a merchant
prominently interested in all matters relating to the
West Indian colonies, afterwards member and clerk
of the councils of trade and plantations and re-
ceiver-general of the revenues. This ** Overtures
touching a Council to be erected for Foreign Planta-
tions," * contains recommendations for a select
council for the inspection, care, and regulation of
all foreign plantations, that the colonies might "un-
derstand that they are to be looked upon as united
and embodied and that their Head and Centre is
here." It provided, ftuther, that a more certain
government should be set up for the colonies, and
information of every kind should be obtained from

* Egerton MSS., in British Musexim, 2395, ff. 270-286.

i66o] ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION 23

the governors and elsewhere, that " each place within
itself and all of them being as it were made up into
one Commonwealth, may by his Majesty be here
governed and regulated accordingly upon common
and equal principles." This comprehensive scheme,
based on the actual experiences of a group of Eng-
lish merchants trading with the West Indies during
the Cromwellian era, was placed before the king's
advisers after the Restoration, and doubtless helped
to shape their plans for the management of the
colonies.

July 4, 1660, a Cotmcil Committee for Foreign
Plantations was designated and continued to act till
1675.* Side by side with it was a second, advisory
cotmcil for trade proposed by Clarendon, to consist
of ** several principal merchants of the several com-
panies," to which he would add some gentlemen of
quality and experience, and for their greater honor
and encouragement some of the lords of his own
Privy Cotmcil.' It was duly organized in Decem-
ber, 1660. Clarendon was appointed president of
the board, among the members of which were Ash-
ley, Colleton, Noell, Povey, and two members from
each of the great trading companies,* men al-
ready familiar with the trade of the plantations.

> Privy Council Register (MS.), Charles II., III., 125. etc.

* Cobbett, Hist, of Parliament, IV., 128; Life of Clarendon,
written by himself (ed. 1798), III., 201.

■ Bannister, Writings of W. Patterson, III., 251, 252, quoted
by Egerton, British Colonial Policy, 75, n.

24 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1660

The board, of which five members constituted a
quorum, at once perfected its organization and
appointed sub-conmiittees for the several colonies.
The members were expected to inform themselves
of the state of the plantations, and procure copies
of the grants under which they were settled; to
correspond with the governors and require accoimts
of the laws and governments from them; to use
means for bringing the colonies **into a more cer-
tain, civil, and uniform way of government"; to
investigate the colonial policies of the other European
states; to secure transportation of noxious and
tmprofitable persons to the plantations; to propa-
gate the Gospel, and to have a general oversight
of all matters relating to the plantations.*

Of the activities of this council we know but little.
Some of their minutes and reports are preserved,
and Pepys and Eveljm occasionally refer to their
proceedings. The merchants seem to have been
largely in control, and till 1663 displayed consider-
able efficiency. They performed their work largely
through committees, and busied themselves with
the affairs of Jamaica, Barbadoes, New England,
and Virginia. The membership was changed in
1668, 1670, and again in 1672, when the councils
of trade and foreign plantations were united under
the presidency of Ashley, with John Locke as sec-
retary and treasurer and many of the former mem-
bers as colleagues.

> N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col Hist., III., 34-36.

i668] ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION 25

This joint committee was to form a "standing
council in and for all the aff ajrrs which doe conceme
the navigation, commerce, or trade, as well do-
mestic as forraigne, of these our kingdoms and our
forraigne colonyes and plantations."*

These frequent changes in the select council were
due to the belief among those in authority that such
a separate board possessing no plenary powers was
ineflScient and ** without any considerable advantage
to his Majesty or the plantations." A contem-
porary expresses a very general opinion when he
says: "The council is obliged to have a continual
recourse to superior ministers and cotmcils, which
oftentimes gives great and prejudicial delays and
usually begets new or slower deliberations and
results than the matter in hand may stand in need
of." It was therefore felt necessary to appoint
commissioners "out of the Privy Coimcil, tmder the
great seal, to consider the plantations, to give di-
rections in ordinary cases, and in extraordinary to
report to the king and coimcil . . . [commissioners]
empowered to act and order with as ample an au-
thority as the commissioners of the admiralty now
do." When in 1668 Charles II. reorganized the
administrative methods of the Privy Council and
adopted a system of "fix't and established com-
mittees," he set up a standing committee of the

» ShafUshury Papers, MSB. in Public Record Office, X.. Nos.
8 (vi.-ix.), 9. 10 (commissions, instructions, members added in
1670, 1673).

26 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1674

council, to act in conjunction with the separate
board and to consider whatever concerned "his
Majesty's forraigne plantations." This dual ar-
rangement lasted fifteen years, but cannot have been
successful; for in 1674 the select council of which
Shaftesbury was president was abolished, and its
duties were entrusted to a new standing committee
of the council composed of twenty-four members,
henceforth known as the Lords of Trade/

This conmiittee held its first meeting on February
9> 1675, though the commission is dated a month
later. At first, five constituted a quorum, afterwards
three, but the number present rarely fell below six or
seven, while frequently ten, fifteen, and twenty at-
tended the meetings. The committee generally sat
in the cotmcil chamber at Whitehall, and it was at-
tended by many of the most important men of the
kingdom, including many men trained under the
Protectorate. The king, the duke of York, Prince
Rupert, the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop
of London, the chancellor of the exchequer, the lord
privy seal, t^ie lord high chancellor, the vice cham-
berlain, and others attended, some of them fre-
quently. Occasionally the discussion in the council
chamber was only ended by the entrance of the king
to hold a meeting of his council. As compared with
the inefficiency and inactivity of the permanent
board of trade after 1720, a body too often made

' Egerion MSS.^ in British Museum, 2395, f. 276, 2543, f. 205;
Journal of the Lords of Trade^ I., z, 8.

x688] ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION 27

up of needy politicians and placemen, the com-
mittees from 1674 to 1688 display dignity and devo-
tion to business.

The committee was a hard-working body that
met frequently and sat long. It considered care-
fully every matter that came before it; sought to
settle every difficulty as expeditiously as possible;
obtained information from every available source,
summoning and closely questioning merchants, sea-
men, factors, colonial agents, and even colonial
proprietaries like Penn and Baltimore. It pur-
chased books,^ maps, charts, and globes, bade Locke
bring in all records and dociunents of the old com-
mission, and even talked of continuing Purchas's
Pilgrimage from accounts to be sent in by merchants
and sea-captains. In its wide range of interests it
discussed treaties with foreign cotmtries, watched
carefully the workings of the great companies, lis-
tened to their quarrels and complaints, called on the
commissioners of customs to suggest new methods
of encotiraging trade, and asked for reports from
these officials and the clerk of Parliament, on the
trade of England. It demanded lists of English
ships with the burden of each, and endeavored to
lay down rules for the more efficient interpretation
of the navigation acts. It prepared instructions
and despatches, wrote the king's proclamations, and
even dealt with the granting of patents for inventions.

' See catalogue of committee's library in N. E. Historical and
Genealogical Register, XXXVIII., a6z.

38 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1660

Towards the colonies the committee's attitude
was one of eminent fairness. Large questions, such
as the settling of a new colony, or the appointment
of a new colonial governor, or the approval of a new
series of colonial laws, often came before it. Other
matters were called to its attention by petition or
complaint, and naturally only those colonies in
which disputes and difficulties arose were discussed at
its meetings. Massachusetts and Virginia, Jamaica,
Barbadoes, and other West Indian colonies were well
known to its members ; Rhode Island, the Carolinas,
and Maryland were occasionally brought to its
notice; while New York, New Jersey, Connecticut,
and Pennsylvania are rarely mentioned in the
minutes of its meetings.

In difficult cases, such as those touching the
charters of the Bermuda and the Massachusetts
Bay companies, the members of the board showed
fairness and gave abundant opportunity for the col-
onies to state their respective cases. They never
acted arbitrarily, and were always ready to discount
the statements of prejudiced persons, and to compel
complainants to prove their charges. In doubtful
points of law they would order the charters to be
scrutinized, or would submit the question to the
legal advisers of the crown. Sometimes they would
transfer the question to the king in cotmcil to
decide. Naturally, they were ignorant of a great
deal that was going on in the colonies, and were
out of sympathy with the political ideas and practices

i67S] ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION 29

that had taken root in many of them. Hence, they
sent over men like Edward Randolph, who were in
sympathy with their own point of view, and de-
pended, tmforttmately, too much on the evidence
submitted by such representatives.

Nevertheless, the Lords of Trade tried to remedy
these deficiencies and to obtain satisfactory and
adequate information. They sent out written
queries to the colonies, asking for full answers re-
garding their affairs, and the answers they received
are among our best sources of information regarding
the colonies. They called for lists of governors and
copies of the charters and grants, and tried to
acctunulate among their records the details of the
history of each colony. They recommended, in
1675, the sending of a commission of five men **of
sobriety and discretion [* to Massachusetts in order
to obtain **a full information of things which at
this distance (and where no per son appears on th e
other side) seem^'Veiy dUfk.'* i'hey allowed any
individual to send in a petition or address, on what
appear to be often trivial subjects, and they claimed
the right to act on these in the first instance. Even
appeals from the plantations to the king in cotmcil .
seem to have come to the attention of the Lords of
Trade before passing on to the Privy Cotmcil itself.

They draughted all the governors' commissions
and instructions, debating every clause with care,
even going so far at times as to call on the governor

* Journal of tk€ Lords of Trad§, I., aa.

30 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1660

himsetf to suggest modificatknis and additknis. The
development of the governor's functions at the
hands of the Lords of Trade forms an instructive
phase of the history of the royal administration.
It is evident that these men had little appreciation
of the democratic forces at work in the colonies, and
they must have wondered at times at the ill-success
of some of their appointees.

The committee was constantly called upon to in-
terpret the navigation acts; and tnany important
features of the administrative act of 1696 can be
foimd already worked out in the minutes of its
meetings. The Lords soon discovered that tnany
violations of the acts were taking place in the col-
onies ; and the complaints of merchants and others
seem to indicate that New England was especially
guilty. They therefore made inquiry as to how
far the navigation acts took "cognizance of New
England, what violations had been observed in the
matter of that trade, and of what ill-consequence
in point of profit to his Majesty and the kingdom
such abuse of those people may be estimated at " *
They not only insisted that all governors be required
to take oath and give bond according to law, but
made a special recommendation that the New
England governors should be required to swear that
they would put the acts into force.

The Lords of Trade inquired further whether a
ship that laded enumerated commodities and paid

^ Journal of the Lords of Trade, I., 23.

1678] ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION 31

the duty in the plantation (if declaration should
be made that it was botind for another Eng-
lish plantation) was not exempt from any other
bonds and was not then at Uberty to cany such
commodities to what part of the world it pleased.*
As early as 1678 the question came up whether a
royal governor could erect courts of admiralty, and
whether vice-admiralty powers came from the king
or the lord high admiral. A decision was reached
that the king had full power to create a vice-admiral,
but that the commission and instructions were to
come from the lord high admiral.* These queries
show that the committee was often very uncertain
how to act, and that the interpretation of the
navigation acts was a matter of time and expe-
rience.

The machinery for carrying out the navigation
acts in the colonies during the period under dis-
cussion was very imperfect and incomplete. An
official resident in England was appointed in 166 1
to farm the revenues of the foreign plantations.'
In the colonies no royal customs officers existed
except the governors, before the passage of the
navigation act of 1672 ; although the farmers of the
customs proposed such officers as early as 1663.*
This proposition does not appear to have been acted

» Journal of the Lords of Trade, I., 67, 68.

* Ibid., II., 197, 198.

» Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, § 43S-

* N. Y, Docs. Rel. to Col, Hist., III., 48-50.

32 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1669

upon, and the governors, who were very lax in the
performance of their duties, were left to administer
the acts very much as they pleased.

The first revenue official appointed by the crown
to go to America seems to have been Edward
Digges, who was sent to Virginia in 1669, in pur-
suance of an order of cotincil concerning the redress
of some neglects or abuses in the plantations. The
duties of this office were amalgamated with those
of the auditor of the revenue, first created by act
of assembly in Virginia and afterwards controlled
apparently by the crown.* The auditor examined
the public accotints, dealt with the redress of
abuses, and returned bonds. On May 19, 1680, the
system of auditing the colonial revenues was
still further improved by the appointment of a
surveyor and auditor-general in England, the first
appointee being William Blathwayt, secretary of
the Privy Cotincil.' To him were referred all
petitions sent to the Lords of the Treasury that
in any way concerned the finances of the royal
colonies. The office demanded judgment and ex-
perience, and it is noteworthy that Blathwayt and
his successor, Horatio Walpole (appointed in 171 8),
held the office for nearly eighty years.
^^The navigation act of 1663 created a naval

* Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, § 104.

*CcU, of State Pap., Col., 1 681-1685, J 241; Cal. of Treasury
Pap, 1 7 14-17 19, 387; Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, Present StaU
of Virginia, 157.

i688] ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION 33

officer to be appointed by the governor and paid
by the fees of his office. The first direct mention
of such an officer, however, does not appear until
1672, in connection with Barbadoes, although it is
then stated that there were earlier appointees.*
The naval officers were required to make entries
and keep particular accounts of all imports and
exports, of shipping, burden, guns, etc., whence they
came and whither they were boimd, and to send
quarterly reports to England.* They handled no
customs revenue, for that was the business of the
collector.

The latter official, whose work it was to collect
the plantation duty established by the act of 1672,
makes his first appearance in 1673 in Barbadoes and
Antigua. William Dyer, husband of the Quaker
Mary Dyer, was appointed collector for New York
in 1674, Giles Bland for Virginia in the same year,
Rousby for Maryland in 1676, Miller for Albemarle
in 1677; Gibbes for "Carolina and Roanoke" before
1685, Muschamp for South Carolina in the latter
year, and Walliam for Pennsylvania, as early as
May, i688.' Before the year 1677, there were no
collectors in New England, because, as the com-

* Colonial Entry Book, a8, 86-93.

^Ccd. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, § 1590.

■ Declared Accounts, MSS. in Public Record Office; Pipe Office,
Roll 1056; Treasury, In Letters, Indexes, Reference Book, III.,
148 (Muschamp's Petition); Md. Archives, V., 274; Cal, of State
Pap., Col., 1685-1688, S 639; Colonial Entry Books, 63 (MSS. Re-
port of March 25, 1689) ; Pa. Col. Records, I., 297 (335); MSS. In-
structions for Collector (British Musetun, Add. MSS, 28089, f. 3i).
VOL v.— 3

34 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1677

•

missioners of the customs reported to the Lords of
Trade, the New England colonies grew none of the
entimerated commodities which were liable to the
plantation duty/ But in that year, as the result
of Randolph's recent visit, the office of collector,
stirveyor, and searcher of customs in the colonies of
New England was established,' and Randolph be-
came the first appointee. He was authorized by
his commission to search for prohibited goods and
seize such ships as traded contrary to law; he had
power to appoint deputies (who were to reside in
different parts of New England), to give them in-
structions, and to supervise their conduct. A sim-
ilar office was held by Patrick Mien or Mein, who
in 1685 was ** stirveyor of his Majesties plantations
on the continent of America,*' and in 1687 of cer-
tain of the West Indies also.' In later instructions
the surveyor was empowered to inspect and control
the management of the collector's business and to
audit his accoimts.* The collector for New Eng-
land after 168 1 held his office by royal letters-patent
under the great seal, but all the others were ap-
pointed by the commissioners of customs in Eng-
land, and resided in the principal ports of the plan-
tations. They were constantly quarrelling, with

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, I., 69.

*Col, Entry Book, Public Record Office, 60, 357-359.

' Treasury, Miscellanea, King's Warrant Books (Public Record
Office), III., 214; ibid.. In Letters, Indexes, Reference Book, V.,
308; Pa. Col. Records, I., 297 (337).

* British Museum, Add. MSS., 28089, f. 34.

i688] ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION 35

governors on one side and people on the other, and
on the whole do not appear to have been a very
estimable class of men.

The earlier navigation acts made no provision for
special courts with jurisdiction over breaches of
the law. The "courts of record*' mentioned in the
act of 1660 refers to the common law courts in
England, though there is reason to believe that the
high court of admiralty, though not legally deemed
a court of record at this time, occasionally tried
cases that had to do with evasion of the trade laws.
The colonies, however, provided themselves with
such Courts, some of them before the navigation acts
were passed. Rhode Island erected an admiralty
court in 1653, at the time of the Dutch war; Virginia
passed an act in 1660 authorizing the governor and
council to be a cotirt of admiralty; Massachusetts
(1673) and Connecticut (1684) authorized their re-
spective courts of assistants to act in that capacity ;
Plymouth placed this power in the hands of the
governor and assistants in 1684; and in the same
year Pennsylvania gave the power to the president
and members of the coimcil.* New York declared
in 1678 that in her colony admiralty cases had been
tried by a special commission or by a court com-
posed of the mayor and aldermen.* From the point

'Arnold, Hist, of R. /., I., 246; Hening, Statutes, I., 537;
Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. ii., 575; Conn. Col. Records, III.,
95; Plymouth Col. Records, VI., 139, 140; Pa. Col. Records, I.,
69 (lai, 132).

« .V. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col Hist., III., 260.

36 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1624

of view of admiralty jurisdiction and procedure, all
these courts were irregular and illegal; and it is
noteworthy that nowhere, except in Maryland (1639)
was a regular admiralty court established till about
1697,* when a general system, at least on paper, was
provided.

During the first half of the seventeenth century the
English government made scarcely any attempt to
control the colonies through a system of agents. Such
colonial agents were sent over only when required.*
The earliest went from Virginia in 1624 to defend
the charter of that colony. Others were despatched
afterwards by various colonies to defend some
particular cause: as when Rhode Island resisted
Coddington's attempt to obtain a charter for him-
self as governor of Newport and Aquidneck; and
when Virginia tried to annul the grant to Arlington
and Culpeper. Agents were sometimes sent to gain
colonial privileges, as when Winthrop for Connecti-
cut, Clarke for Rhode Island, and Increase Mather
for Massachusetts, sought to obtain charters for
those colonies. Agents were sent also to answer
charges and settle boundary disputes, as when
Maryland instructed her agents to oppose the de-
mands of Penn. Some of the colonies — Connecti-
cut, for example — employed English residents to do
business that did not require a special representa-
tive. Eventually, however, the Lords of Trade,

* Md, Archives, I., 46.

' Tanner, in Political Sciince Quarterly, XVI., 94*49.

1691] ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION 37

warned by the difficulty of obtaining agents from
Massachiisetts, inserted in Penn's charter the pro-
vision, made for the first time, that an agent be
appointed to reside in or near the city of London.

Eqtially indefinite was the attitude of the home
government towards colonial legislation. No colony 1
was allowed to make laws contrary to those of Eng- /
land, though at first no colony was required to
transmit its acts to England for acceptance or
rejection. Not until the issue of the charter to
Penn was such requirement made, and then the
colony was called upon to transmit its laws to
England within five years after their passage, and
the council was to act upon them within six months
after their receipt. A similar clause was inserted
in the Massachusetts charter of 1691, when the
period was limited to three years and no restriction
was imposed upon the action of the council. The
charter corporations always denied the validity of
the acts of Parliament in America imless re-enacted
by their own assemblies; and Massachusetts re-
fused to acknowledge the right of the council to
invalidate her laws even when contrary to those of
England.*

The idea of creating a uniform system of adminis-
tration in the colonies, of bringing all to conform
to a common type, and of rendering them more
dependent on the home government by union imder

* Mass. Col. Records, V., aoo, aox ; Hutchinson Papers, II.,
232.

/
/

38 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1624

the crown, developed very slowly. The charter
of the Virginia company was dissolved in 1624, and
that of Massachusetts threatened in 163 5-1 63 7;
but these annulments were no part of a common
plan. The Council for Foreign Plantations, desir-
ing to administer the navigation acts more effi-
ciently, proposed to Charles II. in 1661 that he
take all the existing proprietary colonies into his
own hands and creat^no new ones in the future;*
but, though this plan for a uniform and centralized
i colonial organization was emphasized in Noell and

Povey's ** Overtures," the king allowed his personal
inclinations to override the suggestions of the com-
mittee. Between 1660 and 1670 six new charters
were issued : the four new colonies of the Carolinas,
New York, the Jerseys, and Bahamas were foimded ;
and Connecticut and Rhode Island received new
Uli^ charters. Even as late as 1676 the cotmcil com-
^ mittee could say that **to consider New England so
as to bring them imder taxes and impositions or to
send thither a governor to raise forttme from them
cannot be of any use or service to his Majesty." *
■^IVTien, however, the reports of illegal trading and
of quarrels between the collectors and the colonists
began to come in, the Lords of Trade viewed the
matter differently. Breaches of the acts of trade
/ affected the king's income, a matter of great concern
/ to the committee, which existed for the very purpose

|{ 1/ > Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1 661-1668, { 3.

iL *Ibid., 1675-1676, i 813.

x686] ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION 39

of safeguarding and increasing the customs revenues
of the crown. The committee had akeady declared
that the plantations could enact no laws touching
the king's revenue without the king's "particular
knowledge" ; and had already studied how best the
colonies might be brought to a closer dependency
on the crown in matters of trade. After 1680
complaints came in rapidly: Maryland, the Ber-
mudas, and Massachttsetts were the first colonies
to give oflEence in the eyes of the board: the
proprietary of Maryland and the companies in
Bermuda and in Massachusetts were warned that
continued violations of the acts would lead to
the forfeiture of their charters.

Plans were made for the issue of writs of quo
warranto against the corporations, and in 168 1 the
writs were issued. The Bermuda company, resident
in London, and having only a business connection
with the colony, gave up its charter after a brief
struggle ; but the Massachusetts company died hard,
staving oflE the inevitable result till 1684.

From the point of view of the lords who composed
the conmiittee, a imion of the northern colonies had
become a financial necessity, and it was carried
out by the appointment of a governor-general of
New England in 1686. The policy was neither
arbitrary nor wilful, nor even an idea of James II.,
for the committee fathered it from the beginning.
It was simply a part of a larger policy that subordi-
nated the colonies to the crown and the ldngdom«

40 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1688.

Notwithstanding the great services of the com-
mittee, the last renewal of its members took place
January 27, 1688, when all the lords of the Privy
Council were constituted a standing committee for
trade and plantations. Little business was done
between October 25 and November. 20, England was
on the eve of a revolution. After October 17 the
names of the members present are not recorded.
On February 6, 1689, the last meeting was held,
and it is a ctuious coincidence that the last minute
in the journal records the receipt of letters from
Andros and Randolph.

February 16, 1689, three dajrs after William and
Mary were declared king and queen of England, a
new committee of twelve members was appointed
to take cognizance of the affairs of trade and
plantations. This body remained in control until
the establishment of the permanent Board of Trade
and Plantations in 1696. It is significant that the
new Lords of Trade were as eager as had been their
predecessors to bring the colonies into a condition
of closer dependence on the crown, not so much for
the sake of the revenues as to provide for adequate
defence against the French.*

^ Md. Archives, VIII., 100, 10 x.

Og III
H a 01 ^1

N
mitt
Jani
Coit
tiad
beti
on 1
nan
On
and
in t
Ane

F
Mai
nen.
to

plai'
the
and
ne«
pre)
ofc
the
defi

CHAPTER III

REORGANIZATION OP NEW ENGLAND

(1660-1662)

AS a whole, the colonists of New England were
i of the same political faith, and conducted their
governments according to the same general plan.
So far as possible they held aloof from all connection
with king. Privy Council, and Lords of Trade ; and,
having made their settlements without assistance
from England, they were quite content to get on
without the help of those who had legal authority
over them. No royal governors or other appointees
were present among them to arouse discontent, and
between the freemen and those whom the freemen
elected to represent them no serious conflict ever
arose. The few royalists who lived in the colony
exercised no influence in government, and were
powerless to alter the convictions of the majority.
The New-Englanders would make no compromise
with the doctrines of divine right and passive
obedience, and had as little patience with a loyal
follower of the Stuarts as James II. had with a
believer in the rights of a majority. They looked
upon all the king's agents as tyrannical; the king

42 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1650

in turn deemed the New-Englanders factious and
rebellious.- Hence any interference on the part of
a Stuart, however much he might justify it from
the point of view of his wars, his revenue, and his
prerogative, or by the fact that the crown itself
was the supreme authority over all the colonies,
was sure to lead to trouble and possible revolt.
The self-government which the king ignored was
as the breath of life to the New England col-
onists.

In 1650 the commissioners of the New England
Confederation, formed in 1643 by Massachtisetts,
Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, arranged
the treaty of Hartford with the Dutch, fixing the
botmdary between New England and New Nether-
land at Rye on the main-land and Oyster Bay on
Long Island.* This truce with the Dutch lasted but
two years : New Haven was angry because the Dutch
had prevented her traders from settling on the
Delaware; and both Connecticut and New Haven
held Stuyvesant responsible for a number of Indian
massacres that had taken place on the frontier near
Stamford. When the ** encroachments" of the
Dutch and the question of a declaration of war were
brought before the commissioners in 1652, seven
of them declared that they felt "a call of God to
make war upon the Dutch and avenge the destruc-

^ Plymouth Col. Records, IX., 18-21; X., 171-190; N€W
Haven Col. Records , II., 5, 6. Cf. Tyler, England in America^
chap, xviii.

i6s4] NEW ENGLAND REORGANIZED 43

tion of so many dear Baints of God which is imputed
to the Dutch governor and fiscal."

The eighth commissioner, Bradstreet, of Massachu-
setts, took the ground that a majority of the com-
missioners had no right to authorize a declaration
of war. Bradstreet was upheld by the elders and
court of the colony. In order to avoid a war that
she did not wish and that might have imperilled
her own leadership, Massachusetts violated the
Articles of the Confederation and threatened the
existence of the union. Connecticut and New
Haven in anger threatened to withdraw, and were
appeased only when the Coimcil of State in England,
to which they had applied for instructions, over-
ruled the decision of Massachusetts and ordered
war.* Cromwell, as we have seen, sent over Major
Sedgwick to co-operate with the colonists, but the
expedition was stopped by the declaration of peace.

When danger of war was over and the troops
which had been gathered for the attack had been
disbanded, Massachusetts, desirous that the Con-
federation should continue, reversed her former
decision and yielded the right of a majority to rec-
onrmiend a declaration of war.' Her submission
was as humble as her opposition had been vehement ;
but the Confederation never regained its lost har-
mony. Much of its importance departed after the

* Plymouth CoL Records ^ X., 33, 54, 56 ; Mass. Col. Records,
IV., pt. i., 144, 165-171; Col. of State Pap., Col., 1574-1660,
pp. 386, 387. ^Ibid., X., 75, 76, 114.

44 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1650

conquest of New Netherland by the English in
1664 and the incorporation of New Haven by
Connecticut in the same year; and for a time it
ceased to hold any meetings whatever. With the
resumption of the sessions of the commissioners an
attempt was made to restore the Confederation to
its former state of efficiency, but without success.
Opposition to it arose within the colonies them-
selves, and men began to say that the meetings
entailed a needless expense and accomplished noth-
ing for the good of the colonies. After languishing
until 1684, the New England Confederation came
to an end.

The failure of the Confederation to effect a per-
manent imion was in no small measure due to the
prominence and power of the Massachusetts Bay
colony. After the crisis of 1640, when decreasing
immigration threatened the prosperity of New Eng-
land, Massachusetts gained pre-eminence among her
neighbors because of her greater trade and riches,
the number of her towns, and the wider experience
and broader education of her leading men.* After
1650 the authorities at Boston avoided, as far as
possible, all entanglement with English affairs, and
resisted all attempts of Cromwell to interfere with
their concerns. They refused to proclaim Richard
Cromwell protector when ordered to do so, and at
all times conducted themselves, to all intents and
purposes, as a sovereign state. The general court

* Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass, Bay, I., 206, n.

i66sl NEW ENGLAND REORGANIZED 45

of the colony levied taxes, provided for military
defence, erected inferior corporations like that of
Harvard College,* regulated courts of justice, con-
trolled the right of appeal, and assumed the high-
est prerogatives of sovereignty in coining money
and hanging offenders, such as murderers, witches,
and Quakers.'

This independent position fostered among the
inhabitants of the Bay a spirit of superiority and
self-content that was not always commendable. In
a long controversy between the Frenchmen D'Aulnay
and La Tour regarding the governorship of Acadia,
Massachusetts aided La Tour, thus again disre-
garding the Articles of Confederation. In all boun-
dary disputes with Connecticut and Rhode Island,
notably in that concerning the townships of Souther-
town and Warwick and the lands of Misquamicut,
Massachusetts was inclined to be overbearing, and
showed herself exceedingly skilful in the art of
contriving claims and disingenuous in enforcing
them.

In spite of the protests of Mason and Gorges,
who had obtained grants of lands between the
Kennebec and Merrimac rivers as early as 1623,
she extended her jurisdiction in that quarter also,
and laid claim to the entire territory.' From 1651
to 1665 Kittery, Agamenticus, Wells, Saco, and
Cape Porpoise sent deputies to the general assembly

• Mass, Col, Records, IV., pt. i., 12-14.

*Ibid,, 48, 104, zz8, 419. * Ibid,, 70, X57-165.

46 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1656

at Boston, and the whole region was brought under
the authority of the Bay. There was truth in
Randolph's statement, made in 1676, that ''Massa-
chusetts having the pre-eminence takes the liberty
to claim as far as their convenience and interest
directs." *

In religious matters as in political, Massachusetts
was no less determined to have her own way, and
she labored imceasingly to keep herself untouched
by other religious doctrines and ideas. Having
driven out Roger Williams and Ann Hutchinson,
the Bay authorities were certainly not likely to
admit Quakers. Mary Fisher and Anne Austin,
who reached New England in 1656, were promptly
lodged in jail, and afterwards shipped back to
Barbadoes, whence they came. Others who fol-
lowed them to Massachusetts suffered a like fate.
To give legal warrant for their action, the leaders
at Boston persuaded the United Commissioners to
recommend that each colony pass a law against the
Quakers, a recommendation which the Massachusetts
assembly promptly and rigorously carried out'
and followed by a course of persecution unequalled
in any of the colonies. Many Quakers were im-
prisoned; three — Robinson, Stevenson, and Mary
Dyer — ^were hanged. An arrogance of power seemed
to possess the colony, an intolerance that brooked
no check or control. The government of "godly

* Hutchinson Papers^ II., 223.

* Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. i., 277.

i66o] NEW ENGLAND REORGANIZED 47

men" was in its way as tyrannical as ever had been,
or was to be, the government of a Stuart.

This unusual independence of Massachusetts, char-
acterized by self-government, freedom of trade, ex-
emption from outside interference, and a some-
what domineering way of dealing with adjoining
colonies, must be taken into account if one is to
understand the history of the colony from 1660 to
1689. Cromwell, engrossed by public affairs at
home, and in sympathy with the religious and
political views of Massachusetts, let the colony alone.
The Massachusetts agent, Leverett, skilfully warded
off aU complaints against the colony in the period
before 1660, so that it rarely came to the attention
of the home authorities,* and, by gaining the ear
of the Protector, he was able to divert the charges of
Rhode Island, the Quakers, and the heirs of royal-
ists like Mason and Gorges, whose complaints were
purely individual, and in no way touched the revenue
or policy of the Protector.

After the Restoration, Massachusetts could expect
no such friendly treatment from Charles II. as she
had received from Cromwell; nevertheless the king
was inclined to be conciliatory. He and Claren-
don wished to make the colonies profitable, and
were not disposed to cause trouble so long as the
colonists did nothing to thwart this policy. But
the coimcil for foreign plantations, which at the
very outset had received a shower of complaints

^ Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, I., 190-194.

48 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1660

against Massachusetts from interested parties, took
a different view, and in 1662 sent a vigorous order
to Boston, bidding the general court proclaim the
king **in a most solemn manner," and apply itself
strictly to "conformity and obedience to his
Majesty."*

The king, however, does not appear to have been
greatly disturbed by reports of the neglect of the
colony in its duty to him; for in 1662 he wrote a
letter confirming the charter, and ascribing to the
iniquity of the times, and not to the intention of the
people, all departures from the privileges conferred
in that document.' He approved of the law against
the Quakers, but broke down at one blow the ex-
clusive religious and political policy of the colony
by demanding that the Massachusetts authorities
grant full liberty of worship to all members of the
Anglican church, and concede the right to vote to
all freeholders who possessed competent estates.
During the ensuing twenty-five years the colony
made many efforts to evade these demands, and
an Anglican church was not erected in Boston till
1686; nevertheless, from this time forward the gov-
ernment by ** godly men" gave way to a system
based on a property qualification.

Connecticut and New Haven meanwhile were
growing rapidly in size and strength. Connecticut
accepted the advice of Sir William Boswell, Eng-

* Cal. of State Pap., Col, 1661-1668, { 66.
^ Ibid., { 314.

Bi m ■'■

1660I NEW ENGLAND REORGANIZED 49

lish ambassador at The Hague, to "crowd on,
crowding the Dutch out of those places which they
have occupied, without hostility or any act of vio-
lence." * By the treaty of Hartford she advanced
her western frontier to Rye, and absorbed most of
Long Island in 1653.

While the war with the Dutch was in progress,
Coniiecticut seized the House of Good Hope at Hart-
ford, and the next year annexed the Dutch lands
there. In 1640 the colony took Southampton, Long
Island, under its care; in 1649 ^^^ again in 1657 it
received Easthampton, and in 1660 Htmtington, into
its jurisdiction.' Within the colony the number of
towns increased from three to eleven, and in the
decade from 1650 to 1660 the assessed value of
property rose more than a fifth. In 1657, in order
to prevent the admission of imdesirable persons into
the voting body, the franchise was for the first time
limited to a property qualification. The old genera-
tion was passing away: Hooker died in 1647, Hajmes
in 1654, and in 1653 Ludlow went to Virginia.*
A new generation had grown up, made of the same
stuff as the old, but more aggressive and less
scrupulotis. Its members were actuated by the
same love for the colony ; but their actions, legal it
may be, were wanting at times in a high-minded
regard for the rights of others.

* Conn. CoL Records, I., 565. " Ibid., 254, 275.

* Ibid., 57a; Easthampton Records, I., la, 140; Huntington
Records, I., a3. * Taylor, Roger Ludlow, 145.

TOL- T."

50 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1644

That their attitude was due in part to a sense
of their own insecurity, we may not doubt. Had
the king desired to drive them from their territory
they would have been without legal defence. They
had bought their lands of the Indians, but they
possessed no corporate powers of government and
no land title that would stand for a moment the
test of inspection. The purchase of the Warwick
patent (1644)* was only a device designed for use in
emergencies. The Connecticut colonists knew that
their position was insecure, for in 1645 they joined
with New Haven in sending an agent to England
to obtain from the parliamentary commissioners
"common privileges to both in the distinct jurisdic-
tions.** At the same time they despatched Fenwick
to England **to agitate the business concerning the
enlargement of the patent.'" Neither effort was
successful, and Connecticut remained without legal
document of any kind to show for the money she had
spent, or to defend her against royal inquiry or a
writ of quo warranto. When Massachusetts denied
her right to exact river tolls at Saybrook from the
people of Springfield, situated farther up the river
above Hartford, and asked tmcomfortable questions
regarding her claims and title, Connecticut had lit-
tle to say.

* Hoadly, Warwick Patent (Acorn Club, Publications, No. 7);
Egerton AfSS., in British Museum, 2648, f. i.

* At water, Hist, of New Haven, 569; Conn. Col. Records, I.,
126, 128.

i66o] NEW ENGLAND REORGANIZED 51

In July, 1660, the regicides Goffe and Whalley
arrived in America. Massachusetts and Connecti-
cut gave them welcome and aid tmtil the king's
proclamation appeared, ordering the arrest of the
fugitives. After this the two colonies conducted
themselves with great circumspection, and while
there can be little doubt that Winthrop would have
been as glad to aid the fugitives as was Daven-
port, he was tactful enough not to let it be known
to those who were in pursuit. Kellond and Kirke,
the king's messengers, could report that **the hon-
orable governor [of Connecticut] carried himself
very nobly to [them] and was very diligent to sup-
ply [them] with all manner of conveniences for the
prosecution [of the fugitives] and promised that
all search should be made after them, which was
afterwards performed'* ; while they had to say that
New Haven was ** obstinate and pertinacious in
contempt of his Majestie."*

The New Haven governor and magistrates an-
ticipated trouble for the aid they had given the
regicides, and six weeks after the fugitives had made
their escape, solemnly proclaimed Charles II., ac-
knowledging themselves to be "his Majesties legal
and faithful subjects." ' The New Haven authorities
were not courtiers. The very issue of its proclama-
tion shows that the colony was frightened at the
outlook, and there is no doubt that many in authority

* Hutchinson Papers , II., 52-56.

* New Haven Col. Records, II., 420-423.

53 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1661

were dttcouraged because of the discontent that
widely prevailed in the colony.

At the court session of New Haven, May 39,
1661, two occurrences foreshadowed the coming
stomL Connecticut entered a vigorous and al-
most threatening protest against the work of a
committee, appointed by the township of New
Haven in April, 1660, to mark out the northern
boundary of the town. Connecticut said that the
bounds decided on were within her territory. This
unexpected assertion — the first gun in the campaign
for annexation — aroused the colony of New Haven
to appoint a committee to treat with Connecticut
regarding her "seeming right to this jurisdiction."
The second occurrence was the demand of the non-
freemen, once more expressed, for the privil^es
and liberties that were denied them. The magis-
trates refused to make any changes in their funda-
mental law, and warned ** these disturbers of peace
and troublers of Israel " against further *' factious
if not seditiotis" outbreaks of this character.^

When Charles II. came to the throne and an in-
quiry into franchises seemed imminent, Connecti-
cut took definite action. In March, 1661, Winthrop
draughted an address from the general court to the
king, couched in those terms of intense loyalty and
deep humility that Connecticut knew so well how
to use when it served her purpose.* The general

^ New Haven Col. Records, II., 403, 404, 409.
* Conn. Hist. Soc, Collections, I., 583, 583.

i66i] NEW ENGLAND REORGANIZED 53

court also draughted a petition to the king, stating
in frank and straightforward language exactly what
it wanted. It authorized Winthrop, who was plan-
ning to go to England, to present the address and
the petition and to obtain a renewal of the War-
wick patent, the original of which had been lost
in a fatal fire at Saybrook, or if possible to se-
cure a charter, the terms of which it had already
draughted. It appropriated for expenses a sum of
;£5oo, which Fenwick had, in 1657, bequeathed to
the colony as compensation for his failure to com-
plete the business of the patent.^

Thtis equipped, Winthrop left New Amsterdam
on July 23, 1661, and reached England by way of
Holland in the autumn. His chances of success
were many. He had tmusual influence at the court
of Charles II., through a warm personal friend in the
aged Lord Say and Sele, of the Privy Council, a
member of the cotmcil for plantations and a friend
of Connecticut. Moreover, Winthrop was possessed
of great tact and an attractive personality ; he had
travelled widely and had acquired the habits of
courts and courtiers — ^in fact, so well known were
his qualifications that Pl5rmouth tried to obtain his
services for a similar errand.*

Winthrop's cause was a good one. The home

* Trumbull, Hist, of Conn., I., 542, 543; Conn. Col. Records,

L. 327-329. 575-

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 5th series, I., 39a, 394; Trum-
bull, Hist, of Conn., I., 547.

54 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1661

government was well disposed towards Connecticut,
a colony which dutifully proclaimed the king, was
discreet in its attitude towards Whalley and Goffe,
the regicides who had fled to New England, and
gave no offence in matters of trade. There is noth-
ing to show that Winthrop employed bribery, as
some writers have thought, but there may be truth
in the tradition that he presented to Charles II.,
at an opportune moment, a ring that Charles I. had
given to Winthrop's father.* The king was, however,
to no small extent guided in his decision by his
advisers. The council for plantations and the legal
advisers of the crown approved of Winthrop's re-
quest. The royal warrant was issued February 28,
1662, and the charter passed the great seal May
10.' One of the two copies which Winthrop ob-
tained was sent home by way of Boston and
"read publicly to the freemen," October 9, 1662.
The other copy remained in England until after
the revolution of 1689,' when it was brought to
the colony, probably by Fitzjohn Winthrop, about
1698.

With few modifications the Connecticut charter
of 1662 contained the essential features of the
Fundamental Orders and such amendments to the
Orders as had been made by the general court since

* Mather, Magnolia (ed. 1853), I., 158, 159.

* Conn. Hist. Soc., Collections, I., 52; and Report, 1899, pp.
17-20 (Hanaper office record).

* Conn. Col. Records, I., 369; A. C. Bates, in EncyclopCBdia
Americana, art. "Charter Oak."

— r*Ji-'" .--r-*'

i66al NEW ENGLAND REORGANIZED 55

1639. The most important change concerned the
representation of the towns, which henceforth,
without regard to size or population, possessed
practically equal representation in the legislative
body.

Winthrop defined the botmdaries of the colony,
which he phrased in the terms of the Warwick
patent/ gix'ing to Connecticut all the territory
from **the Narragansett River commonly called
Narragansett Bay to the South Sea, bounded on
the north bv the Massachusetts line and on the
south by the sea, with the islands thereunto ad-
joining"; a phrase interpreted in 1664 to include
Long Island.'

On October 9, 1662, the court completed its
organization under the charter and took measures
to affirm its title to all the territory thus named.
It extended its jurisdiction over Stamford, Green-
wich, and Westchester, and over Southold and all
other Long Island towns, thus attacking the claims
of New Amsterdam on one side and New Haven
on the other; and it warned Mystic and Pawtucket
not to accept the jurisdiction of any other colony
than itself, thus casting down the gauntlet to Rhode
Island. To strengthen its position by making its
liberties more attractive, it reduced the franchise
qualification from £30 to £20. If there is any
apology for the aggressiveness of Connecticut, it

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections , 5th series, IX., 33.

• Conn, CoL Records, I., 426, 427.

56 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1662

lies in the broader life and opportunity that her
government offered to towns that had been com-
pelled to submit, often unwillingly, to the narrower
" liberties" of New Haven and Massachusetts.

CHAPTER IV

TERRITORIAL ADJUSTMENT IN NEW ENGLAND

(1662-1668)

NEW HAVEN was doomed. Not only was she
legally unprotected and helpless, but she was
without political or economic strength. The inter-
ests of the colony were largely mercantile, and its
ventures had not proved successful. The attempt
made in 1641 to establish a trading -post on the
Delaware was frustrated by the Dutch and Swedes,
involved a loss of ;£iooo, and embarrassed many of
the wealthiest men of the colony. Five years later
the New Haven merchants, hitherto accustomed to
deal with England through Boston, attempted to
open a direct trade with the mother-country, and
sent a ship laden with goods to the value of ;65ooo.
The ship, badly built and badly ballasted, foundered
at sea, with all on board.

So great was the prevailing despondency that
many New Haven colonists returned to England,
and others considered favorably Cromwell's pro-
posal to transport them to Jamaica.* This project
was abandoned, however, and the majority of the

t Strong, in Amer. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1898, pp. 88-92. Cf.
Tyler, EnfjUmd in Atnericu, chap. xv.

58 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1653

colonists remained in New England. During the
year that followed, Indian attacks and massacres
created additional dismay and discontent. The
people of Staiiiford protested in vigorous language
against the inefficiency of the jurisdiction, the heavy
taxation, and the limitations of the government.
Certain inhabitants of Southold, led by Captain John
Young, showed a desire even at this time to break
away from New Haven,* and consented to remain
in the colony only after the Stamford malcontents
had been fined and bound over to keep the peace.

The year 1653 was one of great excitement.
Disaffected colonists spoke their minds freely re-
garding the narrow political privileges* that New
Haven offered. They objected to a government in
which all political and civil and military offices were
controlled by church-members, in which all judicial
power was in the hands of magistrates, and trial
by jury was forbidden. The tmsuccessful business
ventures, the decrease of population due to a fall-
ing off of immigration, the dangers from the Dutch
and Indians, the quarrel with Massachusetts which
threatened to break up the Confederation, the dis-
content due to the policy of the oligarchy that
controlled the government — all these conditions
contributed to New Haven's downfall as an inde-
pendent colony.*

* New Haven Col. Records, II., 47-49, 51.
' See Maverick, Description of New England, in N. E. Hist,
and Gen, Reg., XXXIX., 45.

f^ m I ' »" -T-- —

1662] NEW ENGLAND ADJUSTED 59

Such was the situation when in 1662 Connecti-
cut obtained the charter giving her a legal title to
the territory of New Haven. Winthrop had drawn
the boundaries, but there is reason to believe
that he had expected to reach an arrangement
with New Haven whereby, for the sake of mutual
strength, imion could be effected imder the common
charter, and had even entered into an imderstand-
ing with Governor Leete of that colony/ Win-
throp probably underestimated the tenacious ad-
herence of Davenport and his party to the funda-
mental laws of the colony, and did not anticipate
the persistent non possumus that met every sug-
gestion of annexation. He probably failed to rec-
ognize also the strength of the party led by Bray
Rossiter, which demanded immediate and uncon-
ditional surrender to Connecticut.*

While New Haven was pondering, Connecticut
was acting. She granted the request of the people
of Stamford, Greenwich, and Southold, the latter of
whom in 1662, with entire disregard of the allegiance
they owed New Haven, asked to be admitted to
Connecticut's jurisdiction. When Rossiter and oth-
ers of Guilford, on their individual accounts, with-
out regard to the policy of town or colony, tendered
themselves and their estates to Connecticut, that col-
ony accepted them and promised to protect them.'

* See letters in Atwater's Hisi. of New Haven, 456-460, 484;
Steiner. in Amer. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1891, p. 216.

' New Haven Col. Records, II., 429, 454-456.

• Conn. CoL Records , I., 387.

6o COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1664

This ill-judged and illegal attempt to force the
issue drove the moderates of New Haven over to
the side of the ultras, and led the New Haven
court to decide that it would not consider the
matter of imion in any form unless Connecticut
would order the men of Stamford and Guilford to
return to their allegiance and recognize the in-
tegrity of the colony/ The court of New Haven
addressed a temperate complaint to the United
Commissioners, and, emboldened by a favorable
reply,* took measures at once to assert authority
in the colony by ordering Rossiter and his fellow-
radicals to obey its commands.

A sort of deadlock ensued. Connecticut replied
that if New Haven used force with Rossiter and
his party, she would take it as done against herself;
and New Haven could only reply, *'Is this the way
to union?'" Finally, in February, 1664, the com-
mittee appointed by Connecticut to take charge of
the case promised to order the secessionists to return
to allegiance, and declared that in the future all
forcible actions would be ** carefully shunned and
all grievances would be buried."* This promise,
however, was never ratified by the Connecticut
court.

The controversy was finally ended by an tm-
expected event. Early in August, 1664, informa-

' New Haven Col. Records, II., 491, 516.

• Plymouth Col. Records, X., 308-310.

^ New Haven CoL Records^ II., 517-530. * Ibid., 5x6.

i669] NEW ENGLAND ADJUSTED 6i

tion was received in New Haven that the king had
granted to the duke of York the territory of New
Netherland and all the region eastward to the
Connecticut River. Rather than suffer the humilia-
tion of annexation to New York, New Haven pre-
ferred to submit to Connecticut. One by one the
towns withdrew, tmtil in December only New Haven,
Branford, and Guilford remained to represent the
old jurisdiction. The freemen of these towns, a
few from Milford, and as many others "as was
pleased to come," finally met on December 13 and
voted to submit "as from a necessity," but with a
** salvo jure of former rights and claim, as a people
who have not been heard in point of plea."* The
colonial jurisdiction was dissolved; only the sepa-
rate towns remained, and each independently joined
Connecticut. Davenport withdrew to Boston, where
he died in 1669. Many families migrated to New
Jersey, and there founded the town of Newark,
though it is an error to suppose that Branford or
any other town migrated with its records.*

With Rhode Island, too, Connecticut came into
controversy. That amphibious colony, niunbering
in 1660 not more than a thousand souls, had for
thirty years struggled with its neighbors for the
right to exist. Massachusetts, Plymouth, and
Connecticut each laid claim to some part of its

* N€w Haven Col. Records, II., 551.

' So erroneously stated by Doyle, in The Cambridge Modem
History, VII., 26.

62 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1639

territory. The union of the four towns in 1647 was
but a loose compact, the conditions of which were
never consistently observed by any of the settle-
ments, to each of which the idea of a higher,
sovereign power was exceedingly repugnant, " none
submitting to supreme authority but as they
please."* The inclination of the towns to reduce
central authority to a minimum was as strong after
1647 as it had been before; and they looked on the
general assembly and the general coiut of trials as
inferior to their own town-meetings.

This tendency is illustrated by the career of
William Coddington, who established a settlement
on the island at Newport in 1639, which tmited with
Portsmouth on the same island in 1640. The
settlements increased rapidly in population and
prosperity and outstripped the towns of the less
fertile main - land.* The little commtmity was
speedily divided into parties: Coddington, Par-
tridge, and others, chiefly of Portsmouth, composed
one conservative and theocratic faction ; while John
Clarke, Easton, and their colleagues of Warwick
and Providence, and some of Newport, liberal-
minded and without definite religious affiliations,
made up the other. In 1644, and again in 1648,
Coddington applied for admission to the New
England Confederation, but the Commissioners re-

* Maverick, Description of New England, in N. E. Hist, and
Gen. Reg. , XXXIX. . 44- Cf . Tyler, England in America, chap. xiv.
> Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 3d series, IX., 378.

i6si] NEW ENGLAND ADJUSTED 63

fused the request, unless Rhode Island would come
in as part of Plymouth ; but Newport, Warwick, and
Providence would not agree/

Thwarted in his attempt to break up the colony,
Coddington appealed to England. He sailed from
Boston in January, 1649, and immediately applied
for a patent, with himself as governor. Only
Winslow, of Plymouth, opposed him,' and in-
fluential men worked in his favor, notably Rev.
Hugh Peters, the old enemy of Roger Williams,
with whom, Coddington wrote, "I was merry and
called Jiim the Arch BB. of Canterbury . . . and
it passed very well."' Winslow could make out
no case for Plymouth, and in April, 165 1, the
Council of State actually commissioned Coddington
governor of the island/

He returned to the colony in triumph, only to
find the furious colonists declaring that he had
obtained his charter by falsehood, had brought upon
them •• disturbances and distractions," and in getting
away the greater part of her territory had "tmdone
the colony."*

Steps were taken immediately to obtain a with-
drawal of the commission, and Roger Williams and

^ Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections^ 3d series, IX., 23, 271; Narra-
gansett Club, Publications ^ VI., 154.

» Cal. of State Pap., Col., i574-i66o,prp. 335-338.

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 4th series, VII., 281-283.

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1 574-1660, p. 354.

* Narragansett Club, Publications, VI., 229, 267; R, I, Col, ReC'
ords, I., 234; Hutchinson Papers, I., 237.

COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

John Clarke were sent to England to secure a
renewal of the patent of 1644.* Williams was
warmly welcomed by Sir Harry Vane, who exerted
himself loyally in his behalf. Inasmuch as Codding-
ton had injured his cause by negotiating with the
Dutch at New Amsterdam,* Williams and Clarke
were successful in their mission: the patent of
1644 was confirmed and the inhabitants were or-
dered to "go on in the name of a colony" tmtil a
further investigation should be made.'

In the mean time exciting events were taking
place on the island itself. Coddington's usurpation
of authority was thoroughly distasteful to the men
of Newport as well as to those of Warwick and
Providence, and they raised the cry of treason and
of conspiracy with the Dutch. In March, 1652, a
party of islanders captured Partridge and hanged
him. Coddington, helpless in the face of this
organized discontent, appealed to Winthrop to come
over and aid him ; but without waiting for a reply
he fled to Boston, where he surrendered the title
deeds, and very unwillingly yielded all claim to the
island by right of prior discovery.* His career as
an independent governor was over, but nothing

■ Narragansett Qub, Publications, VI., aoo, aaS-aja; R.I. Col.
Records, I., 234.

'AT. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., I., 497; Mass. Hist. Soc.,
Collections, 4th series, VII., 283.

• Narragansett Club, Publications, VI., 236, 254.

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 4th series, VII., 284; R. /•
Col. Records, I., 50.

i66o] NEW ENGLAND ADJUSTED 65

further was done by the authorities at home to
settle the controversy.*

For three years Rhode Island was divided into
two separate, self-governing parts,' and the patent
of 1644 was held in abeyance. But in 1654 the
main-land made overtures to the island for a union,
and as the result of this appeal, in May, 1654,
committees from each of the towns met at Warwick
for the purpose of establishing once more a union
under the old patent. Roger Williams was chosen
president, and all agreed to let by-gones be by-gones.
In 1656 the last trace of civil conflict was erased:
Coddington made formal submission to the author-
ity of the colony; the record of his transactions
was exptmged from the jourr a\ and the incident
was declared closed.*

The history of the united colony of Rhode Island
for the next six years was in the main peaceful, though
controversies among the inhabitants of the towns
were not infrequent, and disputes with Massachusetts
and Connecticut about boundaries were common.
With the accession of Charles II. fears naturally arose
that the restored Stuart might listen to the appeal
of Rhode Island's neighbors and bring to an end
the separate existence of the colony. The general
coxirt of Rhode Island proclaimed the king at once,

* Narragansett Club, Publications, VI., 254, 255.
^Providence Records, I., 76; Portsmouth Records , 61, 62; R,

I. Col. Records, I., 273.

* Narragansett Club, Publications, VI., 294 and note; R. I. Col,
Records, I., 328-333.

TOL. T.~5

66 COLOXIAL SELP-GOVERXMEXT [1660

pot oa record its '"xznf^yaed hnmble afiEection'*
for his 3fajesty, and instmcted Jc^m Clarke, who
was still in England, to agitate tor a charter.'
Clarke sent two petitions to the king for a ^'more
absolute, ample, and free charter of civil incorpora-
tion/' and laid special stress upon the fact that
Rhode Island was the guardian of that ^'freedom
of conscience'* which Charles himself had uphekl
in the proclamation frcsn Breda.' The petitions
were well received and were transmitted by the
king to his cotmcil in March. 1661.

Months passed and nothing further was heard
of the matter, for Winthrop, in behalf of Connecticut,
brought weightier influences to bear for the es-
tablishment of boundaries that conflicted with Rhode
Island's claims. But there is no reason for believing
that Winthrop knew of Clarke's petition or was in
any way responsible for the delay.' Clarke was
equally ignorant at first of Winthrop's mission, and
made no protest against the granting of Connecticut's
charter until after it had passed the seals ,•* but
he saw Winthrop before the charter was despatched
to America, and made clear to him the manifest
injustice of the proposed boimdaries. Winthrop
having agreed to leave the matter to a board of ar-
bitrators, the question was debated pro and con. in

* R. L Col. Records, I., 432, 433, 441.

^Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, §§ 10, 18; R, /. CoL
Records, I., 485-491.

' Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 5th series, VIII., 75; IX., 34.

* Ibid., IX., 33. •

i663] NEW ENGLAND ADJUSTED 67

the presence of Clarendon, the lord chancellor, and
on April 7, 1663, a decision was rendered in favor of
Rhode Island.* The boundary - line between the
two colonies was fixed at the Pawcatuck River,
which henceforth was called the Narragansett, so
that it might not be necessary to recall and alter
Connecticut's charter.

Even with this difficulty settled, a further delay
ensued. Apparently Clarendon and the king were
not satisfied with certain expressions in the draught
of the Rhode Island charter. They called in Win-
throp, and seem to have discussed the matter with
him. Whatever the exact trouble was — perhaps
the question of religious toleration — the chancellor
does not appear to have pressed the point, and no
changes were made in the text of the document.
The warrant was issued by the king, and the charter
passed the seals in July, 1663, rather *'upon the
good opinion and confidence" that the king and
Clarendon had in Winthrop than because of entire
satisfaction with the provisions of the charter itself.'

The precious document was sent to Rhode Island
by Captain Baxter, and there, November 24, 1663,
was ** held up on high with becoming gravity in the
sight of the people.*' * The grateful deputies voted
liberally their thanks to the king and Clarendon

* R. I. Col. Records, I., 518; Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections,
5th scries, VIII., 82.

' N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 55.

* R. I. Col. Records, I., 509.

68 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1663

and made grants of money to Clarke and Baxter.
The charter began the unification of the colony.
By 1680 centralization prevailed, and the general
assembly gathered to itself much of the power
formerly exercised by the towns. From the cir-
cumstances of its early history, the executive in
Rhode Island since that time has always been
subordinate to the legislature.

The granting of the charters to Connecticut and
Rhode Island made but little difference in the
government and life of the colonies, but it gave
them a unity and a legal standing which they had
hitherto lacked. Each colony clung to its charter
with remarkable tenacity and venerated it as the
palladium of its liberties. The people of these
colonies had good reason to cherish their funda-
mental instruments, for they were remarkable
documents. Though clothed in the phraseology of
trading charters, they were in reality constitutions
of government unlike an)rthing seen in commercial
charters before; and they sanctioned principles of
government that no trading company had ever
possessed and no Stuart could ever have defended.
They embodied the levelling doctrines of the rank
and file of the army in the days of the second
civil war — doctrines that had been rejected as
subversive of government, not only by Charles I.,
but also by Cromwell and the Rump Parliament.
Wittingly or unwittingly, Charles II. gave his ap-
proval of the doctrines contained in the Agreement

«Bi

1664] NEW ENGLAND ADJUSTED 69

of the People of 1648 and 1649, and in so doing
encouraged and gave legal warrant to democratic
government in America. )(

While these changes were taking place in New
England, Charles II. and Clarendon were con-
sidering the advisability of sending a special com-
mission to investigate the condition of the New
England colonies and to settle the many disputes
that had arisen regarding the boundaries and other
matters of controversy there. In April, 1664, a
commission was created, consisting of Colonel Rich-
ard Nicolls, the governor appointed for the as yet
uncaptured New Netherland; Colonel Robert Carr,
a burly and tactless English officer ; Colonel George
Cartwright, a well-meaning soldier, unversed in the
arts of diplomacy; and Samuel Maverick, an old
resident of Boston and persona ingrata to the men
of Massachusetts Bay.
Hn^ ^ The three colonels, fully instructed and intrusted
with a business of unusual delicacy, embarked in
June on the ships commissioned by the king to
seize New Netherland. They were sent to effect the
captiu'e of that colony; to induce New England to
submit peacefully to the king; to heal factional
strife ; to settle boundary questions ; to inquire into
the laws, manners, and customs of the various
governments; and to find out how to make the
colonies more profitable to the crown.*

Had Clarendon selected his men as shrewdly as

* N. y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 55-61.

70 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1664

he drew up their instructions, the tmdertaking might
have been mcxierately successful; but NicoUs was
the only one of the four with any sense of the
situation. Carr and Cartwright possessed neither
tact nor statesmanship, and Maverick was not likely
to have much influence in New England. So far as
Connecticut and Rhode Island were concerned, the
commissioners had no reason to anticipate trouble,
for the recent grant of the charters smoothed their
path with the authorities in those colonies. Pl5rm-
outh also was certain to be friendly, for that col-
ony was hoping for a charter of its own and could
not afford to offend the king. The result justified
these expectations. Each of these colonies wel-
comed the commissioners with ''great expressions of
loyalty," and suffered them to hear complaints and
settle disputes *'to the great satisfaction of all.'**
In their report the commissioners spoke highly of
these colonies, declaring that among them they
had had as great success as the most sanguine
could have hoped for.*

With Massachusetts the case was different. Nic-
oUs and Cartwright presented their credentials in
Boston in July, 1664; and as their demand was only
for troops and the repeal of the franchise law, they
got on well enough, Massachusetts evidently ex-
pecting soon to be rid of them. But in February,
1665, Cartwright and Carr returned, and the first

^ Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. i., 174-176.
* .v. y. Docs, Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 96, 97.

iP<«fe>

1665] NEW ENGLAND ADJUSTED 71

interviews were stormy, Massachusetts vehemently
den)ring their right to hear appeals or to exercise
any jurisdiction whatever, on the grotmd that such
acts conflicted with the colony's right under the
charter. In May, Nicolls came on from New York,
and for more than three weeks the matter in ques-
tion was debated between the commissioners on
one side and the general court on the other. The
magistrates argued every point at length, refusing
to recognize any abuses in their government or the
right of the commissioners to assume any of their
prerogatives,* Finally, the commissioners, angry
and baffled, brought the conferences to an end, and,
leaving everything unsettled, journeyed northward
to Piscataway and soon afterwards returned to Eng-
land.

The colony had saved its rights of government
at the expense of its reputation in England, and the
impression gained ground that Massachusetts was on
the eve of rebellion. In their report the commission-
ers advised the king to adopt a policy of coercion,
and Charles II., in his reply to the commissioners,
took occasion to rebuke the colony sharply for its
want of respect to those whom he had sent intrusted
with his commands. But the king went no further,
for Clarendon, suspecting that the commissioners
had not used as much tact as they ought, bade the

* Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. i., 177-234; iV. V. Docs. Rel,
to Col. Hist., III., 93-100; Hutchinson, Hist, of Mctss. Bay, I.,
230-250.

72 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1668

colony send agents to England with authority to
settle there the questions in dispute.* Though
for the moment Massachusetts escaped an attack
upon her prerogatives, the slight which she had
inflicted upon the king's representatives was not
easily or soon forgotten.

The fall of Clarendon in 1667 probably saved the
colony. The king was appeased by extraordinary-
protestations of loyalty from the Massachusetts
general court and. the present of twenty-six ** great
masts," which the colony sent as evidence of its
affection.* Taking advantage of this lull in the
storm, Massachusetts resumed control over the
county of York, that portion of Maine claimed by
the heirs of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, which the com-
missioners, as almost their last act, had removed
from the jurisdiction of the colony. A special
committee was appointed by the Lords of Trade
to investigate this piece of prestunption,* but
eventually Massachusetts was left in full possession
of the territory. Never did the colony seem more
secure than at this time: its authority extended
from Sagadahoc to Hingham and into the interior
westward as far as the Connecticut River ; the French
and Indians were quiet; trade was unchecked by
any serious attempt to enforce the navigation acts ;

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, §§ 1171, 1174.
' Ibid., § 1797.

• Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. i., 371; Cal. of State Pap., CoL,
X669-1674, §§ 59, 8a, Z84, 439, 51a.

1 668]

NEW ENGLAND ADJUSTED

and a spirit of industry and contentment brooded
over the colony.* Resistance to the king's commis-
sioners seemed to have been a wise and successful
policy.

^ Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass, Bay, I., 369.

CHAPTER V

NEW AMSTERDAM BECOMES NEW YORK

(1652-1672)

THE re-adjustment of affairs in New England was
only one phase of that revived interest in trade
and colonization which characterized the period
of the Restoration in England and attracted the
attention, not only of the merchants, but also of
men of high rank and official prominence. Pre-
eminently important at this time were the com-
mercial supremacy of the Dutch and the presence
of a Dutch colony in America lying midway between
New England and Maryland. On the eastern sea-
board, the Dutch occupied the most advantageous
position, and their claims stretched eastward to Cape
Cod and southward to Cape Henlopen on the farther
side of Delaware Bay.* In one direction they came
into conflict with New Haven, Connecticut, and
Rhode Island, and in the other with the Swedes and
Lord Baltimore; they controlled the trade of the
Five Nations; and, from England's point of view,
they offered a tempting opportunity to planters and

* Plymouth Col. Records, IX., 146, 147, 210-214; ^« ^- Docs,
Rel. to Col, Htst., I., 288-292.

yai^i^m^

i6s3l CONQUEST OP NEW YORK 75

traders to sell tobacco contrary to the navigation
acts and to defraud the king of his revenues. To
deprive the Dutch of their power and their oppor-
tunity in America was, therefore, a necessary part
of England's policy as shaped by Cromwell and
carried out by Charles II.

Had the expedition of Major Sedgwick against
New Amsterdam in 1652 been carried out, the
Dutch must siurely have been beaten then and there ;
for the Dutch colony had taken no firm root in
America, and lacking both political and social
unity, was in no condition at that time to resist
an attacking force from England and her colonies.
Peter Stuyvesant, who became director of the
colony in 1647, was an energetic ruler, but he
alienated the burghers by his domineering methods
and by his attempts to keep the control of govern-
ment in the hands of himself and the cotmcil. /His
inability to carry out his plans made his own
position weak. At the very beginning of his ad-
ministration the need of financial support forced him
to listen to the burghers' demand for a share in their
government and to establish a board of nine men
representing the people, who should confer with him
in all matters concerning the city (1647).* This
board became a centre of municipal discontent, and
the quarrels which ensued ended in 1653 in the grant

* Jameson, "Government of New York City" (Magazine of
Amer. Hist., VIII., pt. i., 326); text of charter in O'Callaghan,
Hist, of New Neth,, I., 37-39.

76 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1653

of a municipal charter for the city, which made New
Amsterdam independent of the government of the
rest of the island of Manhattan.

Yet Stuyvesant's policy rendered any efficient self-
government for the city impossible, and the burgo-
master and schepens exercised very little actual
authority, their functions being chiefly judicial.^
Opposed by his own countrymen, Stuyvesant came
to depend on the English residents within the col-
ony; but they, forbidden by the States-General of
Holland to hold office, were never a certain sup-
port. The fort on the southern point of the city
fell into decay; the burghers, phlegmatic in tem-
perament, refused to listen to Stuyvesant's passion-
ate appeals for aid in defending the town ; and the
Dutch West India Company seemed wholly tmwill-
ing to spend any money in behalf of its colony.
Consequently, the last years of Dutch rule were
characterized by friction in political and social mat-
ters, by neglect of military defence, and a gradual
waning of Dutch colonial prestige.

Stuyvesant watched with great concern the
gradual advance of the English. After the grant
of the charter of 1662 Connecticut, notwithstanding
the treaty of Hartford of 1650, claimed all the
territory between Stamford and Westchester, as
well as the whole of Long Island.' Stuyvesant

* Records of New Amsterdam, I., 49.

• Conn,Col, Records, I., 406; N. Y. Docs. Rel, to Col. Hist., II.,
ax7.

1663] CONQUEST OF NEW YORK 77

truly said in reply to the demands of Connecticut
that, even if New Netherland should cede West-
chester and all Long Island, it would not satisfy
the aggressors, whose object was to drive the Dutch
entirely from America.^ For ten years the Dutch
and the English, though nominally at peace, were
actually engaged in a persistent commercial and
colonial war.' Englishmen never forgot the mas-
sacre of Amboyna in 1623, whereby the Dutch had
driven them out of the Spice Islands; and com-
plaints by the score came from English residents of
Long Island for injuries done to English trade and
revenue by the Dutch in New Amsterdam.* In-
fluential men like Sir George Downing kept up
a fire of criticism and comment hostile to Holland ;
and the founding of the Royal African Company
in 1 66 1 gave rise to new conflicts at Cabo-Corso
castle (Cape Verd) and on the Guinea coast.*

Impressed with the belief that the Dutch were
injuring England's commerce, the council for
plantations took the matter in hand, and in July,
1663, with Sir John Berkeley as its presiding officer,
bade the complainants bring in a report proving
their charges, and appointed a special committee,
composed of Berkeley, Carteret, and William Coven-
try, secretary to the duke of York, to report re-

» Thurloc. State Papers, V., 81.

•AT. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist, II., 385-393; III., 230-231;
Plymouth Col. Records, X., 302-304.

• iV. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III.. 46.

* Col. of State Pap., Col., x66i-i668, { 618, 1668-1674, { 936.

78 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1664

garding the feasibility of an attack on the Dutch
territory in America. The committee made in-
quiry of residents of Long Island who were in
London, and in January, 1664, reported that the
overthrow of the colony could be easily effected.
The following six months furnish a remarkable
chapter in the history of English aggression. Eng-
lish statesmen and merchants were thoroughly
aroused against the Dutch. The duke of York
and his personal friends — Clarendon, Carteret, and
Berkeley — ^were leaders of the movement, the duke
showing his active interest by frequently conferring
with the merchants, encouraging the merchant
companies, and doing all in his power to hinder the
Dutch trade.*

Under the guidance of these men the conspiracy
against the Dutch made rapid progress. Berkeley
and Carteret submitted their report in January,
1664; in February James obtained of his brother a
grant of £4000 to undertake the conquest, and on
March 12, 1664, received a royal charter of the terri-
tory, which by the king's special instruction was
rushed through the seals with extraordinary rapidity
in less than two weeks, the forms which tisually
preceded the king's warrant in this case not being
necessary.' On March 26 the House of Commons
resolved that an investigation should be made into
the causes of the decay of trade, and authorized

' Clark, Life of James Second, I., 399-401.

» Cal. of State Pap., Col, 1661-1668, §{ 675, 685.

■*■» —

i664] CONQUEST OF NEW YORK 79

the committee of trade to look into the matter.*
The committee bade the merchant companies state
their grievances and propose a remedy;* and on
April I, 1664, the merchants declared that the
Dutch were the greatest enemies to the trade of
the kingdom.

On April 2, James commissioned Richard Nicolls,
groom of his bedchamber, to be lieutenant-governor
of the yet unconquered territory in America f and on
April 2 1 , Parliament accepted the report of the com-
mittee based on the statements of the merchants,
and justified the king's assertion that both houses
were in "good humor" and ready to **pawn their
estates to maintain a war."* The king opposed
war with Holland, but believed that the Dutch were
the aggressors and that he had a legitimate complaint
against the Dutch East and West India companies,
particulariy in America, for, he said, New Amster-
dam "did belong to England heretofore, but the
Duch by degrees drove our people out of it."*
On April 23 he sent to the government of New
England an announcement of his determination to
conquer New Netherland, and appointed the com-
mission, consisting of Nicolls, Cartwright, Carr, and
Maverick, to go to America to investigate the

* Cal. of State Pap., Dom., 1663-1664, § 531,
^ Ibid., i 541.

" Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, § 695.

* Cal. of State Pap., Dotn., 1663 - 1664, § 562; Cartwright,
Madame, Memoirs of the Princess Henrietta, 158, 160.

•Cartwright, Madame, 176.

8o COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1664

situation.* In June James, probably at the urgent
request of his friends, divided the territory granted
him by the king, and gave the region between the
Hudson and the Delaware to Carteret and Berkeley.
A month later, though England and Holland were
at peace, NicoUs and his fleet of foiu: vessels started
for America to conquer the territory thus summarily
disposed of. A more unprincipled series of secret
actions against a friendly nation, whose only
offence was greater success in conmierce, can hardly
be imagined.

The territory thus assigned included all the area
" beginning at a certain place called St. Croix, next
adjoining to New Scotland in America," and ex-
tending westward to the Kennebec River and north-
ward to Canada; also, all the territory lying be-
tween the Connecticut and Delaware rivers, together
with Long Island, Martha's Vineyard, and Nan-
tucket. For ten years the islands last named
had been independent of any outside jurisdiction,
having been governed by a certain Thomas Mayhew
and his son, who derived their authority from
Stirling and Gorges, original patentees of the New
England cotmcil. Of the entire territory the por-
tion occupied by the Dutch, extending from Fort
Orange on the north to Delaware Bay on the south,
was by far the most important, and its centre and
key was the city of New Amsterdam.

As the duke of York and his colleagues must have

» N. y. Docs. Rel. to Col Hist., II., 237; III., 51-61. 63.

i664] CONQUEST OF NEW YORK 8i

anticipated from their preliminary study of the
situation, the city fell an easy prey to the fleet.
Stuyvesant wished to fight. When he received from
Nicolls the letter demanding the siurender of the
city he tore it in pieces and in a storm of wrath
stamped upon the torn fragments, and declared to
the members of the cotmcil that he would never
yield. But the phlegmatic burghers refused to sup-
port him, and, gathering the pieces of the letter,
they read the commtmication and answered it with
a flag of truce. > Au^st 26. 166/1. the English oc^
cupied the city.* Cartwright was sent to capture
Enrt Orancr, and Carr was despatched to the
Delaware to capture Fort Ams tel, which he did in
^an tmnecessarily brutal manner. Nicolls, the only
efficient statesman among the four commissioners,
made every effort to conciliate the defeated biu^hers
and to build up the colony, for by the terms of the
capitulation the Dutch were allowed to keep their
property and to remain in the colony if they chose,
to have liberty of conscience and worship, to retain
their own customs, and to enjoy all the privileges
of English subjects.*

Towards Connecticut Nicolls displayed the same
liberality; instead of attempting to carry out
literally the terms of the duke of York's patent,

* Records of New Amsterdam ^ V., 114-n^; Brodhead, Hist,
of New York, I., 20-37.

' N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., II., 250-253; Munsell, Annals
of Albany, IV., 28; Smith, Hist, of New York, I., 28.

TOL. V."

82 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1664

which would have cost Connecticut all her terri-
tory west of the Connecticut River, he compromised
on a line drawn north -northwest from a jxiint on
the coast twelve miles east of the Hudson River.
Though the Connecticut men who accepted this
arrangement lost Long Island, they managed to
add a few miles of territory west of the line previ-
ously agreed to by the Dutch, and, had the north-
west line ever been allowed, would have carried
their frontier across the Hudson River. The line
was subjected to severe scrutiny at a later time, and
Connecticut was forced eventually to retire within
the boundary provided for in the treaty of Hart-
ford.*

The duke of York, as proprietary of the new
colony, was intrusted with full and absolute power
to govern and administer his province according to
such laws and ordinances as he might choose to
establish, but on condition that all laws be agreea-
ble to those of England and appeals allowed to the
king in council from all judgments of the colonial
courts. The proprietary could appoint a governor
and other officers authorized to administer the
province under such laws and methods of govern-
ment as seemed to him fit and suitable and not
contrary to the laws of England, and he could
regulate trade as he pleased within the territory of

* Bowen, Boundary Disputes of Connecticut, 69, 70; Smith,
Hist, of New York, I., 36; N. Y. State Library, Bulletin, History
No. 2, p. 135; N. Y. State Historian, Report, 1896, pp. 143, 144.

1683] CONQUEST OF NEW YORK 83

the grant. That James himself determined the
leading points of this patent we cannot doubt.

Under the provisions of the grant, Nicolls gov-
erned with fairness and wisdom. He promptly
Anglicized the different portions of his colony,
calling New Amsterdam New York, Fort Orange
Albany, New Amstel New Castle, the region west
of the Hudson River Albania; and erecting Long
Island, Staten Island, and Westchester into the
district of Yorkshire. He organized a system of
judicial districts, or ridings, but it was not until
1683 that the province was divided into coun-
ties.*

He attempted to increase the population of Al-
bania by offering favorable conditions to settlers ; he
encouraged the trade of the colony by increasing mer-
chant shipping ; he made treaties with the Indians ;
and he uiged the Long Island people to settle their
boimdary difficulties, and to live peacefully among
themselves. Even the Dutch testified to the '* gen-
tleness, wisdom, and intelligence" with which he
managed the government,* and his fellow -com-
missioner Maverick wrote to Arlington that Nicolls
had acquired "great repute and honor," and had
"kept persons of different judgments and divers
nations in place when a great part of the world
was in wars." "As to the Indians," he added,
"they were never brought into such a peaceful

* Colonial Laws of New York, I., 121.

* Records of New Amsterdam, V., 160-162.

84 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1664

posture and fair correspondence as they now
aver'

In all that related to law and government Nicolls
was restricted by definite instructions from the
duke, who was opposed to self-government in any
form, and not only caused any mention of a rep-
resentative assembly to be omitted from the royal
charter, but specially instructed his governor to
model the government of the city of New York after
that of a mimicipal corporation in England. Under
these instructions Nicolls had to establish a govern-
ment in city and province in which the people as
a whole had no share. In 1665 he granted a char-
ter to the city, inaugurating a government of the
familiar English type, in accordance with which
mayor, aldermen, and sheriff were appointed by the
lieutenant-governor, but were given power to make
by-laws, to name inferior officers, and to sit as a
final court in all cases involving forty shillings or
less. Though the charter favored the freemen of
the city by bestowing upon them a monopoly of
trade, it made the lieutenant-governor the supreme
authority imder the duke and denied to the people
the privilege of self-government.'

Inasmuch as the royal charter made no provision
for representative government such as appeared in
other proprietary charters, Nicolls was unable to

» A^. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist, III., 173, 174.
'Jameson, '•Government of New York City" (Magazine of
Amer. Hist., VIII., pt. ii., 598-611).

i66s] CONQUEST OF NEW YORK 85

place the draughting of a code of laws in the hands
of an elected legislative body, and was compelled
himself to draw up as fairly as possible such laws
as seemed to him reasonable and necessary. These
laws, later known as the Duke's Laws, were in-
tended mainly for the residents of Westchester and
Long Island, where a majority of the inhabitants
were Englishmen. In carrying out his task NicoUs
copied many provisions from the codes of New
Haven and Massachusetts, introduced many Dutch
customs, and added some peculiarities of his own.
The laws made no provision for town-meetings, free-
men, and schools; and instead of the ** townsmen"
whom the English had been accustomed to choose to
manage their prudential affairs, elective oflBcers were
established-ya constable and eight overseersV— with
limited powers, somewhat after the fashion of the
Dutch village communities. Absolute toleration in
matters of religion was allowed, and land-holding in-
stead of church membership was made the qualifica-
tion of voters.' Thus the code, admirably drawn
in many particulars and liberal in all that concerned
religion and the suffrage, distinctly curtailed the
political privileges which the inhabitants of the
English towns had hitherto enjoyed. Such an in- ^-.
novation was certain in the end to make trouble^fe^^

After draughting his laws, NicoUs, in FebruaryT^^^
1665, issued a proclamation bidding the people of the
towns of Long Island send deputies to Hempstead,

* McKinley, in Anter. Hist, Review, VI., 704-718.

86 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1665

promising them "freedom and immunities" equal
to those possessed by the New England colonies.^
When the deputies came together they discovered
for the first time that their business was simply
to sanction without addition or amendment a body
of laws already drawn up. Some demurred, but
opposition was useless; all eventually gave their
consent and scattered to their homes without
further protest. Afterwards, roused by the criti-
cisms of their townspeople, they issued a "narra-
tive and remonstrance," in which they demanded a
reconsideration of those provisions of the code
which concerned the election of magistrates, the
levying of taxes, and the control of the militia —
the provisions most objectionable to the Long-
Islanders.* Nicolls answered that he could do
nothing for them and that they would have to go to
the king if they wanted further privileges ; a reply
with which the deputies seem to have been content.
The people did not view the matter in quite the
same light as the deputies. The towns of western
as of eastern Long Island understood "immuni-
ties'* to mean political liberties.* Hence, after the
Hempstead meeting discontent prevailed widely.
Many of the people refused to pay taxes; towns

> V. Y. Docs. ReL to Col. Hist., XIV.. 564. 565; N. Y. State
Library, Bulletin, History No. 2, 154, 155; Soutkold Records, I.,

357» 358-

' Thompson, Hist, of Long Island, II., 323-326.

• N. Y. State Historian, Report, 1897, pp. 241, 242; Soutkold

Records, I., 358, 359.

1670] CONQUEST OF NEW YORK 87

refused to elect oflBcers according to the provisions
of the Duke's Laws; trouble arose over the officering
of the militia, and some prominent Long -Islanders
spoke their minds so freely as to bring upon them
penalties for seditious utterances.* When Nicolls
was succeeded by Governor Lovelace, in 1668, the
towns of western Long Island renewed the attack,
and sent in a petition craving redress of grievances
and asking that their ** deputies be joined with the
governor and council in making the laws of the
government"; but Lovelace, with less tact than
Nicolls had displayed, bade them remember that he
had no authority to grant their request, and that
it was their business to be obedient and submissive
to the authority of the duke.'

The Puritans, however, were not inclined to accept
this advice, and a further opportimity soon arose
for them to show their spirit. The fort in New
York had fallen into decay, and in 1670 Lovelace
and the court of assizes took into consideration the
question of how it could best be repaired **to the
ease and satisfaction of the inhabitants."* Before
any tax was levied for this purpose Flushing, Hemp-
stead, and Jamaica — and later Huntington — took
fright and called town - meetings, which di^ughted
strongly worded' protests against any attempti to
impose taxes upon them without their consent.*

« N. Y. Docs.Rel to Col. Hist., XIV., 576, 578. 579: Waller,
Hist, of Flushing, 62-66; Brodhead, Hist, of New York, I., 108.
» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., XIV., 631, 632.
*/6fd., 646. * Huntington Records, I., 163, 164.

88 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1669

Lovelace was so angry at receiving these "scan-
dalous, illegal, and seditious addresses" that he
ordered them to be openly and publicly burned
before the town - house in New York, an action to
which the council and the justices of the peace gave
their approval.* Nevertheless, the addresses were
not without their effect; for, two years later, when
the same question came up again, Lovelace sent to
the towns a very temperate address asking for
voluntary contributions.* The western towns, ap-
peased, responded promptly and liberally, but the
eastern towns remained obdurate.

Both Southampton and Southold refused to renew
their patents in 1669;* and when Lovelace, in
October, 1670, declared that unless they did so their
lands would be forfeited, they joined with East-
hampton and sent a petition to the king begging that
they might be annexed to Connecticut. Hearing
nothing from this petition, the three towns, in June,
1672, drew up a statement agreeing to contribute
to the repairing of the fort " if they might have the
privileges that other of his majesty's subjects in
these parts have and do enjoy.*'* Evidently the
towns sent some contribution to New York with
their statement, for when their letter was read
Lovelace promised to answer it and '* to take notice
of the meanness of their contribution and the

> iV. Y. Docs Rel. to Col. Hist., XIV., 646. 647. » Ibid., 667.

• N. Y. State Historian, Report, 1896, p. 356; N. Y. Docs.
Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 197, 198.

* Easthampton Records , I., 346.

i674l CONQUEST OF NEW YORK 89

seeming condition of it/* ^ Thus ended the first
attempt of the people of New York to obtain
redress of grievances before granting supplies.

In 1673 war again broke out between England
and Holland, and in August of that year a Dutch
fleet recaptured New York and restored, though
only temporarily, the authority of the Dutch. This
event gave to the three Long Island towns a new
opportimity to obtain the desired liberties. They
refused to take the oath of fidelity to the Dutch
government, and an attempt of the governor, Colve,
to subdue them by force failed because of the
intervention of Connecticut. The towns remained
independent of all higher jurisdiction until in May,
1674, the court at Hartford appointed a commission
with "magistratical power*' to hold a county court
for them on Long Island.* In Jtme, anticipating a
return to the jurisdiction of the duke of York, they
drew up a petition to the king, begging to be allowed
to remain as they were,* but it is doubtful if the
petition was ever sent, for in December, 1674, a
month after the English had again taken possession
of New York, they were compelled, very much
against their will, to submit to the authority of the
duke of York's government.* Thus Southampton,
Easthampton, and Southold failed in their attempt
to secure the greater political privileges that the
colony of Connecticut enjoyed.

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., XIV., 668.

* Conn. Col. Records, II. , 2 29. • Easthampton Records, I., 370.

*iV. y. Docs. Rel to Col, Hist., XIV., 681-685.

CHAPTER VI

THE PROVINCE OF NEW YORK

(1674-1686)

THE capture and occupation of the province by
the Dutch proved only an interlude in the
history of the colony. Colve, the Dutch governor,
was an able man, and had he been supported by the
Dutch authorities at home, might have held New
Orange (as he called New York) against the English.
But the fate of the province was settled in Europe
and not in America. News of the conquest and of
the hopeful condition of the city was late in reaching
The Hague.^ On February 19, 1674, by the treaty
of Westminster, the province was returned to Charles
II., and in October was formally surrendered to
Major Edmimd Andros, who had been appointed
governor by the duke of York. Andros, the son of
a Guernsey gentleman belonging to the household of
Charles I., was at this time a young man thirty-seven
years of age. Having spent his life in the environ-
ment of camp and court in the service of the king,
he brought to New York the habits of a soldier
and the sympathies of a Stuart devotee. He was

" N. y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., II., 526-530.

•■~~T '

1674I NEW YORK 91

a kindly iDan in his personal and domestic rela-
tions, but narrow in his views of government and
limited in his abilities as an executive. Like his
superior, the duke of York, he had no sense of
humor, no appreciation of the condition of the
English in America, and no tolerance for political
views that differed from his own.

Like his predecessors, NicoUs and Lovelace,
Andros was the governor of a wide - stretching,
irregularly shaped province, without unity, either
territorial or ethnic. It was peopled by English,
Dutch, and Swedes, and, though adapted to trade,
was not suited for compact and uniform adminis-
tration or for rapid growth in population and in
well -rooted political institutions. Though ten years
of association had done something to harmonize the
customs and practices of the varied regions included
in New York, uniformity was impossible. The
colony, deprived of the broad lands of Connecticut
and the Jerseys, and cut off from rapid expansion
northward by the Indians, was hindered in its
growth, and remained for half a century backward
in its development.

Andros did what he could to unite the scattered
portions of his colony. He reduced the towns of
eastern Long Island in December, 1674, and in June
following carried out the express instructions of the
duke by attempting to seize that portion of Con-
necticut named in the duke's charter as within his
jurisdiction. Connecticut met charter with charter.

92 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1674

and when Andros persisted in his claim and with
three vessels went to Saybrcx)k ostensibly to protect
the colony, he fotind a Connecticut force there.
Though he felt that Connecticut ought to be annexed
to New York, he did no more than state the duke's
claim and sail away to Southold and the eastern
islands.* He made a similar attempt to annex the
Jerseys, but with no better success.

Though he failed in these two ventures, which
have laid him open, very unjustly, to the charge
of playing the tyrant, he succeeded remarkably well
in his efforts to guard his province against attacks
of the Indians during King Philip's War. Not only
did he prevent inroads upon New York, but he sent
powder to Rhode Island and a sloop to Maine, and
would have aided Massachusetts and Connecticut
had not these colonies, suspicious of his intentions,
refused his proffered assistance.*

Andros was the appointee of an able but narrow-
minded prince, who had no sympathy for popular
government, but who for the sake of his revenues
was anxious to promote the prosperity of his colony,
James instructed his governor to use his power "for
the protection and benefit of the province, for the
encouragement of planters and plantations and the
improvement of trade and commerce, and for the
preservation of religion, justice, and equity among

* Documentary Hist, of New York, I., 153, 187; Conn. Col.
Records, II., 569-574.

» A^. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 254.

■■■iMiMaSli!

1674] NEW YORK 93

them," ^ instructions which Andros fully carried out.
He repaired and beautified houses and streets,
improved the social, moral, and religious condition
of the people, and gave time and attention to the
problems of excise, revenue, currency, and, above
all, of trade. The more his career is studied the
more the conviction grows that, as compared with
many other colonial governors, he was upright,
sympathetic, and faithful. He certainly was not
a great man, or, like Nicolls, he would have won
the respect of the people whom he governed; but
he never lost the confidence of his superiors, and else-
where and at other times would doubtless have
earned an honorable reputation as a soldier and
administrator.

Nor was Andros an enemy of representative as-
semblies, but he probably viewed the matter, as did
many other English statesmen of his time, from
the practical rather than from the theoretical stand-
point. At the outset of his administration the peo-
ple of Jamaica — and probably of other towns —
asked that deputies from the towns should be
stunmoned at least once a year to sit with the
governor and coimcil in New York.* In his letters
to the duke, Andros urged the desirability of granting
these requests, but James would hear nothing of it ;
he had his own ideas of what good government
ought to be, and was satisfied with the New York

» N. Y, Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III.. 216.

* N. Y. State Historian, Report, 1897, pp. 240-242.

94 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1674

S3rstem as it was. A representative assembly, he
answered, was inconsistent with the form of govern-
ment established for New York, and to sunmion one
would be a dangerous matter, " nothing being more
known than the aptness of such bodies to asstmie
to themselves many privileges which prove destruc-
tive to or very oft disturb the peace of the govern-
ment wherein they are allowed." * New York, there-
fore, remained for six years longer the only colony
in which the people had no share in their gov-
ernment.

In 1 681 James was compelled to reconsider his
decision because of the danger of loss of revenue.
The merchants of New York took advantage of his
neglect to renew the customs duties, which had
been in force since 1674, and refused to pay them.
Fenwick in West New Jersey refused in like manner
to pay the five per cent, duty which Andros levied
on all goods brought up the Delaware; and Philip
Carteret denied his right to levy duties in the
harbors of East New Jersey for the benefit of the
proprietary. Reports began to come in that the
receipts of the province were falling off, and im-
mediately James ordered Andros to return to Eng-
land to answer these reports. Under the weak rule of
the deputy, BrockhoUs, the province fell into further
disorder ; trade continued to decline and the duke's
revenues to decrease, and every indication seemed to
show that as a producer of profit to the propri-

" N, Y. Docs, Rel. to Col Hist,, III., 230. 235.

i682] NEW YORK 95

etary the autocratic system of government had
fatted/

The revolt of the merchants was accompanied
with wide -spread disaffection among the people.
Penn's grant of self-government And free-trade to
the colonists of Pennsylvania in 1682 increased the
discontent in New York and stimulated emigration.
The council, aldermen, and justices petitioned for a
representative assembly,* and meetings were called
in the towns of Long Island to agitate for a redress
of public grievances. In England, Andros, Nicolls,
and Dyer tirged the duke to allow an assembly as the
only means whereby money could be raised to pay
the expenses of government; and, confronted with
bankruptcy, the duke yielded. He wrote to Brock-
holls bidding him retain the government for the
present, and saying that he would grant an assembly
on the condition that it would raise a revenue for
the province.*

This promise the duke fulfilled. In 1682, when
he appointed Thomas Dongan governor of New
York, he authorized him to call at once on his
arrival a general representative assembly of the
freeholders, with free liberty of debate, to consult
with the governor and council regarding the levying
of taxes and the making of laws.* Dongan, an
Irish Roman Catholic and a man of warm heart and

• Brodhead, Hist, of New York, II., 354, 355.

• Text of the petition, ibid., 658.

• N: Y, Docs.Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 317, 318. * /Wd.,331.

96 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1683

lai^ powers, caused the writs to be issued* and on
October 1 7, 1683, there met in New York for the first
time in the history of the province a general popular
assembly. The representatives, seventeen in ntun-
ber, passed several laws, but all other measures were
insignificant when compared with the Charter of
Franchises and Liberties,* in which they embodied
all the political claims and privileges for which the
people had been agitating for eighteen years. The
charter contained provisions from Magna Carta, the
Confirmation of the Charters, and the Petition of
Right, set forth all the privil^es that Parliament
had won in the days of Elizabeth, and in grandly
calling the '* people" the ** electoral body," used
a word unknown in colonial charters, where "free-
men" was the invariable term. Well might James,
when he received this statute for his approval,
have repeated his remark that ** representative as-
semblies were apt to assume to themselves privi-
leges." Yet he signed and sealed the charter, and
October 4, 1684, ordered that it be despatched to
New York.*

For some reason the charter was not sent over
as ordered. Probably the document was held back
that it might be ** perfected," but in the interim
Charles II. died, February 6, 1685, and the duke
of York became king of England. The whole

* Colonial Laws of New York, I., 111-116.
» Col. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, 8 1885; Historical Maga-
tine, ist series, VI., 333.

i68sl NEW YORK 97

situation was altered: the proprietary had become
the king, and New York thereby a royal province
under the direct charge of the Lords of Trade, who
from this time forward were responsible for its
management. King James rejected the charter
which he had signed as proprietary, and at once
took up a plan which the Lords of Trade had been
formulating since 1675 for bringing all the pro-
prietary and charter colonies into a closer depen-
dence on the crown. Nicolls, Andros, and Dongan
had shown that New York could never prosper
tuiless the adjoining colonies were annexed to it.^
Troubles with Connecticut, Long Island, and the
Jerseys were all largely trade troubles. Tales of
evasion of duties, of smuggling, and of diversion of
Indian traffic kept coming to the ears of the home
authorities, and there seemed to be no other remedy
than consolidation.

James and his cotmcillors had no appreciation
of the political and racial differences among the
colonies, or of the deep-rooted instinct for self-
government and love of independence which the
colonists possessed. There is no evidence to show
that he ever took these characteristics into con-
sideration; and he probably could not have tm-
derstood them, for James was always blind to
popular moods and convictions. He was now king
and could enforce his plan. On March 4, 1685,
when the matter was brought before the committee

* N, Y. Docs. Rel, to Col. Hist., III., 361-364, 392, 394.
TOt. T.— 7

98 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1683

of his council sitting in his presence, he declared that
he wotild not confirm the charter, but desired to
bring New York under the constitution which was
to be draughted for the newly organized dominion of
New England.* In 1686, when a new conmiission
was sent to Dongan, all reference to a representative
assembly was omitted, and all powers of legislation
and taxation were once more vested in the governor
and council.

Dongan proved an admirable governor, better
even than NicoUs and Andros. He not only showed
his sympathy with the representative body that sat
during his administration, but he granted a new
charter to the city of New York (1683) and another
to Albany, conferring many additional privileges
of self-government.* The charter to* New York,
according to which mayor, recorder, and sheriff
were appointed by the governor, and aldermen were
chosen by the people, fixed the municipal officers
of New York for one himdred and thirty-five years.
Dongan opposed an attempt of Penn to purchase
the Susquehanna territory from the Indians. He
wished to draw the boimdary - line between New
York and Pennsylvania at 41® 40^, so that Penn
might not secure jurisdiction over the Five Nations
and control of the whole peltry trade west of Al-
bany ;' likewise, when Connecticut tried to establish
her boimdary, according to the arrangement with

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 357. » Ibid., 347,

• Col. of State Pap,, Col., 1685-1688, 327, 328.

1 686] NEW YORK 99

NicoUs, at a point twelve miles from the Hudson,
Dongan compelled her to withdraw to the twenty-
mile mark of the treaty of Hartford, tmder pen-
alty of a revival of the duke's claim to all the lands
west of the Connecticut River.* He refused to
lessen New York's commerce by allowing Perth
Amboy to become a port of entry, and de-
manded that all vessels bound for East New Jer-
sey should touch at New York. On every side
he upheld the interests of the duke and protect-
ed the trade and enhanced the prosperity of the
province. For the year 1683 the duke's prof-
its rose to £2000, and before 1689 had become

Dongan's greatest service, not only to New York
but to all the colonies, lay in his dealings with the
Indians. The time was critical, for the French
were aiming to extend their conquests southward
and to control the Hudson as they were already
controlling the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi,
and thus to obtain a third outlet to the ocean, which
would divide the English colonies into two parts as
completely as in the time of the Dutch province.
But Dongan took up the policy which Andros had
successfully applied, and made a famous treaty
with the Iroquois, July 30, 1684, fastening the duke
of York's arms to the Indian wigwams as a sign
of their subjection to the king of England. Hence-
forth the Iroquois looked on their lands as the

* Conn. Col. Records, III.,* 326-333.

loo COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1684

duke's territory and protected the valley of the
Hudson from all invasions of the French.*

Thus, through the influence and activity of three
able colonial governors, a territory in the beginning
unjustly acquired became a stable and profitable
province, forming a powerful link in the chain of
English colonies from Massachusetts Bay to South
Carolina. Controlled by a king who was blind to
the significance of popular government. New York
began its career as a colony governed wholly from
above ; for the people, though well cared for, were de-
nied the right of representation. Admirably sittiated
for purposes of trade, with a harbor unequalled on
the eastern seaboard, the colony was hampered in
its economic growth by heavy duties, a narrow
policy of trade monopoly, and a limited area of
supply. Peace with the Indians and favorable
treaty relations were necessary, not only to guard
against the French, but also to open up the interior
to the north and northwest for agriculture and trade,
and so to prepare the colony for its great future.
Another quarter of a century was destined to show
great changes for the better in the history of the
colony of New York.

* N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 347, 364, 394-39^1 428-490;
Golden, Hist, of the Five Nations (1737).

CHAPTER VII

FOUNDATION OP THE JERSEYS
(1660-1677)

THE prosperity of the colony of New York was
impaired at the very outset by a serious loss
of territory lying west of the Hudson River. June
24, 1664, three months after the issue of the royal
patent, and before the Dutch had actually sur-
rendered the territory to the English crown, the
duke of York, by a peculiar form of English con-
veyancing known as ** lease and release," granted to
Berkeley and Carteret all the land between the
Hudson and the Delaware from about the fortieth
parallel of latitude on the north to Cape May on
the south.* The region received in the deed the
name of Nova Caesaria, or New Jersey, a title
serving to show that the new land was a sort of
compensation for Carteret's former office as governor
of the island of Jersey. The land was broad and
fertile, stretching from the motmtainous districts of
the north to the low sandy and marshy flats of the
south. In a letter to the duke of York, NicoUs de-
clared that it was the best part of the entire grant ;

* N, J, Archives, I., 8-14.
101

I02 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1664

and both he and Dongan frequently asserted that
the dtike made a great mistake in giving away so
promising a region and in creating another small
government between New England and Maryland.*
Protests were all too late, for the new proprietaries
forthwith took steps to organize their grant. After
1674 the question arose whether the "lease and
release" by implication conveyed to them the
right to rule as well as to own the land;' but
there is no doubt that the proprietaries believed
that they had been vested with powers as full as
those granted to them and their associates the year
before as proprietaries of Carolina.

This grant of New Jersey was made by the duke
of York to two of his favorites, Sir George Carteret
and Sir John Berkeley, who, during the years after
1649, stood nearer to the exiled Stuart princes than
any other English refugees except Clarendon. Car-
teret as governor of the island of Jersey provided a
home for them in 1649, and in 1653 loyally de-
fended the island against the parliamentarians.
Berkeley became the governor of the household
of the duke and the manager of his affairs after
1652, and sought by such means as he could employ
to increase the revenues of the prince, who, like
all the royal exiles, was in great need of money.

After 1660 these men secured their reward: each

^Clarendon Papers, 115; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III.,

105.
* Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hist, of N. J., 30-32.

iiA

1664I JERSEYS FOUNDED 103

became a member of the Privy Council and of the
councils of trade and plantations; each became a
patentee of the lands monopolized by the Royal
African Company, and one of the lords proprietors
of Carolina and the Bahamas. Carteret became
vice-chamberlain and treastu^r of the navy, was
appointed one of the lords of the admiralty tmder
the duke of York as lord high admiral, and actively
promoted all matters connected with trade and
navigation from 1660 to his death in 1679. As early
as 1650 he planned a colonizing expedition to
Virginia, where he had received the grant of an
island, but owing to the failure of the royalist cause
he gave up the project. Berkeley was equally
favored. He became Baron Berkeley of Stratton, a
member of the council, one of the lords of the ad-
miralty, a member of the committee for foreign
plantations in 1660, and a member of the cotmcil
committee appointed in 167 1. He was one of the
patentees who received from Charles, September
18, 1649, "in the first year of his reign," a grant
of a portion of Virginia. Thus both Carteret
and Berkeley stood not only in an intimate re-
lation to the king and the duke of York, ** de-
serving much by their great services and sufferings,"
but, by virtue of the offices which they held, were in
very close connection with the colonies and all that
concerned them.

It is not clear who influenced Carteret and
Berkeley to ask for the territory in America. Claren-

I04 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1664

don kept himself informed regarding the situation
in New England and New Netherlands and Berkeley
desired to recoup himself for a purchase for ;^35oo
of a part interest in certain claims to lands in New
England by the earl of Sterling, under a grant of
1625 by the Council of New England.'

Carteret and Berkeley both served on the com-
mittee to investigate the conditions in New Nether-
land; and as late as January, 1664, they were dis-
coursing "with several persons well acquainted with
the affairs of New England, some having lately in-
habited on Long Island, where they have yet an in-
terest." • Both were deeply implicated in the plot
for the seizure of New Netherland, and received a
part of the conquered territory as their share of
the spoils.

For the government of the new colony a body of
** Concessions" was drawn up (by whom we do not
know), and issued by the proprietaries in January
and February, 1665, to the colonies of New Jersey
and Carolina, defining the form of the government,
outlining the conditions under which lands were to
be allotted, and guaranteeing liberty of religion, of
property, and of elections. This document became
the foimdation and model of government during
the proprietary period and later. The people climg

^Clarendon Papers (N. Y. Hist. Soc., ColUciions, 1869),

1-14.

' "Blathwayt's Report on the Case of the Earl of Sterling,"
MS. in Public Record Office, Treasury, etc., XXIII., 24.

« CaL of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, i 647.

1665] JERSEYS FOUNDED 105

to it, they qtiarrelled with their governor because
they thotight he disregarded its provisions, and they
made it the basis of their demands in all the
exigencies of their colonial history. Its liberal pro-
visions were utilized by all those who tried to
attract settlers to the colony. Scot said that, as
the result of this guarantee of religion and property,
the province was * * considerably peopled and many
resorted there from the neighboring colonies"; and
again, comparing New Jersey and Carolina in 1685,
he said that any man in Carolina who had money
could have honor and trust though he were the
"arrantest Blockhead in nature,*' while in New
Jersey office was based on merit ;* and Budd wrote
that the government was settled by concessions
and ftmdamental laws **by which every man's
liberty and property, both as men and Christians,
are preserved, so that none shall be hurt in his
person, estate, or liberty for his religious persuasions
or practice in worship towards God."'

The region for which a government was thus
provided was already partly settled. The Dutch
had planted trading-posts on the left bank of the
Hudson at a very early date, and named them
Bergen, after Bergen-op-Zoom, in Holland, Hobuc,
Wiehawken, and the like. In the south, on the east \^

bank of the Delaware, and also at New Castle (New
Amstel) on the west, were many Finns, Swedes, and

* Whitehead, East Jersey, App., 397, 398, 446.

• Budd, Good Order Established (1685).

io6 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1665

Dutch, relicts of the Swedish and Dutch settlements
there, who willingly accepted the English rule and
were left in undisturbed possession of their lands.^
Governor Nicolls began his broad-minded and
liberal rule in New York by making strenuous efforts
to people the colony. At the time of his coming
he knew nothing of the grant to Berkeley and
Carteret, and in the stunmer of 1664 he issued a
proclamation making liberal offers to settlers.' As
a result a number of families came from Jamaica,
Long Island — which by descent was a Connecticut
and New Haven colony — ^purchased land from the
Indians, and settled within a wide tract covering
the later townships of Elizabeth, Woodbridge, and
Piscataway.* Here, during 1665, appear to have
gathered somewhere about two hundred people.*
In April of the same year Nicolls issued the ** Mon-
mouth" patent to certain people from Gravesend,
who had previously bought the land of the Indians ;
and thus gave legal warrant, and such measure of
self-government as he was able, to the settlers. of the
new towns of Middletown and Shrewsbury. He
likewise granted **free liberty of conscience without
any molestation or disturbance whatsoever in the
way of worship.* These grants were partly respon-
sible for the trouble that arose in later years be-

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 71.

* Text in Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hist, of N. J., 54, 55.

• N. J. Archives, I., 14-19.

* Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hist, of N. J., 102, 103.

• N. J. Archives, I., 43-46.

"mwnTi

1666] JERSEYS FOUNDED 107

tween the governor and the towns of northern New
Jersey.

When Philip Carteret (probably a younger brother
of Sir George)* arrived in August, 1665, with a
commission from the new proprietaries as governor
of the colony, he f oimd a goodly number of people
already settled in his province. He was a yotmg
man, only twenty-six years of age, of an arbitrary
and dictatorial temperament. With him came about
thirty people in all, of whom two only. Captain
Bollen and Robert Vanquillon, were gentlemen.

The remainder were servants, French inhabitants of
the island of Jersey, who in appearance and manners
were in strange contrast to the strict Puritans among
whom they settled. The governor took up his
residence in the town, which in honor of the wife of
the proprietary he called Elizabeth ; but he and his
little band of French immigrants found a rather
scant welcome from the New-Englanders, who looked
upon him with distrust as a cavalier from the court
of Charles II. and a relative of the gay courtier Sir
George Carteret.

The influx of New England settlers did not cease
with the settlement of Elizabeth. The New Haven
colony was a prolific mother of towns.' In June,
1666, families from New Haven and Milford set sail
for the Passaic ; three months later more families left

^ Edmundson (Baronagium Genealogicum, III., 209) men-
tions such a younger brother.

* New Haven Col. Records, II., $$2; N. J. ArchtTfes, I., 51-54.

io8 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1666

Branford and Guilford for the same place.* Each
group drew up its ** fundamental articles," its
plantation covenant redolent of the narrow spirit of
the old Fimdamental Articles of New Haven. That
signed by the family heads of Branford and Guilford,
on October 30, 1666, declared that no one was to
be a freeman or burgess, no one was to be a magis-
trate or to hold office, and no one was to take part
in elections, except such as were members of the
Congregational church; and that the purity of the
religion of this polity was to be maintained with
diligence and care.' These agreements stand in
striking contrast with the liberal provisions of the
Concessions. The New-Englanders established their
plantation on the Passaic, and there, in June, 1667,
founded the town of Newark, ** alias Milford," a
typical New England settlement with its town-
meeting, its divided lands, and its theocratic polity
like that of Davenport and the New Haven colony.'
From this time colonists continued to pour in
both from England and from New England. Emi-
grants from Newburjrport, Massachusetts, led prob-
ably by Daniel Pierce, settled in Woodbridge. To
these settlers Philip Carteret granted a very liberal

charter, conferring ** perfect self-government, perfect
tolerance," trial by jury, and the like, a charter

* Levermore, Republic of New Haven, 1x4-120; Records of
Newark (N. J. Hist. Soc., Collections, VI.) 1 i, 2.

• Records of Newark, 2.

■ Ibid., 3-9; Whitehead, East Jersey, App., 405.

sm^

1668] JERSEYS POUNDED 109

which was afterwards confirmed by Berkeley and
Carteret.* Thus New Jersey became a little
mcxiel of New England, animated by the spirit of
the Puritan commonwealth, the intolerance of the
"saints," and the sturdy independence of the town-
meeting ; and it is not strange that the proprietaries'
governor, Carteret, a representative of the Restora-
tion, should have had but little svmpathy with the
views of those over whom he ruled.

At first no regular government was established
for the province, although in 1667 the patentees and
delegates of Middletown, Shrewsbury, and Portland
Point set up a little assembly, which passed laws and
appointed officers for the towns, but in a limited
jurisdiction. In April, 1668, Carteret issued a call
for a general assembly of the whole province to
meet at Elizabethtown in May.^ The meeting
contained no representatives from Middletown and
Shrewsbury, and did not sit long, but it passed a
"Levitical Code" so ''blue" as to make it clear
that the New Haven spirit and faith in the Mosaic
law governed the Newark delegates and ruled the
assembly.'

To the adjourned meeting in October Middle-
town and Shrewsbury sent delegates, who were
not allowed to sit. Trouble was brewing. Carteret

^ Text of this charter in Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hisi.

of N. y., 108, 109.

* N. y. Archives, I., 56, 57; Whitehead, East Jersey, 188.

• Learning and Spicer, Grants of New Jersey, 77-84.

no COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1668

was inclined to be aggressive, and the colonists were
suspicious and unconciliatory. The governor claim-
ed the right to preside at town-meetings and to
establish his French emigrants in the towns on an
equality with the New - Englanders. The latter,
deeming him an ungodly autocrat appointed in Eng-
land, resented his interference, and guarded jealously
what they considered their rights. No agreement
could be reached by men of such conflicting opinions.
The assembly broke up in disorder (November 7)
and did not come together again for seven years.

During the years from 1668 to 1670 the governor
with his council rtded without disturbance, tmtil
the time came when, according to the terms of
the Concessions, the quit -rents fell due. These
the colonists flatly refused to pay, claiming that
they had the lands from the Indians and by grant
from NicoUs, and that they owed nothing to the
proprietaries. The Newark town-meeting expressed
the opinion of the time when it said : ** They do hold
and possess their lands and rights in said town, both
by civil and divine right, as by their legal purchase
and articles may and doth show." In this refusal
there was some justification for those individuals
who had not taken oaths of allegiance, but none
for those who had; yet nearly all joined in the
revolt, a fact that disclosed a discontent deeper
than that due to the quit -rent of a halfpenny
an acre. Outbreaks took place, riots ensued, and
for two years the colony was in a state of confusion.

1673] JERSEYS FOUNDED iii

Finally, the discontent tcx)k the form of rebellion,
and all the towns except Middletown and Shrews-
bury set up a separate government and sent dele-
gates to an assembly of their own in March and May,
1672. Inasmuch as Philip Carteret would have
nothing to do with this xmauthorized body, they
fastened on a certain James Carteret, supposed to
be an illegitimate son of the proprietary, and made
him governor.* But the tenure of this personage
was brief. The proprietaries sustained Philip Car-
teret,' modified somewhat the former Concessions,
and repudiated the grants which NicoUs had made;
and King Charles II. upheld to the full the author-
ity of the proprietaries.' The populace and their
representatives withdrew from the struggle, accept-
ing the terms offered them.

Trouble with the Indians tmdoubtedly had some-
thing to do with this peaceful settlement, but the
seiztire of New York by the Dutch in 1673 had a
more potent influence. In that year New Jersey,
along with New York and Long Island, passed for
the second time under the rule of the States-Gen-
eral of Holland, with Colve as governor; but ex-
cept for the obligation to swear a new allegiance,*
this event brought little change into the colony.

> N. J. Archives, /., 89-91, 95.
^Ibid., 91-97.

»N. Y. State Historian, Report, 1896, p. 364; Harleian MSS,
m British Musetim, 7001, f. 299.

*N. J. ArchiveSf I., 121-152, espec. 123, 128, 133, 134.

CHAPTER VIII

DEVELOPMENT OF THE JERSEYS

(1674-1689)

WHEN, in 1674, by the treaty of Westminster,
the Jerseys were restored to the English, it
became necessary to issue a new grant to the
duke of York, a new lease to the proprietaries,
and new directions and instructions to the colonists,
owing to the fact that **the property of this tract
of land was by some persons of that time sup-
posed to be altered by its having been taken and
possessed by a foreign power.*'* Therefore, in the
summer of 1674, when Philip Carteret returned
with a new commission as governor and new di-
rections for the government of the province,' he
was received very graciously by both people and
assembly.*

Until 1674 New Jersey remained an tmdivided
province. To be sure, the term West New Jersey
was used for the settlements on the Delaware ; * but

* Short Account of the First Settlement (1735), 16; another view
in A^. y. Archives, I., 290.

* N. J, Archives, I., 167-175.

* Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hist, of N.J. ^ 132, 133.
*iV. y. Archives, I., 118.

▼OL. v.— 8 1 13

114 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1668

the colonists there obtained the titles to many
of their lands from Philip Carteret,* and were rep-
resented in the assembly which met in Elizabeth-
town in October, 1668. Still, they took but little
part in the events thus far recotmted, and, though
numbering a thousand people, were not called upon
to pay quit-rents and did not share in the uprising
against Carteret. In 1674 a change came about
when Berkeley, wearying of his proprietary relation
to New Jersey, sold his share of the province for
j^iooo to Edward Byllynge, a member of the So-
ciety of Friends, a brewer of London, a friend of
Berkeley's, and a former officer in Cromwell's army.
Byllynge placed the management of the business in
the hands of a Quaker friend. Major John Fenwick,
who, in consideration of a portion of the property,
offered to settle the colony and look after the lands
and the revenues.'

The entrance of the Quakers upon the scene was
no sudden nor tmpremedita^d event. For some
time members of the society had been looking for
a home in America where they might be free from
persecution, and many of them went to New Eng-
land, Long Island, New Jersey, and Carolina.
Eighteen were reported at Shrewsbtuy in 1673.*
In that year George Fox, the founder of the society,

» Pa. Magazine, XVII., 84, 85.

* Bankers and Sluyter, Journal, 241, 242; N. J, Archives, I.,
185, n., 209; Pa, Magazine, V., 312.

• N. J. Archives, I., 133, 134, 184; N, Y. Docs, Rel. to Col.
Hist., II., 607, 619.

i674] THE JERSEYS "S

returned from a tour in America, and, tmderstanding
the circumstances and opportunities there, he may
have been influential in persuading Byllynge to
purchase Berkeley's rights. Whether William Penn,
son of Admiral Penn, and one of the most important
members in England, had any share in the tmder-
taking at this time cannot be determined. He met
Fox on his return, and during the year that followed
must have discussed with him the situation in
America. The desire for an independent colony
where they might establish a government embody-
ing their own ideas had long been in the minds
of the Quakers, and there is reason to believe
that the purchase of Berkeley's share by Byl-
lynge was made in the interest of the whole so-
ciety.

At first the experiment did not succeed. Byllynge
and Fenwick could not agree as to the division of
the property; and Penn, who lived near Fenwick
in England was called in as arbiter. **The present
difference between thee and E. B. fills the hearts
of Friends with grief," he wrote to Fenwick, who
had evidently refused to accept Penn's first award
of one-tenth as his share. **I took care to hide
the pretences on both hands as to the original of
the thing, because it reflects on you both and which
is worse on the truth." Fenwick took the case
into chancery, with what results we do not know,
but he finally accepted the allotment of one-tenth
and b^an to make preparations for crossing to

ii6 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1675

America.* No sooner was this diffictilty met than
another arose. Byllynge became involved in busi-
ness, and to satisfy his creditors, was compelled to
convey his rights (February 14, 1675) to Penn and
two distingtiished fellow - Quakers, Gawen Lawrie
and Nicholas Lucas.' Fenwick, too, leased his one-
tenth to Eldridge and Warner, as sectuity for money
borrowed.*

The title to West New Jersey, already sufSciently
involved by these transactions, was further com-
plicated by the attitude of the duke of York, who
appears at this point to have sought to take back
his grant and to avoid a reconveyance. In a letter
from Charles II., of Jime, 1674, Carteret was men-
tioned as if sole proprietary and all others were
ignored.* In the new "lease and release" which
the duke finally executed, the province was for the
first time divided by a straight line from Bam^at
Creek to Rankokus Kill, near Burlington on the
Delaware,* but no mention is anjnvhere made of
Berkeley's rights or of those to whom these rights
had been sold. Whitehead says that he ** hesitated,
dallied, played fast and loose, equivocated, and held
back," and even though he signed the lease to
Carteret in 1674, he did not recognize Berkeley's

* Letters in Bowden, Hist, of Friends, I., 391, 39a; HarUian
AfSS., in British Museum, 7001, ff. 300, 301.

' Johnson, Hist, of Salem, 56-63; Pa. Magasine, V., 327-329.

* List of these grants in Penn's letter, N. y. Archives, I.»

23a» 233-

* N. 7. Archives, I., 153, 154. * Ibid,, 161.

i68ol THE JERSEYS 117

sale till August 6, 1680.* This equivocation had
the disastrous effect of clouding the title to West
New Jersey and hindering colonization there.

There is no reason to believe that Berkeley and/
Carteret deliberately planned to divide their grant,
but the withdrawal of the former from the enter-
prise and the coming of the Quakers altered the
situation. Penn had no desire to join with Carteret
in the government of a single province ; he wished
rather to have a free iBeld wherein to test his own
plan of government. The division named . in the
duke's warrant of 1674 was not equitable, and
consequently, in 1676, "after no little labor, trouble,
and cost,"' a new arrangement was agreed upon.
By a "quintipartite" deed (executed by Carteret
on one side, and Penn, Lawrie, Lucas, and Byllynge
on the other),' which rehearsed all the acts thus
far determined in the establishment of title, a line
was drawn from the *' most southwardly point of the
east side of Little Egg Harbor" through the province
northwestwardly to the junction of the Delaware
River with the forty-first parallel of latitude. One
part was to be called East New Jersey and the other
West New Jersey.* In the mean time, Eldridge
and Warner had conveyed their rights in Fenwick's
tenth to Penn, Lucas, and Lawrie, **the better to

» Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hist, of N. J., 77, 78; N. J.
Archives^ II., 163-167, 324; cf. Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1677-
1680, { 778. ' A^. J. Archives, I., 232, 233.

^ Ibid,, 327. ^ Ibid., 205-219.

ii8 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1674

enable them to make a partition of the entire
premises with Sir George Carteret.** In the years
that followed there was much controversy over
this line and many changes were made, so that
the boimdary question was not permanently set-
tled till an act of assembly of New Jersey in
1718.

Each colony was now free to pursue its own career,
but a new trouble, or, rather, an old trouble in a new
fonn, arose from an unexpected quarter. When
Andros was commissioned governor of New York,
July I, 1674, he was instructed to govern, not only
the other lands granted to the duke in 1664, but
also "all the land from the west side of Connecticut
River to the east side of Delaware Bay." * This fact
seems to indicate that James was attempting to
recover his control of New Jersey by denying that
the right of government had been conveyed by the
"lease and release.'* Andros, acting under his in-
structions, made his first attempt to recover New
Jersey for the duke by attacking the claims in West
New Jersey, where Fenwick, apparently disregard-
ing his lease to Eldridge and Warner, had issued
proposals in March, 1675, for the settlement and
government of "my colony.*'* Getting together a
body of one hundred and fifty emigrants in the same
year, he set sail in the Griffith and landed at Swamp

> N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 215.
* Pa. Magazine, VI., 86-90; cf. Dankers and Sluyter, JouT'
nal, 242, 243; Harleian MSS., in British Museum, 7001, f. 30X.

i68oJ THE JERSEYS 119

Town, which because of its peaceful appearance he
called New Salem.*

Andros, aroused by this invasion, took immedi-
ate action. He denied Fenwick's right to grant
patents of land, and when Fenwick refused to obey
his orders, caused him to be brought to New York
by an armed force and only released him after he
produced his title-deeds.' Andros had no case
against Fenwick, as he soon discovered, for even
the duke of York acknowledged that Fenwick's
patents of land gave good title.*

Andros was not content with his attack on West
New Jersey ; he was already coming into conflict with
Governor Carteret over commerce and trade. As
in the Delaware, so in the East New Jersey harbors,
he proposed to levy duties for the benefit of the
proprietary. Taking advantage of the death of Sir
George Carteret in 1679, Andros wrote forbidding
Philip Carteret to exercise jurisdiction in New
Jersey.* Carteret replied in kind, warning Andros
not to trespass in East New Jersey. Thereupon the
latter, in 1680, seized Carteret and brought him to
New York, where he had him tried by special court
for presuming to exercise jurisdiction and govern-
ment over the subjects of King Charles.* The

^N. y. "Archives, I., 185, 186; Harleian MSS., in British
Museum, 7001, f. 309. * N. J. Archives , I., 187-204.

•Co/, of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, § 778.

* N. J. Archives, I., 292-999.

^ Ibid., 299-306, 316-318; Learning and Spicer, Grants, 677-
691.

Tp'jirii '■ •

I20 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1677

jury, to the great wrath of Andros, acquitted Car-
teret; the East New Jersey assembly upheld their
governor ; the towns refused the commissions issued
by Andros; and the next year (1681), when the legal
authorities showed that he had no case, not even
against the Quakers, the duke gave up the struggle,
confirmed Philip Carteret in the government, and
forbade Andros to take further action.* In East
New Jersey as in West New Jersey the efforts of the
duke to recover possession proved a f ailtu*e.

In the mean time. West New Jersey was receiving
new settlers. While Fenwick was in possession
of his one-tenth, Penn, Lawrie, and Lucas, acting
as trustees for Byllynge, disposed of the nine-
tenths to two companies of Quakers (one resident in
Hull and other towns in Yorkshire, the other in
London) , who at once displayed great energy in the
work of settling the territory.^ In 1677 the ship
Kent arrived in New York harbor with two him-
dred colonists, who reported their intentions and
displayed their titles. Although the duke of York
was at that time contesting their claims, they
received permission to settle on the Delaware,
provided they would submit to the government at
New York.' They then proceeded on their way,
arrived at the Delaware, and laid the fotmdation of
the town of Bridlington or Burlington.

^ N.J. Archives, I., 323, 345-347; Cal. of State Pap., Col.,
1677-1680, § 1479; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 984.
' N. J. Archives, I., 933. • Ibid,, 239, 240.

i68i] THE JERSEYS 121

These colonists brought with them a f ainotis body
of "Concessions and Agreements," the broadest,
sanest, and most equitable charter draughted for any
body of colonists up to this time. This doctmient
assured privileges and rights to men of that day
which must have seemed almost Utopian. It con-
tains the best that the political thinkers of the
period cotild furnish, and looks ahead to the time
when men stated in forcible terms what they con-
sidered the fimdamental rights of man. It was
a true constitution; not octroyed, as had been
the Concessions of 1665, but agreed upon and
signed in England by emigrants, one htmdred and
fifty-one in number.*

The Concessions and Agreements provided for a
government by a board of commissioners — a direc-
tory appointed by the proprietaries, who, however,
soon substituted a single executive — and an as-
sembly freely chosen by the inhabitants to sit for
a year, the members of which were to be paid and
to have full liberty of speech and all parliamentary
prerogatives. This body was to have entire control
over the passing and the repealing of laws, agree-
able to the Concessions and the laws of England.
The commissioners were to impose no tallages, sub-
sidies, or assessments, and the assembly was to
levy only such taxes as were necessary. The fim-
damental rights of the people are very definitely
and strongly expressed — absolute religious freedom,

* N. J, Archives, I., 422.

122 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1677

right of trial by jury, no arbitrary imprisonment for
debt, no capital ptmishment even for treason, tmless
the assembly so decreed, publicity of courts of jus-
tice, and right of petition. Save for the appoint-
ment of the executive and the reserve of quit-rents,
this constitution is thoroughly democratic, subordi-
nating the executive to the legislative and making
the latter responsible to the people.* That this
document was in large part draughted by William
Penn seems highly probable ; its spirit of forgiveness,
justice, and brotherly love testifies to its origin.

For three years the settlers made no effort to put
the Concessions into operation, as the question of
their right to rule was still imdetermined. But
after persistent efforts Byllynge obtained a grant
from the duke of York, August 6, 1680, recognizing
the rights and title of the proprietaries and vesting
in himself the government of the province.' He
then sent over Samuel Jennings as his deputy, and
the first assembly met November 21, 1681, lasting
until the following January. The deputies acknowl-
edged the authority of Jennings to act as their
governor, provided he wotild assent to a bill of
rights consisting of a preamble and ten clauses, still
further restricting the power of the governor.*
Fenwick sold his lands,* with a reservation, in
1682 to Penn, now proprietary and governor of

* N. J. Archives, I., 941-270. ' Ibid., 323-333.

• Text in Smith, Hist, of N. J., 126-129.

^ See his "Remonstrance/' March 12, 1679, ibid^Vl,

i687] THE JERSEYS 123

Pennsylvania, and accepted election to the assembly
at Burlington in 1683, thus recognizing its juris-
diction over his portion/ Ehiring the next four
years the only serious difficulty that arose in the
province concerned the right of the people to elect
their own governor,' a right that was certainly not
found in the Concessions and that Byllynge was
unwilling to concede.

Byllynge died in 1687, after an unsuccessful and
troubled business career, and his interest in West
New Jersey was bought by Daniel Coxe, a London
merchant, and one of the most sanguine of colonial
promoters. Coxe acquired lai^e quantities of land,
not only in New Jersey, but in New York and Long
Island also,' and made strenuous efforts to build
up his colony. He issued alluring prospectuses for
the piupose of attracting emigrants, started whale
and cod fisheries, planned to tap the fur trade of
the Northwest, and to establish a ''circular trade"
between New Jersey, the other colonies, and
Jamaica and Barbadoes in the West Indies. He
started a fruit plantation at Cape May and a pot-
tery at Burlington for "white and chiney ware,"
of which ;£i2oo worth was sold in the neighboring
colonies and the West Indies.* He was greatly

* Shroud, Hist, and Genealogy of Fenwick's Colony, 12.
^N. J. Archives, I., 421.

• "Account of the Quantity and Value of Coxe*s Land/'
Rawlinson A/S5.. in Bod. Lib.. C 128, f. 42.

*•• Daniel Coxe's Account of New Jersey," Pa. Magazine,

VII.. 327-337-

tu COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1679

impressed with the possibilities of West New Jersey
for supplying masts and boards, and speaks of a
proposal made to him to furnish cedar-trees for the
"roof and inward work*' of St. Paul's cathedral,
rebuilding at that time (1675-1697) under the
guidance of Sir Christopher Wren/ Though mak-
ing every concession that he could in the way of
poUtical privileges to the people,' he retained, as
had Byllynge, control of the governorship ; and by
transferring the seat of government to Burlington,
raised that place to a position of first importance
in the colony.* The brick houses, market - places,
fairs, wharves, large timber yards, and extensive
trade made it for some years a rival of Philadelphia.
In 1685 the colony was threatened with a writ
of quo warranto by Edward Randolph,* and in
1688 was taken under the jurisdiction of Andros,
governor of the Dominion of New England; but
after the revolution of 1688 it was returned to
Governor Coxe, who, disturbed by the attitude of
the crown and somewhat embarrassed in his affau^,
resolved to sell his interest in the colony. The
property and rights were bought by a group of
proprietaries called the West New Jersey Society,
of which Coxe himself remained a member and for
which he drew up a plan of management.* This

* "Coxe's Accotint of New Jersey,'* Pa. Magazine, VII., 329.
*See Coxe's letter of Sept. 5, 1687, in Smith, Hist, of N. J.,
190, note k. ' Thomas, Account of West New Jersey, 15, 16.

^Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, §§ 304, 309, 2112.
•Smith, Hist, of N. J., 207; Proposals Made by Coxe,

i68sl THE JERSEYS 125

society controlled the government and lands of the
colony, but agreed that Fletcher, governor of New
York, should retain command of the militia.*
Under these proprietaries West New Jersey re-
mained until its final surrender to the crown in 1702.

In East New Jersey PhiUp Carteret won his
victory over Andros in 1681; but his career as
governor was almost over. Scarcely had the
assembly convened in October, 1681, when the
deputies charged Carteret with violating the Con-
cessions "by interpretations contrary to the literal
sense of the same."' In the year 1682 he re-
signed his government, and the board of trustees,
to whom Sir George Carteret had devised his rights
in New Jersey for the pajnment of his debts and
legacies in 1679,* offered these rights at once to
whosoever would purchase them.

They were disposed of at public sale to twelve
Quakers, with William Penn at the head, who
organized themselves as a body of proprietaries for
the government of the province.* Soon afterwards
this body of twelve became associated in a business
partnership with the earl of Perth, Robert Barclay,
a famous Quaker apologist, and his brother David,
and nine others, some of whom were Scottish
Presbyterians, who thus became tenants in common

Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., C 138, ff. 46, 47 (undated, but
probably 169 1).

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, {2250.

» N. 7. Archives, I., 356. » Ibid,, 388.

* Ibid., 366-369, 373-375-

126 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1683

with the first twelve. A majority of the twenty-
four were Quakers, so that both the Jerseys came
under Quaker control. It is not difficult to see
in all these transactions a definite attempt of the
Society of Friends to obtain a home for its mem-
bers in America.

For the benefit of the twenty-four proprietaries
the duke of York executed a deed of release, dated
March 14, 1683, investing them with rights of
government as well as with title to the soil.*
Already had Robert Barclay been named as gov-
ernor, and he remained in England, governing the
province by deputy. A new frame of government,
much less democratic than the old Concessions, was
sent over in 1683, signed by sixteen of the twenty-
four proprietaries.' The new code was distinctly
lacking in directness and simplicity, and cotild
hardly have done anjrthing to improve the govern-
ment of the colony or to lessen the complication
growing out of the numerous proprietary rights in
the provinces. Fortimately, it was never put into
force.

Rudyard, the first deputy governor under Barclay,
was recalled in 1683, and Gawen Lawrie, who had
been interested in New Jersey since 1675, came
over as governor. **Here wants nothing but peo-
ple,** he wrote back; "there is not a poor body
in the province."* Strenuous efforts were made to

* N. J, Archives, I., 383-394. ' Ihid., 395-4io«

■ Whitehead, East Jersey, App. ,418; Smith, Hist, of N. J,, 1 77.

1702] THE JERSEYS 127

promote settlement. Scx)t, of Pitlockie, prepared
an elaborate prospectus, quoting evidence from the
province to prove its desirability; while the pro-
prietaries — notably Barclay — organized bodies of
emigrants and started them on their way. Grad-
ually the colony began to fill with a sober and in-
dustrious people. Lawrie called for able-bodied
men to plough and till the soil, and the general
sentiment seemed to be that riches lay in com and
cattle rather than in trade and commerce.*

The attempt of the proprietaries to promote trade
and to obtain the recognition of Perth Amboy as a
port of entry led to a long controversy with New
York, which probably had much to do with the
inauguration of the quo warranto proceedings against
them. In 1688 they handed over all rights of
government to the duke of York, reserving only the
title to the soil, and East New Jersey was annexed
to New York. Though restored to the proprietaries
after 1689, the colony continued to be a source of
trouble to them, owing to disputes with New York
on one side and the inhabitants of the colony on
the other, and was finally sturendered to the crown
in 1702.

The weakness of the Jerseys lay in the fact that
from the first grant to Carteret and Berkeley to the
final surrender they were utilized by their pro-

* Historical Mantiscripts Commission, Report, VI., pt. i.,
484, VII., 485; Smith, Hist, of N. J., 181, i8a; Whitehead, Eas$
Jersey, App., 401.

128 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1689

prietaries as sources of profit and revenue. Pro-
prietary rights in both the colonies were bought
and sold so frequently and controlled by so many
stockholders that the management of the colonies
was neither systematic nor efficient. Controversies
among the proprietaries themselves, between the
proprietaries and the inhabitants, and between the
colonies and their neighbors rendered a ra^id and
prosperous growth practically impossible.

•CHAPTER IX

FOUNDATION OF THE CAROLINAS

(1663-167 1)

WHILE New England, New York, and New
Jersey were working out the problems of
colonization and reorganization, settlement was also
in progress in the vacant or sparsely settled regions
of the southern coast. There the low land, dif-
fering essentially from the coast formations of
New England, constituted a plateau but a few
feet above the level of the sea, which was traversed
by wide -mouthed rivers and skirted by islands
often large in extent and identical in soil and
verdure with the main-land. The broken and in-
dented coast formed natural harbors, and the rivers,
which were navigable from the sea back to the
rapids and falls of the second terrace or lower
pine belt, made transportation easy. By furnishing
a means of internal communication unknown to
the people of the northern colqnies, they made
possible the scattered settlements which charac-
terized the southern colonies, notably Virginia.

To the south of Virginia lay a wide and empty
territory stretching indefinitely towards the Spanish
VOL. v.— 9 129

I30 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1629

settlement at St. Aiigustine. After the revoking
of the charter of the London Company in 1624
the king was free to make such grant of this southern
territory as he pleased, and in 1629 he gave to Sir
Robert Heath all the region lying between the
thirty-first and thirty-sixth parallels of latitude.
Heath's plans fell still-bom among colonial ventures.
The land was not easily accessible either overland
or by sea, and such was its reputation for unwhole-
someness that few men from other colonies ventured
to explore it. Moreover, it was claimed in part by
Spain, and hence was looked upon askance by
Englishmen who were seeking homes in the New
World.

After the failure of Raleigh's unfortimate ex-
peditions, the first Englishman, so far as we know, X
to reach Carolina was Henry Tavemer, a ship ^^
captain employed by English promoters, Vassell ^
and Kingswell, to carry passengers to Virginia. In
1632 Tavemer made a v6yage of discovery in his
ship, the Mayflower, and entered the St. Helena
River. In 1634 he came from England in a new
ship, the Thomas, with servants, clothing, and
provisions for the purpose of taking Kingswell and
his company from Virginia to settle in Carolina,
but for some reason the plan failed.* Between
1632 and 1660 only one journey is recorded.' About

* MSS. in Public Record Office, Admiralty Court, Instance and
Prize, Examinations, 51, Dec. 12, 17, 1634, April 14, 1635.
' N. C, Col. Records, I., 19, 20.

i66o] CAROLINAS FOUNDED 131

1660, however, two efforts were made at settlement,
one by colonists from Virginia, who planted a com-
mimity at Albemarle, on the Chowan River, des-
tined to become the nucleus of the colony of North
Carolina; the other by New England traders from
Massachusetts, who, after inspecting the lands at the
mouth of the Cape Fear River — then known as the
Charles — departed, leaving behind them, attached
to a post, a warning in which they denounced the
coimtry.^

Thus far, therefore, the territory south of Virginia
was xmoccupied except in the northern border, at
a point some seventy miles from the James. Just
at this time discontent and tmeasiness were rife in
Barbadoes. The land there was originally allotted
in small parcels, the largest of which seems to have
been thirty acres in size, and proved only sufficient
for the maintenance of a man and his family:*
and when the necessities of sugar-planting led to
the consolidating of these small estates, many land-
holders were forced to emigrate to other colonies.
In addition, the return of Charles II. to the English
throne was followed by restrictive measures which
created dissatisfaction, because they were deemed
contrary to the liberal terms given to the royalists
by the charter of 1652, in consequence of their
surrendering the island to the fleet of Parliament.

Among those directly interested in the develop-

* N. C. Col. Records, I., 36-38.

* Davis, Cavaliers and Roundheads of Barbadoes, 80.

132 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1660

ment of the island was Colonel John Colleton,
major - general in Barbadoes, a member of the
Barbadian council under the protectorate/ and a
man of influence and authority in the island. Col-
leton returned to England in 1660 and was made a
member of the newly appointed Council for Foreign
Plantations/ where he came into friendly relations
with Anthony Ashley Cooper (soon after created
Lord Ashley), a member of the committee of the
Council of State in 1653.' Both Colleton and
Ashley knew of the unoccupied lands of Carolina,
and there can be little doubt that when the discon-
tent of many of the Barbadians gave rise to a new
project for a settlement elsewhere, Colleton suggested
applying to the king for a grant of these continental
territories.

As both Colleton and Ashley had served the pro-
tectorate, they deemed it wise to associate with
themselves others who, by their loyalty to the king
in exile, had a greater claim on the king's bounty
and were at the same time thoroughly interested in
colonial affairs. Of these Clarendon and Carteret
stand out most prominently. Consequently, April
3. 1 663 1 probably at the request* of Ashley and

* Cat. of State Pap., Col., i574-i66o,pp. 456, 476.

» Ibid., 1661-1668, II 91, 470; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col Hist.,
III., 48, 49. • Col. of State Pap., Col., i574-i66o,p.4i2.

* Ashley's influence seems likely from the known facts as to
his proctiring the grant of the Bahamas in 1670. See Shaftesbury
Papers (S.C.Uist.Soc., Collections,V.), 153,180,207-210; Cal.of
State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, I311, 1675-1676, | 384.

1663] CAROLINAS FOUNDED 133

others of his colleagues, Charles 11. caused the first
charter of Carolina to be issued to eight proprietaries
— Clarendon, Craven, Albemarie (who as General
Monck had saved England from a third civil war),
Carteret, Lord John Berkeley, Sir William Berkeley
(governor of Virginia), Ashley, and Colleton, now
Sir John Colleton. Craven, Carteret, and John
Berkeley were faithful members of the cotmcil com-
mittee known as the Lords of Trade.

The Carolina charter^ was modelled after pre-
ceding charters, and in nearly all its parts was
identical with the grants made to Robert Heath and
Lord Baltimore, except that the patentees were a
group instead of a single proprietary. The territory
granted extended north and south from the thirty-
sixth to the thirty-first parallel and westward to
the south seas. Hn matters of administration and
government the charter reproduced the rights,
jurisdictions, and immunities of the palatinate of
Durham, that independent, self-governing fief
on the northern border of England which until
1536 remained outside the control of the kings of
England and formed a petty state by itself.' The
patentees of Carolina and their heirs were made true
and absolute lords, and the territorv was called a
province. The lands were to be held in free and
common socage at a fixed rent of twenty marks.

' A^. C. Col. Records, I., 20-23.

' Lapsley, The Palatinate of Durham (Harvard Historical
Studies, VIIL).

134 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1663

The proprietaries could grant titles of rank, were
endowed with the patronage and advowson of
churches, and could erect forts, fortresses, cities,
towns, and boroughs. In matters of government
they were granted full and absolute power to make
laws, with the advice and assent of the freemen
or their delegates, whom they could summon when
they desired. They were empowered to issue or-
dinances, to execute all laws, to receive customs
duties, to erect courts of judicature, and to establish
a militia. They could allow full freedom of con-
science if they wished, and free -trade as far as
it was not forbidden by English statute.

Inasmuch as the original purpose of the grant
was to provide a refuge for the discontented Bar-
badians, it was expected that they would be among
the first colonists in the new territory. At the
outset, however, certain claims had to be quieted.
The old Heath title began to show signs of life ; and
about the same time a group of London adventurers
who had subscribed funds to aid some New England
undertaking (perhaps that of 1660) put in a claim
to the territory about Cape Fear, based on the
right of first discovery.* These claims were swept
aside by an order of the Privy Council, and the way
was thus cleared for the Barbadians.

Sir John Colleton was treasurer of the proprieta-
ries, and through his friends in Barbadoes was al-
ready urging planters to come to Carolina. August

* N. C. Col. Records, I., 34-38.

i664l CAROLINAS POUNDED 135

10, 1663, an expedition tinder Captain Hilton
started from Barbadoes to spy out the new land,
financed by a large body of planters led by Henry
Evans and John Vassall, who drew up a plan of set-
tlement, which they submitted to the proprietaries,
providing for the erection of a "county or corpora-
tion" on the soil of Carolina, with full powers of
local government.^ The proprietaries did not like
the Barbadian draught and suggested another plan,
which bears the date of August 21, 1663.* This
interesting document provided for a governor and
coxmcil to be chosen by the proprietaries.

Nevertheless, they did not insist on their own
scheme, but allowed their agents, Peter Colleton and
Modyford, to exercise their discretion in a series of
proposals or concessions issued probably some time
after January 6, 1664. Their work is important, as,
indeed, are all these various draughts, in showing
the trend of political thought at that time. During
the years from 1640 to 1660, both in England and the
colonies, men were seeking for fundamental principles
of government and were endeavoring to put them
into practice. The charter of Barbadoes of 1652
emphasized freedom of conscience, assemblies freely
and voluntarily elected, and freedom of trade ; and
it forbade monopolies and taxation without the

* N. C. Col. Records, I., 34, 35. 39-42; Col. of State Pap., Col.,
1661-1668, { 457; Hilton, Relation (1664), reprinted in Charles-
ion Year-Book, 1884, pp. 227-255; Shaftesbury Papers, 10, 11.

' Rivers, Sketch of South Carolina, 335-337; N. C. Col,
Rscords, I., 43, 153; Cal. of State Pap., Col,, 1675-1676, { 377.

136 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1665

consent of the taxed.* It was therefore natural
that Modyford, who had helped to negotiate the
Barbadoes treaty, should have joined with Colleton
in promising liberty of conscience, immunity from
customs, freedom of trade as far as the charter
allowed, a free assembly, and laws which, if once
accepted by the proprietaries, could not be repealed
except by the power that enacted them.'

It is clear that in England the necessity was felt of
granting prospective colonists the most liberal terms
possible, and of allowing principles to have utter-
ance in America that were no longer advocated at
home. Yet for some reason, not entirely clear, the
proprietaries refused to confirm the terms oflFered
by Modyford and Peter Colleton, and consequently
the first migration from Barbadoes was given up.

The proprietaries, lest they might seem to sleep
on their patent, kept up an intermittent activity
during the summer of 1664,' and in the winter be-
gan new negotiations with Sir John Yeamans and
eighty - five associates in Barbadoes. A formal
agreement was carefully drawn up under which the
new settlement was to be made, and on January 7,
1665, a new body of Concessions was presented.*

This plan of government is the one already familiar
to the student of the history of the Jerseys, for six
weeks afterwards it was granted by Berkeley and

* Schomburgk, INst. of Barbadoes, 280-283.

* Charleston Year-Book, 1884, pp. 255-266.

» Col. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, § 1192.

* AT. C. Col. Records, I., 75-92.

i66s] CAROLINAS FOUNDED 137

Carteret to those about to settle in that special
propriety. Though the Concessions were liberal in
allowing toleration, free elections, naturalization, and
the right of petition, they lacked the simplicity of the
earlier privileges, and were thoroughly dominated
by the all-pervading authority of the proprietaries.
They were approved by the settlers of New Jersey —
at least by those who wrote the alluring descrip-
tions of that province for the purpose of attracting
emigrants; but they never had much influence in
Carolina, and, compared with the systems already
in force in Maryland and New England, they have
the character of a constitution based on theory and
good intentions rather than on practical experi-
ence.

Yeamans's expedition left Barbadoes in October,
1665, and after many vicissitudes reached the
mouth of the Charles River, within the region al-
ready set off by the proprietaries as the county
of Clarendon, and, according to Sanford*s account,
" newly begun to be peopled." This statement may
refer to a settlement said to have been made by
Englishmen some time in 1663 or 1664, to which
Sir William Berkeley also may have referred when
he wrote that **two hundred families from New
England, we hear, are seated a little to the south of
us." * Whether or not the Yeamans party foimd

* Sanford, The Port Royal Discovery, N. C. Col. Records, I.,
119; A Brief Description of the Province of Carolina, ibid., 156 ;
Egerton MSS., in British Museum, 2395, ff. 362-364.

ijS COLONIAL SELF-GO\TERNMENT Ii66s

xtOers already oa the ground* the setUemciit lan-
guished from the b^^immig. Rebef was vainly
sought from Viiginia, and a second diarter was ob-
tained in 1665, according to which the boandaries
were extended to include the territory southward.
To open up that r^[ion, Sanford undertook an ad-
venturous voyage, and, having rediscovered Port Roy-
al in July, 1666, took formal possession of that country
by turf and twig. But this discovery availed little.
Deserted by their leader, Yeamans, who returned to
Barbadoes, the settlers became desperate. Clothing
and necessaries failed, the Indians becanie threaten-
ing, the conditions of land-settling embodied in the
Concessions proved to be exceedingly irksome, and
no new settlers arrived either from Barbadoes or
from the adjoining colonies.* Fmally, the colonists
broke up the settlement in the fall of 1667 and scat-
tered, some going to Albemarle and Virginia, others
to Boston. Once more, save for the single colony
on the Chowan River, Carolina was without a settle-
ment within its borders.

The plan of colonizing Carolina from Barbadoes
having failed, a change in policy seemed neces-
sary. Ashley now came forward more prominently
than before as the true leader of the undertaking.
The new patent of 1665 included the Albemarle
settlement on the north, which by this time was
fairly well established. In 1664 William Drummond

* Letter of John Vassall, N. C. Col. Records, I., 160. Cf. Cal,
of State Pap., Col., 1675-1676, § 390.

i667l CAROLINAS POUNDED 139

was sent over as governor/ and a general assembly
met in 1665, which may have been composed, as the
Concessions demanded, of a governor, council, and
twelve delegates. It is noteworthy that the first
recorded action of the body is a petition to the lords
proprietaries begging for easier methods of allotting
lands, on the ground that the existing conditions
discouraged many who might otherwise have come
there from Virginia. The assembly also protested
against the proprietaries' attempt to make the peo-
ple settle in towns.* In 1667, under the Concessions
of 1665, the assembly successfully petitioned that
the colony might have its lands on the same
terms as were allowed in Virginia:' according to
a contemporary, "rather than to be stinted with
small proportions at a great rent."

When the colony at Albemarle was thus fairly
started on its way, Ashley renewed his attempt to
settle the southern portion of the province, and,
stimulated by the reports of Sanford, determined
to plant the next colony at Port Royal. In the
mean time, dissatisfied with all the proposals for
government that had thus far been draughted, he
planned an entirely new scheme, and called upon
John Locke to draw up a frame of government
suitable for a palatinate. This extraordinary docu-

* Bassett, Consiiiutional Beginnings of North Carolina; N. C,
Col, Records, I., 93; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661 - 1668,
II 908, 1005, 119a, 1222.

» Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, | 1005.

* N, C. Col. Records, I., 175, 176.

I40 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1669

merit, known as the Fundamental Constitutions,*
was completed in 1669, and is a notable instance
of a constitution made to order without regard to
the needs of the people for whom it was intended.
The proprietaries were to become a group of pala-
tine officials — palatine, admiral, chamberlain, and
the like — each in full and absolute control of some
part of what was intended to be the administrative
business of the province. Within the territory itself
an hereditary nobility was to be created, consisting
of landgraves and casiques, and colonies of free-
holders were to constitute the mass of the people.
The whole territory was to be divided into coxmties,
and these into seignories to be held by the proprieta-
ries ; baronies and manors to be held by the nobility ;
and precincts within which ** colonies" were to be
planted at the rate of four to a precinct.

Elaborate rules based on feudal law touched in-
heritance, alienation, devolution, and escheat, and
gave rise at once to great discontent. The free-
holders were to have their lands in the precincts and
to pay quit-rent ; to occupy sundry offices, provided
they possessed a sufficient amount of freehold land ;
and to vote for delegates to the parliament. Lowest
of all, except slaves, were to be the class of leet-men
and women — a faint survival of English villeinage —

* N. C. Col. Records, I., 187-205. The original draught, with
Locke's corrections, in Deputy Keeper of the Public Records,
33(i Report (1872), App. iii., 258-269; and in Shaftesbury
Papers. Cf. Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1669- 16 74, §§84, 157; for
proprietaries' point of view, see ibid., 1685-1688, § 1162.

1671I CAROLINAS FOUNDED 141

tenants settled in villages on the baronies and
manors and bound to the soil. There were to be a
grand council, eight proprietors* courts, county
courts with justices and sheriffs, precinct courts
with justices and stewards, a grand jury, itinerant
judges, petty juries, and finally a parliament com-
posed of the nobility, and freeholders elected under
a considerable property franchise.

This constitution, except in a few instances, where
baronies were actually laid out for settlers, was never
applied in Carolina, but the attempt of the pro-
prietaries to force its use for more than twenty
years had an important influence on the develop-
ment of the colony. It is chiefly interesting as
showing what Locke, Ashley, and the others thought
a palatinate ought to be. They wished to avoid
too numerous a democracy and to introduce ar-
istocracy and rich men, but they wished also to
give expression to the prevailing ideas of the day by
admitting full religious toleration,* trial by jury,
and a limited measure of self-government. Planned
as a general scheme for all the colonies that Ashley
was to promote — eventually three — its provisions
seemed to him the best that had ever been stated
anywhere, its conditions the fairest, and its laws the
"equalest" that a people could have. "We have
no other aim," he said in 1671, *'in the framing of
otir laws but to make every one as safe and happy

* Shaftesbury Papers, 312; Shaftesbury Papers, MSS. in Public
Record Office, X., 8 (iv.).

142 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1669

as the state of human affairs is capable oL"^
Locke and Ashley were very earnest in their wofk;
the fonner spoke of the colonies as his ''darlings"
and did a vast amount of clerical labor in their
behalf, while the latter gave thought, time, and
money to their development.

While Locke was providing a form of govern-
ment Ashley was promoting a new settlement.
Fimds were provided by the proprietaries,' vessds
were purchased, some ninety-two immigrant-freemen
and servants were obtained, and careful instructions
were drawn up.' The expedition sailed in August,
1669, for Barbadoes,* where it arrived at the very
end of October; and with some sixty additional
settlers* the fleet started late in November for
Carolina.

After a stormy voyage and many hardships the
voyagers reached the Bermudas. There Sir John
Yeamans, who was to be the governor of the new
settlement, turned back, handing over the governor-
ship to a certain William Sayle, a Bermudian and a
Dissenter, as were most of the emigrants,* and
**a man of no great sufficiency."^ The expedition

* Shaftesbury Papers, 208-210, 314; Cal, of State Pap,, Col.,
1669-1674, S 492.

» Col. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, || 54. 55-

* Shaftesbury Papers, 11 7-132. * Ibid.^ X33-"^S^«

* Accoxints vary a little. Cf. Shaftesbury Papers, 157, 163,
178; Col. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, { 163.

* Rivers, South Carolina, App., 462; Shaftesbury Papers, 171.
' Ibid., 217, 218; cf. ibid., 163, 189, 291; N. C. Col. Records,

I., 207.

I I *

1670I CAROLINAS POUNDED 143

went first to Port Royal, following the instructions
of the proprietaries, but finally turned northward
and landed near the mouth of the Kiawha, a river
to which the settlers gave the name of Ashley, after
their proprietary.^ Here was established the set-
tlement of old Charles Town.

For the first year the colony can hardly be said to
have prospered. The town was laid out, lands near
by were distributed, and some attempt was made
to plant com and potatoes, but early frosts spoiled
the crops, and provisions soon became scarce.
Through the efforts of Dr. Henry Woodward, who
was familiar with the Indian language, friendly re-
lations were entered into with the adjacent tribes,
and some help was obtained; but it became neces-
sary to send to Virginia for new supplies and to
Barbadoes and New England for horses, cows, and
more settlers. The place proved healthful, and
of the few that died only one was from England;
later, however, fever and ague became frequent
complaints.

Political troubles arose early. Sayle was an old
man and in bad health and had **much lost himself
in his government."^ At the beginning, acting
under the instructions, he caused five councillors to
be elected by the people, but he called no ** parlia-
ment" because there were not enough freemen to

* Carteret, Relation, reprinted in Charleston Year-Book, 1883,
p. 370; Shaftesbury Papers, 165-168; Mathews, Relation, ibid.,
169-171. ' Shaftesbury Papers, 203, 204.

144 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1671

elect representatives. Trouble having arisen over
the observance of Sunday, Sayle called the freemen
together and read them a series of orders drawn
up by the cotmcil on this and one or two other
matters. At this point William Owens, "a Magna
Charta and Petition of Rights man," told the people
that they could have no laws without a parliament,
and in some way persuaded them to elect delegates ; *
but this body, irregularly chosen and irregularly
called, accomplished nothing. After Sayle's death,
March 4, 1671, West was elected governor by the
colonists, ** because they stood in great need of a
head at once, " but he issued the same orders some-
what revised. Owens declared that they were
illegal ** because the great seal of the province was
not in the colony," ' and West had some difficulty
in quieting the colonists, who feared lest the titles
to their lands might be endangered because the
great seal of the province remained in England.*

* Shaftesbury Papers, 291, 292, 300. ' Ibid., 294.

■ See Col, of State Pap,, Col., 1681-1685, 1 1733.

CHAPTER X

GOVERNMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE CAROLINAS

(1671-1691)

THE situation at Charles Town was not satis-
factory to Ashley, who was in the full flush
of his colonial undertaking, and was determined
that his plans should not be thwarted. Urged on
by the governor and council of Carolina, and by
certain merchants of Bermuda, he "got of his
Majestic," on November i, 1670, a grant of the
Bahamas for himself and the other remaining
proprietaries.^ He placed the colony under the
government of the Fundamental Constitutions, with
Hugh Wentworth as governor, and planned to
build up a system of co-operation and trade among
the three colonies situated at Albemarle, Charles
Town, and New Providence in the Bahamas.' A
later attempt to plant a colony on the Edisto seems
to indicate that he meant to include other settle-
ments also in the union. To let the Charles Town
settlement die would endanger the entire scheme,
so that in the summer of 1670 Ashley ordered

* Ante, 132, n.

' Shaftesbury Papers , 207. Cf. N. C. Col. Records, I., 228.

VOL. V — 10 145

146 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1671

Sayle to issue a proclamation offering all sorts of
inducements to the people of Barbadoes to come
to Carolina. Thomas Colleton, son of the late
Sir John and brother of the present proprietary,
Sir Peter, took the matter in hand and sent from
Barbadoes the John and Thomas with forty-two
passengers, who reached Charles Town February
16, 1 6 7 1 . Eight days later the Carolina arrived with
sixty-four passengers.*

The new settlers were welcomed by the colonists
and received homes near the town. The leader of
the Barbadians was Captain Godfrey, Sir Peter
Colleton's deputy and an experienced soldier and
planter. The colony needed men of this type to
take places in the council and to build up agficultural
life, for the earlier settlers had been chiefly trades-
men by profession. In the same year Ashley sent
another ship from England, the Blessing, which
arrived May 14, 167 1, and he declared that he pro-
posed to continue sending ships until a thotisand peo-
ple were in the colony and the place was established.

The active proprietaries were now only four —
Ashley (made earl of Shaftesbury April 23, 1672),
Craven, Carteret, and Colleton. Seemingly they
realized that their Grand Model could not be made
immediately practicable, for they had erected a
temporary form of government in the commission
and instructions issued to Sayle in 1669;' and now

* Shaftesbury Papers, 266-268.

' Ibid., 1 1 7-1 19; Rivers, bouth Carolina^ App., 340, 347.

i67i] THE CAROLINAS 147

did the same in a new body of instructions and
a set of temporary laws sent over on the Blessing.
Again tugging settlement in towns as safer and more
conducive to trade, they sent over a description of
a town organization such as they would like to see
established.*

As the settlers increased in number, the govern-
ment of the colony began to take definite form. After
the death of Sayles, West became governor, but
Yeamans, arriving from Barbadoes in July, 1671,
claimed the office, because under the Fundamental
Constitutions only landgraves could be governors,
and he was the oidy person in the colony with such a
title. West retained the governorship, however, for
seven months longer, and managed the colony suc-
cessfully. The cotmcil, composed of the deputies
of the proprietaries and five elected by the peo-
ple, met regularly and prepared bills for the parlia-
ment which began to sit for the first time in August,
1671. Several important measures were passed, one
of which, authorizing the payment of the Lords
Proprietaries' debts, was received with great ap-
proval in England, for profits were as yet unknown
to the proprietaries. They must have spent the
equivalent of $250,000 to $300,000 upon the
colony,' and neither at this time nor afterwards
received any return for their expenditure. In later

* Co/, of State Pap,, Col., 1669-16 74, J 514. C£. Shaftesbury
Papers, 343.

' Ibid., 358; McCrady, Hist, of S. C, I., 373, 374.

148 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1672

years the stockholders' rights depreciated greatly
in value and were often sold for almost nothing,
a fact that will explain the inferior character of
some of the later proprietaries.

Yeamans finally got his commission and arrived
in April, 1672, but he soon made it clear that he had
sought the office only for his own good. He rep-
resented the Barbadians in the colony, and, as the
proprietaries finally discovered, took advantage of
his position to benefit himself.* They discovered,
too, that instead of trying to pay the debt of the
colony, due to the proprietaries, as West had pro-
posed, he was constantly calling for new expendi-
tures. They therefore revoked his commission, and
in April, 1674, created West a landgrave and ap-
pointed him governor.' The colony now entered on
a period of prosperous rule for eight years.

During this period and down to 1690 the number
of colonists increased rapidly. In 1672 there were
four hundred and six men, women, and children in
the colony;' by 1685 the population had risen
to at least two thousand five htmdred, if we may
accept Ashe's estimate of one thousand to twelve
hundred in 1682.* The first considerable body of
new-comers consisted of more than a htmdred French
Protestants. The commissioners of customs op-

^ CcU. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, 325, || 861, 971;
Shaftesbury Papers, 416-419. ' N. C. Col. Records, I., aao.

* Col. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, { 736.

* Carroll, Hist. Collections, II., 82.

i68s] THE CAROLINAS 149

posed their departtire, thinking that they should be
encoxiraged to remain in England ; but both the king
and the proprietaries favored the scheme, a subscrip-
tion was raised, and the consent of the Lords of
Trade and Plantations was obtained.* Many men
of estates recommended by the proprietaries to the
governor of Carolina went out also and received lands
in the colony. Additional settlers came from Bar-
badoes and other colonies, and for a decade after
1680 the influx was rapid.

The uneasiness and popular unrest in England
during the years from 1679 to 1685 sent large
numbers of Protestants to America, many of whom
came to Carolina. Five hundred from western
England are said to have arrived in one month,
thus doubling the population of the settlement.'
A large colony of Scots, who at first intended to go
to New York, changed their minds and went to
Port Royal in 1683, and other Scots would have
followed had they not been prevented.'

For several years the proprietaries had been
urging the transfer of the centre of settlement
from the old town to a place better adapted for
trade and capable of defence. The site selected

* N. C. Col. Records, I., 24a, 243; Col. of State Pap., Col.,
1677-1680, If 875, 888, 918-920, 930, 967, 1000, 1006, 1 149,
X167, 1233.

' McCrady, Hist. 0/ S. C, 193, 194; Archdale and Oldmixon,
in Carroll, Hist. Collections, II.

* CcU. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685. §§809, 1774; Hist.
MSS. Commission, Report, VII., 407; XIV., pt. iii., 113.

ISO COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1682

was across the river at Oyster Point, at the junction
of the Ashley and Cooper rivers. Here in 1680
new Charies Town arose, and before a decade passed
became the largest centre of trade and the most
important settlement south of Philadelphia. In
1682 the settlement began to expand somewhat
towards the interior.*

Progress from the sea-coast into the back country
was, however, slow, and the difficulties which attend-
ed the occupation of the uplands, where lay the
best soil in the colony, proved a serious obstacle to
the growth of the settlement. Though in the main
relations with the Indians were peaceful, trouble
began in 168 1 with the Westoes, whom Thomas Newe
spoke of as "a tribe of barbarous Indians, being
not above sixty in number, but by reason of their
great growth and cruelty in feeding on all their
neighbors, terrible to all other Indians, of which
there are about forty other kingdoms." The
colonists were determined to exterminate this bodv
of ** man- eaters," who had killed two ** eminent
planters"; and not only went out themselves in
small bands, but aroused and armed the peaceful
Indians to discover the settlement of the Westoes
and to destroy the tribe. This attack aroused a
general excitement along the frontier, and for three
years an intermittent Indian warfare continued.

To danger from the Indians was soon added

* Ca/. 0/ State Pap., Col., 1677 -1680, § 1233; 1681-1685,
J 497-

>% ■*»■" ■ i" jag "tft iS

i68s] THE CAROLINAS 151

danger from the Spaniards settled at St. Augustine
since 1565 : "a place," as Newe wrote, ** belonging to
our proprietors about one hundred and fifty miles
to the south of us, where the Spaniards are seated
and have a pretty strong town/' * The colonists
prepared for defence, and desired a just pretext to
imdertake an aggressive war, but the proprietaries
rigidly forbade them to take any offensive action,
inasmuch as England and Spain were at peace.'
In 1685 the Spaniards appeared in force before the
English settlements and burned many homes. The
colonists retaliated by arranging with two French
privateers to attack St. Augustine, but changed
their plans because of peremptory orders which
came from the proprietaries. In 1686 the Spaniards
appeared again, and destroyed Stewart's Town, the
seat of the Scottish settlement of Lord Cardross at
Port Royal.

Thus far the colonists had suffered but little from
proprietary interference in matters of government.
To be sure, Shaftesbury declared that * * the compass
you are to steer by is the Fimdamental Constitu-
tions, the Temporary Laws, and the Instructions,"
and bade his deputy, Mathews, ** obstinately to
stick to those rules and to oppose all deviations." '
Nevertheless, at no time during his period of control

* Newe to his father, Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., D 810. f. 54.
^Ccd. of State Pap,, Col, 1681-1685, § 1651; cf. 1685-1688,

* Shaftesbury Papers, 397-399; Cal, of State Pap., Col,,
1669-1674, § 863.

152 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1672

did he seek to force on the colonists more of the
Fundamentals than " were capable of being put into
practice." The government was in the main simple
and satisfactory, the colonists minding but little
the appointment of nominal landgraves and casiques,
the proprietaries' control of patronage, and the crea-
tion of baronies.

From 1672 to 1682 the life of the colony flowed
on smoothly. But after the latter year Morton,
who had aided the emigration of Dissenters from
western England, was superseded by West ; and fre-
quent changes in government followed, which mark
a period of unrest and of friction between pro-
prietaries and colonists. Nearly all the original
patentees were dead: Shaftesbury was disgraced;
and only John Berkeley and Craven remained. The
others were new men, with less knowledge and less
tact than their predecessors, and their task was
made heavier by the increase in the size of the
colony, the presence among the colonists of men
of great independence and experience, and the
frequent recurrence of intricate and difficult prob-
lems. Proprietary interference from 1682 to 1689
was of such a character as to drive the colonists
almost to open rebellion.

At first the proprietaries attempted to tamper
with the freedom of trade in the colony ; and Thomas
Newe reports that he found the colonists in a state
of great excitement in 1682, because of the attempt
of a few men to monopolize the Indian traffic in

wm ^ M .J » ■ ■

1682] THE CAROLINAS 153

ftirs. Then arose a difficulty with the Fundamental
Constitutions, which the colonists had always re-
fused to confirm by any act of their own parlia-
ment. By the same vessel that brought Newe to
the colony the proprietaries sent over a revised
draught of the Fundamentals, with some slight ad-
ditions which evidently were designed to encourage
emigration of Dissenters from western England.*
Before they could hear from the colonists regarding
this draught they decided to revise the Fundament-
als still further; and on August 17, 1682, sent over
another draught, at the special request of the Scots
and * * some other considerable men, ' ' who were already
planning to emigrate to Carolina, and who declared
that the articles contained too few guarantees
against oppression by the governors and other
officials of the colony.'

The new constitution placed more power in the
hands of the people and limited to a small extent
the authority of the proprietaries ; but the colonists
rejected these articles as they had the others. These
repeated rejections irritated the proprietaries, who
now declared that they would not permit the
Constitutions to be **used again till the people were
fit to enjoy them and till they petition for that
which they now reject." '

From this time forward the proprietaries became

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, § 496.

^ Ibid., §§807, 1780, and p. 510; 1689-1692, Jiii/.

* Ibid., 1681-1685, §1780.

154 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1683

more imperative. They charged the settlers with
disregard of their interest and contempt of th^
orders, and were irritated by the unfriendly treat*-
ment accorded Lord Cardross and his Scots, and
by the failure of the Charles Town government to
deliver certain cannon for the protection of the
Scottish settlement (Stewart's Town) at Port
Royal.* They changed the system of granting
land by patent to granting by indenture, which
required payment of quitjent in money;' they
complained of the selling of Indians as slaves, which
brought about war and interfered with trade and
their profits; they rebuked Governor West sharply
for acting against their orders, saying, "Pray, are
you to govern the people or the people you?"*
Their letters became so peremptory that West,
appointed governor for the third time in 1684,
resigned in despair, and in 1685 Morton for the
second time was appointed to succeed him.

Times had changed ; the days of Shaftesbury were
gone ; the days of James II. and Jeffreys were come,
and the colonists readily perceived the difference.
When the colonial parliament met, November 19,
1685, Governor Morton, carrying out the orders
given him, declared that every one must swear
allegiance to the new king, fidelity to the pro-
prietaries, and acceptance of the Fundamentals.

» Ca/. o/S/ate Pap., Co/.. 1685-1688, § 1163; 1689-1699,1 XI17.

» Ibid., 1685-1688, i 639.

» Ibid., 1685-1688, i 59: cf. ii 363, 364. 365.

1687] THE CAROLINAS 155

Twelve members refused to do this and withdrew,
and next day were excluded from the parliament.

In the mean time, Morton, who had fallen under
the displeasure of the proprietaries, was dismissed,
and in the summer of 1686 James Colleton, son of
the old Sir John and an imworthy scion of the
Colleton house, was commissioned in his stead,
apparently for reasons connected with the attitude
of the colonists towards the navigation acts. When
George Mtischamp wa^ appointed king's collector
of customs in Carolina in 1685, he was not well
received by the colony. Reports of illegal trading
came to the knowledge of the Lords of Trade, and
were transmitted to the proprietaries, who warned
Morton against suffering any ships to trade con-
trary to law.* The matter gave them great con-
cern, for already the Lords of Trade were recom-
mending the annulment of all the proprietary
and corporate charters, and the Carolina pro-
prietaries were anxious to do everything in their
power to prevent the prosecution of a writ of
quo. warranto against theirs.'

Colleton arrived in the colony late in the year
1687; and soon after his arrival a committee was
appointed to examine the Fundamentals, in the hope
of suggesting such changes as would make possible

» Cal, of StaU Pap., Col., 1685-1688, § 639; Journal of the
Lords of Trade, VI., 97-98. The proprietaries disclaimed
all responsibility, see Cal. of State Pap., Col., 168 5-1 688, § 141 7-

" A^. C. Col. Records, I., 263; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-
1688, |§ 767, 1417; Rivers, South Carolina, App., 393.

I $6 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1688

•

an agreement with the proprietaries.* The work
dragged on until February 14, 1688, when Colleton,
in anger, produced the letter of the proprietaries
stating that the Fundamentals of 1669 had no
official standing. Thereupon a deadlock ensued ; the
governor and council adhered to the orders from
England, while the delegates of the people stood
by their former decision not to recognize any other
constitution than that of 1669. They went further
and voted that the government ought to be con-
ducted according to the charters and not the
Fundamentals, and denied that any bill need
necessarily pass the council before it was read in
parliament.' Legislation stopped. The colony,
already stirred to its depths by the Spanish inroad
of 1686, by the controversy over illegal trading,
and by the difficulties with privateers and pirates,
and now exasperated by the attitude of the pro-
prietaries, was almost on the eve of revolt.

Colleton began to govern with a high hand. At
the request of certain colonists he proclaimed martial
law, and refused to call another parliament. Seth
Sothell, who had become a proprietary by buying
out Lord Clarendon's share, but for misgovemment
had been banished from Albemarle by the people
of that colony, came to Charles Tewn and claimed
the governorship according to the terms of the

' Oldmixon, in Carroll, Hist. Collections, II., 411, 412.
» Abstract in Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, § 196a. full
text in Rivers, South Carolina, 423.

1691] THE CAROLINAS 157

Fundamental Constitutions. He was welcomed by
the opposition party, and in December, 1690, after
seizing the records, called a parliament (which in all
probability was the first to meet since February,
1688). In March, 1691, he convened another par-
liament and obtained the passage of acts banish-
ing Colleton and his friends.*

The proprietaries refused to sanction such law-
less proceedings. Having charged Sothell with dis-
obedience of their orders, with seizure of their letters
and deputations, with holding illegal parliaments,
and with supporting acts offensive in themselves
and illegally passed, they suspended him from the
governorship on November 8, 1691, and appointed
Philip Ludwell in his place. Although eleven years
passed before the Ftmdamental Constitutions were
officially abandoned, it is evident that they were
already a dead letter, owing to the determination
of the colonists not to receive them; that in many
important particulars the authority of the pro-
prietaries was strenuously resisted ; and that English
practices and English customs, whether in govern-
ment, parliamentary distribution, or forms of land
tenure, in so far as they did not conform to the
needs of the colonists or to their sense of fairness
and equity, could not be enforced in the Carolinas.

In the county of Albemarle in the northern
part of the province similar issues were working
themselves out in a rather more ttunultuous way.

* Cal. of State Pap. Col., 1689-1692, {§ 1488-1490, 1535, 1539.

IS8 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1667

Stephens was made governor in 1667, but for ten
years we hear little of the life of the colony. The
inhabitants were composed of wanderers from
Virginia who had obtained lands under patent from
Berkeley before 1663. In that year and the year
following a large number of Quakers came into the
province, forming an influential body among the
inhabitants. Though the lands were fertile the
settlement never had much encouragement from
the proprietaries. It was not exactly neglected,
but occupied a minor place in their thoughts. The
people were poor, the assignments of land small,
and the quit-rents high, though the conditions were
somewhat modified by the proprietaries.* There
was no clergyman in the colony in 1670, and laws
passed in that year indicate the difficulties con-
fronting a settlement without sufficient support,
and isolated from the world outside.' Life was
purely agricultural, the only export being furs and
tobacco, shipped in vessels from New England,
whose merchants seem, to the vexation of the pro-
prietaries, to have monopolized their business.

The proprietaries repeatedly urged the Albemarle
colonists to open up negotiations with the southern
settlement and to send their products directly to
England instead of allowing them to fall into the
hands of the New-Englamders. They also luged
them to expand their settlement and to colomze
not only the shores of the Pamlico but the valley

* Ante. 139. * A^. C, Col Records, I., x83->(97.

U— iiiii^ifc-Ii*

1677] THE CAROLINAS 159

of the Neuse as well. The colony showed little
eagerness to please the proprietaries, and the latter
could say in reply that "the neglect of these two
[instructions] has been the cause that hitherto we
have had no more regard for you as looking upon
you as a people that neither understood your own
nor regarded our interests." *

Stephens was succeeded in 1670 by Peter Carteret,
Sir George Carteret's deputy in the colony and
president of the council. To him were sent the
Fundamental Constitutions and a body of temporary
laws and instructions defining the form the govern-
ment should take until the Fundamentals could be
put into practice.' But his government was not
successful, for what reason it is not easy to determine.
In all probability his connection with the Indian
trade and the illicit trade with New England
brought him into disfavor with the proprietaries."
Carteret was dismissed, and in 1677 Eastchurch,
speaker of the Albemarle assembly, who had gone
to England to lay the matter before the proprieta-
ries, was appointed in his stead ; but he appointed
Miller, collector of customs, to act as governor in
his place.

Miller was hardly the man to meet the situation,
and no sooner had he arrived than trouble broke
out. Some hundred or more of the colonists, who

» N. C. Col. Records, I.. 228. ' Ibid., 181-183.

' The instructions of 1676 seem to show this. See ihid.,
228-230.

i6o COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1677

were determined that they would not pay the
penny a pound on all tobacco exported to the
other colonies, rose against the government, and
having imprisoned governor, president of the as-
sembly, and all but one of the deputies, they usurped
the power and controlled the colony for a year.
While to personal grievances and questions of trade
may be traced some of the causes of this movement,
there can be little doubt, if one may judge from the
Pasquotank appeal for a "free parliament," that
poverty and dislike of misgovemment lay at the
bottom of the popular support of the uprising. The
matter was soon ended. Miller was charged with
holding his office without legal authority and was
ejected by the proprietaries.

In the mean time, Sothell, already mentioned
in connection with Charles Town, was appointed
governor by the proprietaries. Having been capt-
ured by Algerine pirates, he did not reach the
colony till 1683, when he fotmd the condition of
affairs hopelessly confused. The authority of the
proprietaries availed little, land titles were doubtful,
the question of pirates and privateers was becoming
a burning one in the colony, and a feeling of unrest
seemed prevalent among the colonists.

Sothell only made matters worse, and was sharply
called to accotmt by the proprietaries,* who were
already bending to the storm of the quo warranto

* N. C. Col, Records f I., 350-352; for charges against Sothell,
see 368-371.

i69i] THE CAROLINAS i6i

inquiries. But the people saved them further
trouble. Seizing Sothell, they banished him from
the colony, and though he was one of the " true and
absolute lords of the province," the proprietaries
acquiesced in this act on the ground that he had
acted contrary to the Fundamental Constitutions.
They appointed Philip Ludwell governor, first of
Albemarle, and in 1691 of the southern province
also, and henceforth Albemarle was governed by
a deputy sent from the southern colony.

Few colonies could show a more consistent dis-
content, more bitter party feeling and personal
hostility than did Albemarle. Even more than its
neighbor it suffered from foolish laws and injudicious
instructions, as well as from bad governors. To the
proprietaries and the Lords of Trade it must have
seemed a hot-bed of bickering and discontent, yet,
were the full truth known, as it cannot be because
of lack of indisputable evidence, it might be seen that
the discontent was due to the attempts of a body of
poor though honest settlers to get the most out of
the circumstances in which they were placed, despite
the policy of the proprietaries and the self-seeking
activities of their appointees.

VOL. V. — XI

CHAPTER XI

FOUNDATION OP PENNSYLVANIA

(1680-1691)

ALMOST twentv vears passed after the conquest
i of New Netherlund before tlie southern portion
of the territory claimed by the Dutch was colonized
by the English. The settlement of Pennsylvania
was due to the deep interest already aroused among
the members of the Society of Friends in the coloni-
zation of the New World. In 1653 members of this
religious body began to come to America, and at one
time or another sought refuge in each of the colonies
there established. They came first as missionaries,
and in their outspoken defence of their faith roused
against themselves the hostility of the New England
Puritans, who had no intention of building up a
home for people who differed in religious belief from
themselves.

In the years from 1653 to 1660 the Puritans
banished some of the Qtiakers, imprisoned many,
and hanged three — Robinson, Stevenson, and Mary
Dyer. The commissioners of the New England
Confederation recommended in 1656 that all Quakers
should be kept out of the colonies, and the legislat-

162

1670I PENNSYLVANIA FOUNDED 163

ures of Massax:husetts Bay, Plymouth, and Connecti-
cut enacted laws to this effect. Only Rhode Island
gave them a welcome: the assembly wrote a letter
to the United Commissioners, declaring that freedom
of conscience was '* the greatest happiness that men
can possess in the world." But Long Island and
New Amsterdam, following the example of Massachu-
setts Bay, flogged and imprisoned the Quaker
preachers. Only in Shelter Island, far removed
from the populous towns of western Long Island,
and existing for the time being independent of any
higher jurisdiction, lived a small body of Quakers
unmolested by the colonial authorities.

After 1660 the ntimber of Quakers in America
rapidly increased, owing to the persecutions that
began in England soon after the outbreak of the
Fifth Monarchy men in 1660.* The harrying of
the Nonconformists that followed the Conventicle
Acts of 1664 and 1670 fell with exceptional severity
upon members of the Society of Friends, because
of their practice of holding meetings at stated times
and places, and because of their refusal to change
their practice in order to avoid arrest and in-
prisonment. Persecution followed them to Amer-
ica, and efforts, less prolonged, but none the less
determined, were made there to crush out the new
religious body. In Maryland they were fined and
imprisoned, not only because they held an un-
welcome faith, but also because they refused to

* Fox, Journal (cd. 1694), 337.

i64 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [i66o

bear arms and to take the oath that the colony
required.

Oppressed in Virginia, a body of Friends pushed
southward into the wilderness and joined the colony
at Albemarle; while in the north others left New
England and settled at Shrewsbury in the region
afterwards to be known as East New Jersey. Thus
in Rhode Island, Shelter Island, New Jersey, Mary-
land, Virginia, and Carolina, commimities of Quaker
colonists existed, whose life was characterized by
humility, simplicity, and agricultural thrift. George
Fox, the founder of the society, made a noteworthy
journey among them in 1672, visiting all the com-
mtmities from Rhode Island to Carolina, holding
meetings and encouraging his followers. His jour-
nal gives a vivid picture of the extent of Quaker
settlement in America before the appearance of
William Penn as a promoter of Quaker coloniza-
tion.*

This situation was far from satisfactory to those
interested in the future of Quaker settlement in
America; the commimities were widely scattered
and without tmity. Save in Rhode Island, where
Quakers obtained control of the government from
1673 to 1677 and furnished the governors and most
of the deputies, they were without political in-
fluence, and had to be content to dwell imder a
government not of their own making. It became
eminently desirable that a place should be found

' Fox, Journal^ 362-383.

i672] PENNSYLVANIA POUNDED 165

where they could be free to live in peace and to
erect a government of their own.

As early as 1660 George Fox thought of purchas-
ing land in America for a Quaker settlement, and
made inquiries of Josiah Coale regarding a suitable
territory in Maryland. The region suggested lay at
the head of Chesapeake Bay along the Susquehan-
na River, back to the Susquehanna fort. But the
conditions were not favorable, and the project was
given up.* Nothing more was done until after
1666, when Penn became a member of the society
and a large number of well-to-do and injfluential
men became associated with the movement. To
obtain territory in America was no easy matter,
for the seaboard was already occupied, and an in-
land region would not be favorable to commerce,
which was likely to be the chief activity of the
colony.

William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, was
the son of Admiral Penn, a leading naval officer of
his day and one of the commanders of the ex-
pedition which captured Jamaica in 1655. He was
brought up at Wanstead, in Essex, and matriculated
at Oxford in 1660, when sixteen years of age.
Even at that early date he was intimate with John
Owen, the Puritan divine, and listened with sym-
pathy to the discourses of Thomas Loe, the Quaker.
When the admiral learned of his son's interest in
Nonconformist ideas and preachings, he sent him

* Coale to Fox, in Bowden, Hist, of Friends, I., 389, 390.

i66 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1660

off to the Continent, where young Penn entered into
the gayeties of the French court, travelled in Italy,
and a little later took service in the Dutch war,
donning the armor which, in strange contradiction
to Quaker principles, appears in the only authentic
portrait that exists of the great Quaker leader.
On his return to England he entered Lincoln's Inn
to prepare himself for the profession of law; but
in 1666, while visiting his father's estate in Ireland,
he met Thomas Loe at Cork and was converted
to Quakerism. His father, angry at this thwart-
ing of his plans for Penn's future career, turned
against him, but before his own death in 1670 he
became reconciled with his son and aided him
when with other Quakers he was persecuted for his
faith.

Admiral Penn left to his son what was then con-
sidered the large income of £1500 a year; * yet tow-
ards the end of the decade Penn appears to have
been financially embarrassed.* Admiral Penn had
left an important claim upon the king, consisting
of arrears of pay and of money which had been
advanced from time to time to supply the navy.
This debt was repudiated in 1672 by the Stop of the
Exchequer, and the royal promise of interest was
unfulfilled till 1677, and then was paid only in part.
This loss of interest for five years raised Penn's
claim from £11,000 to £16,000, and, taken in

* Memorials of Sir William Penn, II., 560,570, 571,617-619.
' Preamble to petition, Hazard, Annals, 474.

i674] PENNSYLVANIA FOUNDED 167

conjunction with losses in Ireland, reduced very
materially the value of Penn's estate. It was at
this time, therefore, that Penn determined tor peti-
tion the king for a grant of land in America.

The thought was not new to him. Before he be-
came a Quaker he had been eager to discover a region
where he might experiment with certain theories of
government which he had begun to formulate as
early as 166 1 at Oxford. That he was familiar with
the writings of More and Harrington we may well
believe ; that he was a friend of Henry and Algernon
Sydney we know ; and that he was an observer of
"mischiefs in government" and desired **to settle
one" of his own his letters tell us.* But it was
not until after 1673 ^hat he began seriously to
consider the plan of colonization, and, as we have
already seen, not until 1674 that he joined with
others of his faith in attempting to obtain an inter-
est in the Jerseys.

Just when Penn first formed the plan of building
up a colony of his own in America we do not know.
As a favorite in the royal household, a friend of the
duke of York, and intimate with many of the men
interested in colonization in America, he must
early have become aware that the territory taken
from the Dutch on the west side of the Delaware was
desirable. Nicolls, in his letters to the duke, to
Clarendon, and to Bennett, later Lord Arlington,
called attention to the region, and recommended it

* Penn, in Pa. Hist. Soc., Memoirs, I., aio, an.

i68 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1676

as a substitute for what he considered the duke's
unfortunate grant of East New Jersey to Carteret.*

Pemn's New Jersey venture must have made
him familiar with the region, and in the years from
1676 to 1680 he was trying to obtain the removal
of the five per cent, tax which Andros, in the name
of the duke of York, imposed on all goods entering
the Delaware, and in his remonstrances displayed
thorough knowledge of the legal questions in-
volved ; * while his description of the region in his
later accoimt of his province, issued before he left
England, shows a like knowledge of the ground.*
Penn differed from the other proprietaries in that
he made profit a subordinate motive. He wished
to found a colony for his fellow - Quakers, to try
a new and holy experiment in government, and in
person to build up the new settlement. Since the
days of the Massachusetts Bay colony there had
been among the various proprietaries and patentees
no examples of motives such as these.

In June, 1680, Penn petitioned the king to
grant him ** letters-patent for a tract of land in
America lying north of Maryland, on the east
bounded by the Delaware River, on the west limited
as Maryland, and northward to extend as far as
plantable." * Penn did not ask for the territory

* N. J. Archives, I., 48, 55, 56; Clarendon Papers, 115.
' Pa. Magazine, V., 323-325.

■ Hazard, Annals, 509, 510.

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, III., 173; Hazard, Annals,

474.

i68o] PENNSYLVANIA FOUNDED 169

as payment for the debt, but rather that he might
thereby restore his fortunes, believing that by a
profitable conduct of the plantation he would be
able to meet financial indebtedness incurred in
consequence of his Irish losses and the repudiation
of the amount owed him by the king. In a letter
written in 1689 he said, "Had I pressed my own
debts with King James, that his brother owed me,
there had been sixteen thousand pounds." Evident-
ly he still nominally claimed the debt, of which he
was willing to remit the whole or a part.* The grant
was to be made in consideration of the circum-
stances in which the debt had placed him, not in
settlement of the debt itself.

The petition which was sent to the king was
handed over to the Lords of Trade, and received
by them June 14, 1680. It does not appear that in
Penn's case the committee hesitated to increase
the ntimber of proprieties in America, a fact due
imdoubtedly to the influence of Penn at court and
his friendship with Charles II. and the duke of
York. So far as the minutes of its deliberations
show, the conmiittee in Penn's case was concerned
chiefly with the difficulty of making the grant with-
out detriment to the other proprietaries, the duke
of York on the northeast and Lord Baltimore on
the south.

The discussion showed great uncertainty as to

* The Friend, VIL, 67; Friends* Review, I. 33, 34; Journal
of the Lords of Trade, IIL, 174; Pa. Magazine, VI., 313.

I70 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1680

the position of the fortieth parallel, which was fixed
upon as Penn's southern boundary. The duke
cared nothing for the boundaries north and west,
but he wished to retain the New Castle colony.
His agent, Sir John Werden, at once protested
against the inclusion of that settlement, and Penn
was required by the committee to reach an agree-
ment with the duke privately on this point.*
Werden proposed a southern line twenty or thirty
miles north of New Castle, but Penn, who wisnea to
control as much of the Delaware as possible, asked
that the distance be reduced to twelve miles.*
Sir John Werden dismissed the matter by saying,
* * I confess I do not understand why it is precisely
necessary to insist on just such a ntmiber of miles,
more or less, in a cotmtry of which we know so
little.*'* Dutch and Burke, the agents (rf Baltimore,
in their statement to the committee, requested
that the line be drawn north of Susquehanna fort
(which was supposed to mark the fortie th para llel),
and to nm thence eastward to the Delaware.
Penn agreed to this line, and we are told that ** Sir
John Werden and my Lord Baltimore's agent at-
tended my Lord Chief -Justice North at his chamber,
and upon laying before his lordship their respective
interests and both of them acquiescing in the botmds

* Col. of State Pap., Col,, 1677-1680, §§ 1390, 1403; Hazard,
Annals, 475, 476.

' Hazard, Annals, 482, 483; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680,
{{ 1404, 1409, 1544. 1599-

■ Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, { 1603.

i68i] PENNSYLVANIA FOUNDED 171

as they stand now described, the)'' were presented to
the committee and agreed upon by their lordships." *
An obstacles to the issue of the patent having thtis
been removed, the committee reported favorably to
the king, and the charter was signed March 4, 1681.

The territory thus granted was bounded on the.
east by the Delaware River and by a line drawn
from the head of that river to the forty -thirdj
degree of northern latitude; on the south by a
semicircle whose periphery lay twelve miles distant
from New Castle north and northwest, intersecting
with the fortieth parallel, along which the boundary-
line ran through five degrees of longitude. These
boundaries involved two serious diffictilties that be-
came the subject of long and painful controversies.

In the first place, the critical phrase ** three and
fortieth degree of northern latitude" (elsewhere in
the same charter called the ** beginning of the three
and fortieth degree") might mean either the line
known as the forty-third degree or the zone be-
tween the forty-second and forty-third degrees.
If the former meaning were accepted, as Penn after-
wards insisted and Governor Dongan thought would
be the case,* then Penn's grant would have extended
north of Albany and have controlled the Indian
trade of the Mohawk valley; and the five degrees
westward would have given to him a part of Lake

* "Letter to Mr. Lewen at New York concerning Mr. Pen's
Patent," Egerton A/SS., in British Museum, 2395, ff. 593, 594.

* N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 392, 394.

172 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1681

Erie and a share of the trade with Canada. By the
latter interpretation, which was accepted a century
later, the northern line of Pennsylvania would coin-
cide with the forty-second degree or parallel.*

On the south the question was even more per-
plexing. Baltimore was entitled to territory ex-
tending as far north as the fortieth parallel, and
possessed a legal title to the region covering the
Dutch and Swedish settlements on the west bank
of the Delaware. In the charter this territory was
spoken of as "hitherto tmcultivated," and the
question was raised as to whether this statement
did not exclude such portions as had been acttially
settled since 1632. Baltimore had never attempted
to exercise jurisdiction over these northern settle-
ments, which since 1664 had been imder the govern-
ment of the duke of York. Penn's charter conftised
matters still further, for the twelve-mile circle
around New Castle did not intersect the fortieth
parallel by at least eight miles. A settlement of
the difficulty between Penn and Baltimore, based
on a literal interpretation of the two charters, was
manifestly out of the question.

The fault lies in the first instance with those who
draughted Penn's charter. Penn was seeking ports,
not land, because his province had no ocean front,
a fact that is evident from his offer in 1683 to buy of
Baltimore control of the Susquehanna River to its

' Regents' Commission, Report on iJie New York and Pennsyl'
vania Boundary ( 1 886) .

1683] PENNSYLVANIA FOUNDED 173

mouth in order to gain an outlet on the Chesa-
peake. Baltimore, though possessing the whole of
the Chesapeake and having an outlet to the ocean
through the Potomac, declined Penn's offer.* Penn
was justified in attempting to save his capital,
Philadelphia, which was building before the con-
troversy began, and in seeking to obtain a water-
way for the commerce he planned to develop. Had
all of Baltimore's claims been allowed, the value of
Penn's grant would have been destroyed, whereas
the province of Maryland as it then existed would
have profited little, for Baltimore had never con-
cerned himself with the lands northeast of Chesa-
peake Bay.

The question of the fortieth parallel and of the
Chesapeake port was not the only cause of the long
quarrel that followed. Penn became anxious re-
garding his control of Delaware Bay, and in 168 1
applied to the duke of York for a grant of New
Castle, the islands of the Delaware, and eventually
for all the territory on the right bank of the Delaware
to its mouth.* The duke demurred at first, but
eventually yielded, and in August, 1682, deeded
both New Castle and the lower territory to Penn.*
But the duke's title was not itself clear, inasmuch
as he had never received from the kmg any territory

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, {{ 356, 444; Pa. Maga-
zine, VI., 423.

' Nicolls fiist suggested this in N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist.,
III., 70, 290. ■ Hazard, Annals, 587-593.

174 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1682

on the west side of the Delaware, and exercised
jurisdiction over Upland and New Castle rather
by sufferance than by any legal warrant. It was
necessary, therefore, that the duke of York get
a release from the king.

Before this release was signed, Baltimore, in
consternation at this further encroachment on his
charter limits, appealed to the Lords of Trade,
praying for an investigation.* Penn and the
duke of York's coimsel insisted that the Delaware
water-front had never been possessed by Lord
Baltimore; that the land had been originally in-
habited by Dutch and Swedes, and that the grant
to Baltimore had been only of lands not inhabited
by Christians. They also insisted that all lands
occupied by the Dutch had been surrendered to
the king in 1664, and that such as had not been
granted away since that time had remained in the
king's possession.

For a year and a half the matter remained un-
decided, the committee postponing consideration of
it, probably because of the anticipated quo warranto
proceedings against Lord Baltimore's charter. When
Penn showed that the question was, as he put it,
one of ** title to soil and not of power," the lords took
up the matter in earnest, and on October 17, 1685,
reached a first decision that the "tract of land in
dispute did not belong to Lord Baltimore." Shortly

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, IV., 155, 156; A^ Y. Docs.
R0I. to Col, Hist., III., 339, 340.

i682] PENNSYLVANIA POUNDED 175

afterwards the committee modified this statement in
a final decision, and in view of the imcertainty of the
boundary divided the territory into equal parts by
a north and south line from the New Castle circle
to a point between the thirty-eighth and thirty-
ninth parallels. This line became the basis of
the final western boundary of the state of Dela-
ware, and by this decision Baltimore retained
possession of a large part of the "Eastern Shore." *
He refused, however, to accept the decision of the
committee and reopened the controversy in 1694;
even as late as 1755 ^h® proprietary of Maryland
was still claiming the three lower counties.*

By the charter of 1681 Penn and his heirs became
the true and absolute lords of a province or seignory,
with rights and privileges similar to those granted
to other proprietaries. The province was called
Pennsylvania, though Penn expressly endeavored
to have it called New Wales, and that failing,
Sylvania. Secretary Blathwayt, a Welshman, re-
fused to have it called New Wales ; the king would
not interfere; and though Penn offered the under-
secretaries twenty guineas, they would not alter the
name which had been inserted in the charter in
honor of the admiral.* This province was to be
held by Penn in free and coxmrion socage — that is,

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, V., 116, 179, 180, 188, 198,
Z99, 307, 308, 311, 225, 326.

* Cahert Papers (Md. Hist. Soc., Fund Publication, No. 34),

■ Letter from Penn, in Pa. Hist. Soc., Memoirs, I., 202-309.

176 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1681

by fealty and a fixed rent of two beaver skins.
The proprietary was to make laws with the advice
and consent of his freemen, though in his hands lay
the execution of the laws and the issue of occasional
ordinances. He could, furthermore, appoint judges
and magistrates, remit, release, and pardon, and erect
towns, boroughs, and manors.
^ The fact that the charter was the last save one of
the great proprietary patents gave 'the king and
his council opportunity to profit by experience,
and to hedge the new proprietary in by limitations
unknown to the earlier documents. It was a
witness to Penn's influence that at this time such
a charter should have been issued at all. Penn was
required, as were some of the other proprietaries, to
send all laws to England for approval, though if
the Privy Council did not act upon them within
six months after their receipt they were to be valid.
He was given no control over cases of treason or
wilful and malicious mixrder. His ordinances were
under no circumstances to bind any one or to take
away the rights of any one to life, limbs, goods, or
chattels; while the people of the province were to
have full right to appeal to the king in council.
He was to maintain an agent in England, to observe
the navigation acts and all customs regulations, and
to have no correspondence with other sovereigns or
states who were at war with the king of England.
Especial stress was laid upon the observance of the
navigation acts, and a breach of them carried a

i68il PENNSYLVANIA FOUNDED 177

liability to forfeiture of the government. Even
Penn could not be allowed to do anything that
would diminish the revenues of the crown. April
2, 1 68 1, the king announced to Lord Baltimore and
the inhabitants and planters already in the province
that the charter had been issued.*

Having received his charter, Penn immediately
set about organizing his colony. After long waiting
he had obtained an opportimity of giving practi-
cal shape to his ideas upon government. **Thou
mayst conmiunicate to friends," he wrote Robert
Turner, "and expect shortly my proposals; 'tis a
clear and just thing, and my God that has given it
me through many difficulties will, I believe, bless
and make it the seed of a nation. I shall have a
tender care to the government that it be well laid
at first." ' He began at once to draught an account
of the province for the information of those who
might desire to emigrate. This pamphlet, which
presented the advantages of the colony and out-
lined very briefly *' the privileges and powers neces-
sary ^^he well-governing thereof," ' was a treatise
not i^^on Pennsylvania, but also on the advan-
tages of colonies in general; and it was circulated
widely among those who would be likely to respond
to it notjr only in England but in Ireland, Wales,

' Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1685, §§ 62, 63; Hazard,
Annals, 502. ' Pa. Hist. Soc., Memoirs, I., 209.

• Hazard, Annals, 505-513; Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist..
III., 496.

VOL ▼ — 19

178 COLONIAL SELP-GOYERNHENT [1681

Hollaiid, and Gennany. It seems to have had
considerable influence in inducing emigraticm from
cotmtries where Penn had already travelled and
to which he had written letters in anticipation
of the opportunity that had now come. Many
Friends in Ireland and Wales were ready to come
to America; Mennonites and other religious bodies
in Germany looked favorably on the scheme;
and Penn, greatly encouraged by the welcome his
pamphlet received, looked forward with confident
anticipation to a rapid colonization of his province.
In the mean time, he was busily engaged in draw-
ing up another document, an agreement between
himself and those who were to be the pmx:hasers of
his lands. He began by selling shares to those
who wished to buy five thousand acres for a price
of £100, with an annual quit-rent of fifty shillings
or a commutation of all quit-rent for £20 in cash.*
To regulate these purchases and to arrange for
distributing land to those who could not afford to
buy, he issued, July 11, 1681, his body of Con-
ditions and Concessions.* These proposaj^dealt
chiefly with the division and settleme^HA his
province and laid down certain regulations l^cover
all dealings with the Indians. The Concessions were
not intended to define the particular form of govern-

* Qajrpoole's Letter-Book, Pa. Magazine, X., 190, 191;
letters from Penn to James Harrison, in Hazard, Annals,
522, 523, 538; Pa. Archives, ist series, I., 39-46.

•Hazard, Annals, 516-520; Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania,
II., App.; Poore, Constitutions, 15 16.

i68i] PENNSYLVANIA FOUNDED 179

ment. Penn's purpose in this regard was set forth
in a letter to the people in Pennsylvania which he
wrote in 1681. ** You shall be governed," he said, -
**by laws of your own making, and live a free and, /
if you will, a sober and industrious people. I shall
not usurp the right of any or oppress his person.
Whatever sober and free men can reasonably desire
for the security and improvement of their own*
happiness I shall heartily comply with." *

In April, 1 68 1, Penn commissioned his cousin,
William Markham, to go out at once as deputy
governor, promising to follow himself in five months'
time, a promise that he was unable to fulfil. Mark-
ham was given a body of instructions, and authority
to call a council to receive the allegiance of the
people in the territory, to settle the boundaries
with Baltimore, to survey and distribute lands,
to keep the peace and punish vice, and to issue
ordinances, but not to summon an assembly.'
He arrived in America in June, probably touched
first at Boston, then at New York, where Brockholls

his authority, and afterwards sailed for
the^^Hware. Up the river, beyond the head of
the olty', lay New Castle, at that time still retained
under the jurisdiction of the duke of York. Farther
on was Upland, the first town in Penn's jurisdiction,
occupied largely by Swedes and Dutch; while ex-
tending to the mouth of the Schuylkill were settle-
ments of Dutch and Swedish -farmers, containing

* Hazard, Annals, 502. • Ibid., 503, 504.

i8o COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1681

also a few Englishmen who had crossed over from
Fenwick's colony and Burlington in West New
Jersey. Since 1664 these people had been under
the jurisdiction of the duke of York's laws, with a
seat of justice at Upland.

Thither Markham went with his letter from Penn
and his proclamation from Brockholls, and received
the allegiance of the inhabitants. Having reor-
ganized the court, and established the authority
of the proprietary there,* he crossed in August to
the head of the Chesapeake and took the long sail
south to Maryland, hoping to arrange the boundary
difficulty with Lord Baltimore; but he returned
to Upland by the way he had come, having ac-
complished nothing.*

While Markham was at St. Mary's, three men —
Crispin, Bezar, and Allen— were commissioned by
Penn to go to America with the first body of colo-
nists and to assist Markham in the work of laying
out the colony. They were instructed to choose a
site for a town where, as Penn said, "it is most
navigable, dry, and healthy — that is, whflMi most
ships may best ride, of deepest draught (9 water,
if possible to load or unload at the bank or key-
side, without boating or lightering of it"; to lay
out ten thousand acres for the town, and to arrange
that every purchaser should have one htmdred of
his five thousand acres within this area. Minute

^ Records of Upland, 195. 196; Hazard, AntuUs, 525, 526.
' Pa. Magazine, VL, 415, 416.

i682] PENNSYLVANIA FOUNDED i8i

directions were given regarding the laying out of
streets, the location of houses, each "in the middle
of its plat, that it may be a green country town,
which will never be burned and always be whole-
some," and particularly regarding the treatment
of the Indians, to whom a very friendly letter was
sent.* These instructions were afterwards modi-
fied by Penn, who enlarged the original plat and
reduced the hundred -acre share within the city
to a small home lot. In April, 1682, he sent out
Thomas Holme in the Amity to be surveyor-general.
Under the latter's guidance the city of Philadelphia
was laid out, lots were assigned to purchasers, and
amid much confusion the erecting of a stately town
was begun. The sjmametry and regularity of Phil-
adelphia are due to the plan, but little changed,
which Holme made at this time.*

While others were thus shaping the settlement in
America, Penn himself was busy promoting the
tmdertaking in England and completing the or-
ganization of the trade and government of his
colony. First he granted a charter to a trading
and land company known as the Free Society of
Traders. To this body, of which a majority of
the members were Quakers, he gave elaborate
trading privileges, twenty thousand acres of land,
and the right to send three representatives to
the provincial assembly. Penn had already refused

* Hazard, Annals, 527-533.

' Pa, Magazine, XIX., 421, 422.

i82 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1683

a very advantageous offer from a trader in Maryland
for a monopoly of the Indian trade in the province.*
** I did refuse a great temptation last second day,"
he wrote, to Ttimer, "which was ;£6ooo, . . . but
... I would not . . . defile what came to me
clean.'** It would have been for him financially
better had he accepted the offer, for the Free
Society of Traders never prospered. It early came
into conflict with the colonial authorities, and,
though successful in disposing of its goods, was
unsuccessful in collecting its debts. As its mem-
bers were Quakers, who were averse to law-suits,
the company soon fotmd itself without credit or
money.*

As yet^Penn had constructed no frame of govern-
ment such as he was entitled to issue under the
terms of his charter, but he had clearly in mind the
chief principles of the government that he desired to
establish, and had already given expression to his
plan in the noble body of Concessions under which
the West New Jersey settlers were at this time liv-
ing. In draughting the government that he wished
to establish in Pennsylvania he refused to defend
any particular form, democratic or other. "The
age is too nice and difficult for it," he said, "there
being nothing the wits of men are more busy and

* Clajrpoole's Letter-Book, ibid., X., 189.
' Pa. Hist. Soc, Memoirs, I., 212.

• Claypoole's Letter-Book, Pa. Magazine, X., 411; Baldwin,
Amer. Hist. Review, VIIL, 453-456.

1682] PENNSYLVANIA FOUNDED 1^3

divided upon. I choose to solve the controversy
with this small distinction: any government is free
to the people under it, whatever be the frame,
where the laws rule and the people are a party to
those laws, and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy,
or confusion. . . . Let men be good and the govern-
ment cannot be bad ; if it be ill they will cure it.
But if m?n be bad, let the government be ever so
good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to
their own turn."

Whatever the form, there was to Penn but one
great end of government — namely, **to support'
power in reverence with the people, and to secure
i the people from the abuse of power, that they may
>^ be free by their just obedience, and the magistrates
I honorable for their just administration; for liberty
' without obedience is confusion and obedience with-
!, out liberty is slavery." *

That Penn reaches in these dicta a very high level
of political principles is evident when we compare
his ideals with those of other men of his day.
Many were, as he sajrs, seeking for the solution
of the great problem of government, but no one
struck out higher truths than these. Penn is-
sued his scheme of government with fear and un-
certainty, but he enunciated the principles on
which it was based without hesitation or ques-
tioning.

Penn's Frame of Government bears the date April

^ Preface to the Frame of Government.

i84 COLOXIAL SELF-GOTERXMEXT [1682

25^ 1682/ aad was the first coostztatioa for the
colony ot Petmsyfvama. Tbe government estab-
lished was in aR essential partknlaxs Sfmilar to those
of the other coLomes. Tbere were a governor and a
deputy govemc'r. a provincial coandl and an as-
sembly, both eLected by the people: and the powers
of execntzve ziid Legislature were carefolly and
minutely defined. Appended to the Frame of Gov-
ernment, and bearing date May 5, were certain
'* laws agreed upon in EnglanLi/* which deal with the
liberties of the individual, and therefore partake of
the character of a bill of r^hts. The government
thus established is noteworthy for the importance
given to the pro\-incial council, an elective body
of seventy-two members with power to prepare bills
and adjourn the assembly, and for the minor position
occupied by the governor, who, having no powers
independent of the cotmcil, was more or less of a
figurehead.

• Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania, II., App.; Hazard, Annals,
561-568; Poore, Constitutions, 15 18; Sh^herd, Proprietary
Government in Pennsylvania, 235-243.

CHAPTER XII

GOVERNMENTAL PROBLEMS IN PENNSYLVANIA

(1681-1696)

PENN was now ready to sail to America, where
his city was ahready founded and his colony
was awaiting his coming. September 2, 1682,
the London Gazette reported that "two days since
sailed out of the Downs three ships botmd for
Pensilvania on board of which was Mr. Pen-t^with
a great many Quakers who go to settle there." *
After he had sailed, many malicious rumors were
circulated in England, some stating that he had
become a Jesuit, others that he was dead. These
reports caused him considerable uneasiness and
pain. "I am still alive," he wrote from America
to the Free Society of Traders, "and no Jesuit, and I
thank God very well."

The voyage to America required more than six
weeks and proved very distressing, owing to the
outbreak of small-pox on board the Welcome, and the
death of nearly one-third of the passengers. On
October 27, the vessel lay off New Castle. "As
they sailed up the river they received visits and

* Pa. Magazine, VI., 175.

185

i86 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1682

invitations from the inhabitants, the people being
joyful to see him, both Swedes, Dutch, and English
coming up to New Castle. They received and enter-
tained him with great expressions of joy after their
sort." * He summoned the people of New Castle,
and in taking possession addressed them regarding
his object in coming to America and the govern-
ment that he proposed to establish. The next day
(October 29, O.S., November 8, N.S.) he went to
Upland, which, according to tradition,' he renamed
Chester, and he there entered for the first time upon
the soil of Pennsylvania.

Penn now instructed the sheriffs to issue writs
summoning the people to the polls to elect delegates
to an assembly that was to meet December 4. The
assembly passed a series of important measures
that laid broadly and deeply the constitutional
foundations of the colony. The first measure
formally annexed New Castle and the lower terri-
tories to Pennsylvania; a second naturalized the
Swedes and other foreigners who had come within
the jurisdiction of Penn's government; a third,
known as the Great Law, accepted the laws that
had been agreed upon in England, and added a
number of others. It stands as the exponent of
Penn's ideas and principles and inaugurated the
Holy Experiment. It provided for liberty of con-
science, for lofty standards of moral and religious

• Penn to Philip Ford, Pa. Magazine, VI., 179.
' Clarkson, Life of Penn, I., 259.

1683] PENNSYLVANIA 187

life, and for cap^ital punishment in but two ca^s,
murder and treason, a noteworthy clause when one
remembers the two hundred capital crimes in
England at this time. The entire bodj^pf sixty-
nine capitularies is characterized by temperance,
love, and justice. The Agreement of West New
Jersey and the Great Law of Pennsylvania emanate
from the same source. Well might Penn say that
"such an assembly for Love, Unity, and Concord
scarcely ever was known in and about outward
things in those parts." *

Penn went from Chester to Philadelphia and
stepped ashore at the primitive wharf that stood
in front of the Blue Anchor tavern, probably erected
some years before for the people of New Castle and
others on the river. During the winter and spring
that followed he was busy laying the material
foimdations of the colony. Shortly after landing
he sent two persons to confer with Lord Baltimore
about the boundaries, and himself undertook a trip
to Maryland in December,* which was the first of a
series of extended and painful interviews between
the two proprietaries. He journeyed to New York
to pay his respects to the governor of the colony
of the duke of York, and in March, 1683, he visited
East New Jersey and sat for five days as a pro-

* Pa. Magazine, VI., 180; Great Law, in Hazard, Annals,
619-634.

» Penn to the Lords of trade. Cat. of State Pap,, Col., 1681-
1685, § 1179.

i88 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1682

prietary in the cotmcil of the deputy governor,
Rudyard/ At home he was busy with the new
city and in making a tour of his own province. He
watched with great care the building of Philadel-
phia, and during the first year after his landing saw
it grow to be a town of ** four-score houses and cot-
tages, where merchants and handicrafts are follow-
ing their vocations as fast as they can, while the
cotmtrymen are close at their farms." *'With the
help of God," he wrote to Lord Sunderland, '*I will
show a province in seven years equal to her neigh-
bors of forty years' planting."* Of the journey
that he made throughout the province no other evi-
dence remains than the long letter which he wrote
to the Free Society of Traders describing the col-
ony. He declared that he was fully satisfied with
the country, although the labor of settlement was
arduous, and vexing problems were constantly aris-
ing.*

With the Indians from the first his relations were
governed by motives of the highest character. He
had already made known the policy that he pro-
posed to follow in his Conditions and Concessions,
and sent over several letters to be read to the
Indians, expressing his desire for their friendship
and good-will. During his first year he held many

* N. J. Archives, XIII., 6, 8, 11, 13, 15.

' Pa. Hist. Soc., Memoirs, II., 246. Descriptions of the
province, in (1682), Pa. Magazine, XIII., 227; (1685) ibid.,
IX., 64-81, and Pa. Hist. Soc, Memoirs, I., 446.

• Clarkson, Life of Penn, I., 292-315.

i683l PENNSYLVANIA 189

meetings with them and evidently impressed upon
them, as he impressed upon all purchasers of land
in the province, his desire for perfect amity and
justice in the relations between the white and the
red man. He planned a kind of arbitration tri-
bunal, consisting of six planters and six natives, to
settle all differences, and there is reason to believe
that some such tribunal was actually set up. In
Jime, 1683, he made a great treaty with the Indians,
probably at Shackamaxon, now Kensington, under
an elm, that long afterwards bore the name of the
* * Treaty Elm. ' ' This scene has gained the attention
of the poet and the artist, and has long stood as
s)anbolic of a noble purpose successfully carried out.
Meanwhile the number of settlers in the province
was rapidly increasing. Before 1682 a thousand
people were established in the region, and between
1682 and 1685 the number was increased to more
than eight thousand. First on the ground after
the Swedes, Dutch, and Finns were the Welsh
Quakers from Merionethshire, who arrived in Au-
gust, 1682, and settled on the '* Welsh Tract," west
of Philadelphia.* In October, 1683, came a com-
pany of Mennonites from Crefeld, on the Rhine,
led by their pastor, Pastorius, who took up their
divisions of land northwest of Philadelphia, naming
their settlement German Town. It is noteworthy
that five years later four of this company drew
up a protest which they sent to the Friends meeting

* Glenn, Merion in the Welsh Tract,

19© COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1683

against the holding of slaves. "And those who
steal or rob men and those who buy or purchase
them, are they not all alicke? Here is liberty of
conscience, which is right and reasonable, here ought
to be lickewise liberty of ye body, except of evil
doers, wch is another case. But to bring men
hither or to robb and sell them against their will we
stand against." * Other race elements were French,
Danes, Scots, Irish, forming a strangely cosmopolitan
organization ; yet all lived like the people of one
country, prosperous and contented.

Pennsylvania continued to receive settlers more
rapidly than any other colony in America at this
time, and only about half of these were Englishmen.
Philadelphia was pleasantly situated; its houses,
frequently three stories high, were large and well
built, having good cellars and in some cases bal-
conies. Its fertility was such that its streets were
named **from things that spontaneously'* grew in
the country. Markets were held twice a week and
fairs twice a year; a good meal could be had for
sixpence; hours for work and meals for laborers
were indicated by the ringing of a bell ; and no one
was allowed at a public-house at night who was not
a lodger. The drink was chiefly beer and a punch
made of rum and water; — so Penn wrote in 1685.*
At that time three counties — Philadelphia, Bucks,
and Chester — had been laid out and fifty townships

' Text in Pa. Magazine, IV., 1-41. Cf. with the Rhode Island
law, R. I. Col. Records, I., 243. * Pa, Magazine, IX., 65.

i684] PENNSYLVANIA 191

settled. A weekly post was established,* a school
was opened,* and a printing-press was set up.

Trade began with the neighboring colonies and
with the West Indies, ships and wharves were
built, and Philadelphia entered on her career as a
prosperous commercial city. No town on the co-
lonial seaboard had leaped into prominence with
such rapidity as had this Quaker community. It
possessed a tannery, saw-mill, brick kiln, and a glass-
house, erected for the Free Society ; • mills of other
kinds were built, Irish Quakers introduced the
manufacture of linen; and flour, pipe-staves, and
horses began to be exported. So rapidly did the
settlement grow that Penn could write in 1684,
"I have led the greatest colony into America that
ever any man did upon a private credit, and the
most prosperous beginnings that ever were in it
are to be found among us." * To his own sagacity
and energy this result must be in large part ascribed.

Notwithstanding this rapid growth, provisions of
the Frame of Government touching council and
assembly were drawn on too large a scale. A
council of seventy-two members, in addition to a
general assembly of two hundred members, all
elected, proved to be beyond the resources of the
colony. In December, 1682, Penn agreed with

' Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania^ I., 345.

• Pemberton MSS., quoted in Watson, Annals, 626.
■ Penn in Clarkson, Life of Penn, I., 314, § 33.

* Penn in Pa. Hist. Soc, Memoirs, I., 448, 449.

192 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1682

Markham that the seventy - two persons chosen
by the six counties should suffice — eighteen for the
council and fifty -four for the assembly.* This
arrangement was carried out by the council in
March, 1683, and when a member expressed fear
lest this alteration should injure their other privileges
under the charter, Penn replied that the assembly
might amend, alter, or add for the public good, and
that he was ready to settle such foundations as
might be for their happiness and the good of their
posterities, according to the powers vested in him.'

Penn's desire to meet the wishes of the people
appears not to have pleased his wealthier associates,
notably those connected with the Free Society,
many of whom were large landholders in the colony
and probably expected as members of the council
to play a prominent part in government. The
president of the society, Nicholas Moore, was
charged with having said in a public -house that
governor and council had broken the charter and
deserved to be impeached for treason. For this
rash comment he was summoned before the council,
and though he defended himself by saying that he
had rather raised the question than asserted the
fact, he was reprimanded and told that his discourse
was unreasonable and impudent.'

' Pa. Magazine, Yl., 466, 467; see Hazard, Annals , 603, 604;
and British Musetixn, Additional MSS., 35909, f. 2.
^ Pa. Col. Records (1838), I., 2; (1852), I., 57, 58.
»/Wd., 2, 3 (59).

1 683] PENNSYLVANIA 193

In the mean time, the fifty-four members who had
been empowered by the freemen to act as an as-
sembly, withdrew from the council and organized a
lower house with Thomas Wynne as speaker. They
took up the whole question of their rights under
the charter, and after long debate and a confer-
ence with the council passed an Act of Settlement,*
legalizing the change just made in the constitution
of the legislature. This act was only a temporary
arrangement, and Penn asked the assembly whether
it would have the old charter or a new one. The
assembly said that it would have a new one,'
and during the ensuing two weeks the governor and
the houses were busy draughting the new frame.
On April 8, 1683, ** the Great Charter of the province
was read, signed, sealed, and delivered by the
governor to the inhabitants and received by the
hands of James Harrison and the speaker, who were
ordered to return the old one with the hearty thanks
of the whole house." ' The new government, as
was to have been expected, differed from the old
only in details. The council was reduced from
seventy-two to eighteen, and the powers of the
governor were further curtailed.* It is important to
note that this constitution emanated from the
assembly and not from the proprietary.

^ Pa. Col. Records (1838), I., 4 (60); Votes of Assembly, I.,
7-10; Laws of the Province of Pa., 123-126.

» Pa. Col. Records, I., 7 (63). » Ibid., 16 (72).

* Poore, Constitutions, 1527; Shepherd, Proprietary Govern'
ment in Pennsylvania, 251, 252.

VOL. V. — 13

194 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1684

An important difficulty had thus been met and
safely passed, and the machinery of Penn's Holy
Experiment was once more running smoothly. The
proprietary, by brotherly love, earnest good-nature,
and large sympathies, had won the confidence of the
people. When, in May, 1684, the first assembly
under the new frame was held, a feeling of loyalty
and harmony prevailed and expressions of devotion
to the proprietary took form in a law for the preserva-
tion of the governor's person not only from attack
but also from slander.* So long as Penn should re-
main to soften animosities and check bitterness of
feeling there was every reason to expect a har-
monious government.

Unfortunately, in August, 1684, the proprietary
felt obliged for two reasons to leave the province
and return to England. The dispute with Lord
Baltimore was now at such a point that the pro-
prietary was absolutely needed in England to de-
fend his cause before the Lords of Trade. At the
same time the English Quakers were undergoing
such bitter persecution at the hands of the govern-
ment that Penn believed he ought to be in England
to mitigate their sufferings. His long friendship
with the king and the duke of York made it more
than likely that his intercessions at coiut would
meet with success.

Nor was he mistaken in his belief. In October,

* Pa. Col, Records, I., 53, 54 (107); Laws of ike Province of
Pa., chap, clxxi., 173.

i688] PENNSYLVANIA 195

1685, he obtained a favorable report from the
Committee of Trade and Plantations regarding the
lower cotmties ; and after the duke of York became
king, in February of the same year, he secured the
release of more than twelve hundred members of the
Society of Friends, imprisoned as Dissenters. The
next year, when for the sake of the revenues the
king caused writs of quo warranto to be issued
against the proprietary and charter colonies, Penn
warded off the attack on Pennsylvania and Dela-
ware ;* and in 1688, when Andros was made governor
of the Dominion of New England and New York,
and the Jerseys were added, he obtained the ex-
emption of Pennsylvania and Delaware from the
new jtuisdiction.'

But in almost every other respect Penn's absence
was injurious both to himself and to his colony. His
close connection with James II. and the court, his
influence in securing the royal pardon on so many
occasions, and his acceptance of the king's dec-
larations of indulgence issued in defiance of law,
brought him under suspicion. Before the revolution
of 1688 he was charged with being a Jesuit and
afterwards with being a Jacobite ; • he was arrested,
threatened with imprisonment, and denounced even
by many who should have stood loyally by him.

* Dixon, Life of Penn, 539, 559.

'AT. Y. Docs. Rel, to Col. Hist., III.. 536. 537, 543; Co/, of
State Pap., Col, 1685-1688, § 1688.

■ "The Jacobite party, of which Penn is known to be the
head" {Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, ( 2472).

196 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1684

> After 1688, when the accession of William and Mary-
cost him all his influence at? court, he would gladly
have returned to his colony, but he could not.
He was seriously embarrassed financially, his wife
was dangerously ill, and he himself was three times
arrested for treason. For thirty months he had to
remain in retirement, during which time his enemies
sought to ruin him. On March 10, 1692, an order
in council was issued authorizing the governor of
New York, Fletcher, to take Pennsylvania tmder
his authority during the king's pleasure,* thus de-
priving Penn of his colony. It was a staggering
blow to the heavily burdened proprietary, who had
been watching the progress of affairs in the colony
and knew that he was needed there more than ever,
and that a man of Fletcher's type would only make
matters worse. The possible failure of his Holy
Experiment was a greater sorrow to Penn than his
own financial losses at home.

After Penn's departure in 1684 the colony pros-
pered commercially, but was disturbed by political,
territorial, and religious disputes. The deputy
governor, council, and assembly were unable to
agree regarding the proper application of the
constitution, for the Frame of Government gave to
the council the power to frame bills and to the
assembly only the right to accept or reject them.
The council, which on Penn's departure was au-

* Col. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, {{ 2118, 2227; N. Y. Docs
Rcl. to Col. Hist., III., 835.

1692] PENNSYLVANIA 197

thorized to act as governor/ was inclined to play
the leading and dominant part, to the resentment
of the assembly, which for ten years struggled to
obtain the right to initiate legislation. In 1685,
and again in 1686, the assembly protested because
the council did not issue bills in the name of the
governor, council, and assembly, as the charter
required;* and eventually adjourned in great wrath.
This disagreement with the council was accom-
panied with an imforttmate internal quarrel. The
assembly impeached Nicholas Moore, chief-justice
of the provincial court, and one of its members, for
sending unlawful writs to the sheriffs, for interfering
with trial by jury, for denying justice, overawing
witnesses, and perpetuating endless and vexatious
suits, and it petitioned the council to remove him
from office.' The council believing, as Penn him-
self did afterwards, that the charges were the re-
sult of personal ill-will, did no more than request
Moore to give up his office till the charge should
be tried. Eventually the matter was dropped en-
tirely.

Penn was perplexed and angry, both because of
the friction in the government of his colony and of
the inability of those whom he had left in command
to rule wisely. " For the love of God, me, and the
poor country," he wrote to James Harrison, one of

* Pa. Col. Records, I., 66 (119).

* Ibid., 82 (133); Frame of Government, ( 14.
*Ibid.,S3-Ss (135-137).

iqS colonial SELF-GOVERNMENT [1685

the justices, "be not so govemmentish, so noisy,
and open in your dissatisfactions." * Unable to
go to Pennsylvania, as he ardently desired,' he
determined to change the form of government.
He revoked the executive functions granted to the
council, and appointed as governor five conmiission-
ers or councillors (three of whom were to make
a quorum) to watch over the cotmcil and assembly
and prevent quarrels and disorder, and to compel
all to do their duty tmder the charter." The
new arrangement worked no better than the old.
Finally, in September, 1685, he made another and
more important change: instead of allowing an
elected council or a board of councillors to act as
governor, he selected an appointee of his own, one
Captain Blackwell, a resident of Boston, son-in-law
of Cromwell's associate, Lambert, and formerly
treasurer of Cromwell's army.*

Blackwell came to Philadelphia in December,
1685, with a grim determination to organize an
efficient government. As he was not a Quaker, he
was soon opposed by the leaders of the Quaker
party, chief of whom was Thomas Lloyd, master
of the rolls and keeper of the broad seal.* Un-

* Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania ^ I., 297.

* Pa. Magazine, IX., 81.

* Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania, I., 305-307; Shepherd,
Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania, 261-262.

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, §824.

^ Pa. Col. Records, I., 186 (194-197), 207 (234-242), 256
(279, 280).

i686] PENNSYLVANIA 199

fortunate controversies followed till Lloyd became
so excited that the governor had to adjourn the
council, and Lloyd and his followers remained be-
hind and made so much noise and clamor that
passers-by in the streets stood still to hear.^
When Pent! heard of this painful incident he wrote
to Lloyd in reproof, saying: " Do not be so litigious
and brutish. . . . O, that some one would stand up
for oiu* good beginnings and bring a savoiu* of
righteousness over that ill savour." '

When Blackwell asked for his own recall Penn
yielded too ready a compliance to the wishes of the
opposition. He placed the question of the future
government in the hands of the council, and agreed
that he would accept any governor that they might
select, or he would be content if the cotmcil itself
acted as governor. Burdened with his cares in
England, he begged his people to *' avoid factions
and parties, whisperings and reportings and all ani-
mosities," and to put their ''common shoulder to
the public work." • The council, assuming the
governorship itself, chose Lloyd as president, and
made one more unsuccessful experiment. New
questions arose: the inhabitants of the lower coun-
ties, differing in blood and religion from those of
Pennsylvania proper, began an agitation for sepa-
rate government that ended ten years later in their

* Pa. Col. Records, I., 252 (293, 294).

' Penn to Lloyd, Historical Magazine, ist series, III., 105.

• Pa. Col. Records, L, 274 (316).

200 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1691

separating from Pennsylvania and having a legislat-
ure of their own. In 1691, owing to the apostasy
of George Keith, a schism took place among the
Quakers which brought grief to members of the
society eveiywhere. The tales of petty informers
in England, who took pleasure in persecuting Penn,
now that he had lost much of his influence at court,
found support in the exaggerated accotmts of the
bickerings and quarrels among Penn's colonists
in America.

These quarrels in Philadelphia were to no small
extent responsible for the royal order of William III.,
in 1692, depriving Penn of his proprietorship *'by
reason of great neglects and miscarriages in the
government," whereby *'the same is fallen into dis-
order and confusion, the public peace and ad-
ministration of justice broken and violated," in-
sufficient provision made for "the defence of the
province against" the French, and danger of entire
loss to the crown. For two years Pennsylvania
was governed as a dependency of New York, until
in 1694 the territory was restored. In 1696 Penn
himself came over at last for a residence of five
years in his colony.

Though the tale on the political side is largely one
of confusion and discord, yet in other respects the
history of the province is one of steady and sotmd
progress. Philadelphia increased rapidly in size,
was deemed large enough for incorporation as a
borough in 1684, and was incorporated with mayor

1696]

PENNSYLVANIA

201

6 "

and aldermen in 1691.* The commerce was such
that in the West India trade it was rapidly be-
coming the only rival of New York, and was compet-
ing with her for the control of the Indian trade
of the Northwest. The position of the province,
half-way between New England and Virginia, was
a particularly strong one and gave promise of a
great future. Despite the unsettled condition of
government, the condition of the province in other
respects was hopeful and encouraging.

^ Pa, Col. Records, I., 64 (117); Pa, Magazine, X., 61-77;
XV., 344.

CHAPTER XIII

DEVELOPMENT OF VIRGINIA
(1652-1675)

OP all the colonies on the main-land of America
Virginia was the one most loyal to the Sttiarts.
Berkeley had driven the religious Puritans out of
the colony ; and those who cherished Puritan ideas
of government gave no sign of their presence.
The royalists in Virginia increased after 1649, and
the colony, though it might well have held out
against a siege, surrendered without a struggle
to the fleet sent by Parliament in 1651 to effect
its reduction. The surrender was the work of
that large body of planters and freeholders, par-
liamentarians and cavaliers alike, who desired
peace, trade, and prosperity, and who saw in re-
sistance and possible defeat a further restriction
upon« their market, and consequent ruin. Though
Berkeley ** blustered and talked of resistance,"^
and even raised a force to oppose the parliamentary
commissioners, after long and serious debate an
agreement was reached.

By the articles of surrender, signed March 12,

* Neill, Virginia Carolarum, a 20, 221.

203

i662] VIRGINIA 203

1652, Vii^nia acknowledged entire dependence
upon the Commonwealth of England. In return,
full pardon was promised to all who had acted or
spoken against Parliament, land titles were guaran-
teed, and the people of the colony were granted
"free-trade as the people of England do enjoy to
all places and with all nations according to the laws
of the commonwealth." This clause certainly did
not promise absolute free-trade, and was never so
construed by the home authorities. Licenses were
granted to traders who desired to ship goods to
Virginia, and trade with the Dutch was forbidden
to the Virginians, as well as to others, by the
navigation act of 165 1.* In 1656* the planters
complained that the navigation act, "tmless it be
a little dispenct withall," would ruin part of the
trade it was intended to advance.* The Virginian
assembly, in an act of 1659, declared that the re-
striction of trade hindered the "estimation and
value of the only commodity — tobacco ;*'• and we
know from the instructions to Berkeley in 1662
that trade with the Dutch and other peoples of
Europe had to be carried on surreptitiously.*

Under the commonwealth and the protectorate
the colony seems to have prospered, though no
attempt was made on the part of the home au-

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., i574-i66o,pp.403. 420.

* Thurloe, State Papers, V., 80, 81; Rawlinson MSS., in Bod.
Lib., A 38, 703. • Hening, Statutes, I., 450.

^ Has&ard, State Papers, XL, 610, { 5.

f655l VIRGINIA 205

thorities to give settled form to the government.
No doubt Cromwell ftilly intended at the earliest
opportunity to issue a commission for a governor,
because in 1653 and again in 1654 he discussed the
matter with his council and expressed his determi-
nation to do so.* But as nothing was done, the
House of Biu'gesses in the colony, acting under the
terms of the articles of surrender, assumed full
authority and elected its own governor, first Ben-
nett, and afterwards Mathews. Dissatisfaction soon
arose. Divers merchants, planters, and others close-
ly identified with the colony, sent addresses to the
Protector begging him to consider the distracted
state of the plantation. The committee of the
council to whom the addresses were referred up-
held the petitioners, and declared that the govern-
ment in Virginia was very loose, the public ad-
ministration very defective, the produce of the
colony debased, and '*all the hopeful improvements
designed and begim " received no encotiragement.

The committee urged that some fit person be com-
missioned as governor; and, after conference with
the merchants, proposed Edward Digges as one who
had given "a testimony of his prudence, conduct,
and moderation." * While thus the mattei was
under consideration at home, a controversy arose
in the colony between Governor Mathews, who

* Col. of State Pap., Col., 1574-1660. pp. 397. 413.
*Ibid,t i574-i66o,p. 461; Egerton MSS., in British Musetim,
2395, ^- 147-

2o6 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1657

evidently believed that his powers should come
from England and be the same as those of a reg-
tilarly appointed governor, and the Hotise of Bur-
gesses, which desired to retain authority in its
own hands. Mathews in 1657 dissolved the as-
sembly; the burgesses denying his right to do so,
voted that any deputy accepting dissolution should
be deemed a tihaitor ** to the trust reposed in him by
his cotintrymen." * In the end the burgesses won
the day. Although the Cotmcil of State thrice took
the matter of Virginia's government tmder advise-
ment, it never fotmd time or opporttmity to act, and
the popular body was left in full control.* Mathews
yielded the point in dispute, acknowledged the
supreme authority of the House of Burgesses, and
accepted another election as governor.*
• After the abdication of Richard Cromwell, in
1659, England was thrown into confusion. The
Virginian assembly, forced to rely on its own re-
sources, took matters into its own hands, passed a
law declaring that the supreme power was vested
in itself, and ordered that all writs shotdd run in its
name until **such a command and commission
come out of England as shall be by the assembly
judged lawful." * In July, 1660, it elected Berkeley
as its governor, and authorized him to summon an
assembly once in two years, or of tener if necessary,

^ Hening, Statutes, I., 499, 500. * Ibid., 509, 5x1, 513.

• Ca/. of State Pap., Col,, 1574-1660, p. 461; Neill, Virginia
Carolorum, 263. * Hening, StatuUs, I., 530.

i66o] VIRGINIA ao;

to appoint councillors and a secretary of state with
its approval ; and to dissolve the assembly, but only
with its own consent.

In Virginia, as in England at the same time, the
current of popular sympathy was running in the
direction of the old order of things. The new
assembly, which was elected under the liberal
franchise of 1657 and 1658, represented better than
had any previous body the sympathies of the
people at large, who were ready to greet loyally the
old governor, the old church, and the old system.
This assembly elected Berkeley with the same
readiness that an earlier assembly had welcomed
the commissioners and elected Bennett, eight years
before.

In September, 1660, when the official announce-
ment of the restoration of the Stuarts reached the
colony, Berkeley's proclamation of September 20
ordered for the first time that legal writs be issued
in the king's name. Berkeley himself returned to
England in the same year, and there received from
the king definite instructions regarding the govern-
ment of the colony. He was to see that the Church
of England was established, to have churches built or
repaired, and ministers provided with glebe-lands.
He was to recognize the constitutional standing of
the assembly, and to obtain the passage of laws
suppressing vice, encouraging the building of towns
after the fashion of New England, limiting the
planting of tobacco, and stimulating the production

2o8 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [i66a

of other staple commodities. Above all, he was to
observe the acts of trade and to transmit to Eng-
land yearly reports on the state of the colony.*
Returning to Virginia in 1662, Berkeley summoned
an assembly and presented for its consideration the
various commands of the king.*

During the fourteen years from 1662 to 1676
conditions prevailed in the government and life
of the colony which prepared the way for the great
outburst of popular discontent knoT^Ti as Bacon's
rebellion. Berkeley became the ruling spirit, "as-
piring to a sole and absolute power and command." •
He named his own councillors, and gradually
gathered about him a party composed of the
wealthier planters devoted to his interests and
their own. He secured control of the House of
Burgesses by proroguing it from session to session,
until it sat almost as long as did the ''Cavalier
Parliament" in England, thus transforming the
assembly into a close corporation legislating in the
interest of a small oligarchy. The assembly in
1669 limited the franchise to freeholders, and so
deprived part of the freemen of their right to vote,
on the ground that voting in Virginia, as in Eng-
land, should be the privilege of the wealthier classes,
and that the freemen had little interest in the cotm-

^ Col, of State Pap., Col., 1 661-1668, §368; Hazard, State
Papers, II., 607-611.

• Hening, Statutes, I., 172-176.

• Complaints from Charles City County, in Vo. Magazine,
III., 134.

1663] VIRGINIA 209

try, irlaking "ttimtilts" at the elections and "dis-
turbing" his majesty's peace.*

Though the assembly made some noteworthy
efforts to curtail expenses, its policy in the matter
of taxation was neither far-sighted nor just. The
councillors were paid by exemption from taxation,
a practice which was hardly a grievance to others
so long as taxes were small, but became a heavy y/
burden when taxes increased.* Taxes were im-
posed with little regard for the needs and conditions
of the people at large. Acting under the king's
instructions, the assembly in 1663 levied a tax
of thirty pounds of tobacco per poll wherewith to
encourage the building of towns;* but towns never
flourished and the money was wasted. To defend
the colony against the Dutch and the Indians, it
made a number of levies for the erection of forts;
but the Dutch made their attack before a fort
could be built, and for fighting the Indians such
strongholds were of little value.* Additional levies
were made to support agents sent to England — ' * a
necessary but grievous tax considering the general
poverty of the country ' ' — and for local court-houses
that cost three times as much as they were worth.**

* Hening, Statutes, II., 280.

' Ibid., II., 32, 84; complaints from Isle of Wight County, in
Va. Magazine, II., 390 (art. 25).

• Hening, Statutes, II., 172-176 (act xvi.).

* Ibid., 220, 259, 291; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1675 -1676,
§ 1099; Va. Magazine, IV., 120.

• *' A Review, Breviary, and Conclusion," MS. in Public Rec-
ord Office, Colonial Entry-Book, No. 81, f. 41.

VOL v.— 14

2IO COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1666

Many of the complaints were undoubtedly ex-
aggerated, but the assembly at best showed little
regard for the poverty of the people, and levied
some of its heaviest taxes in 1675 ^^d 1676, when
signs of distress and discontent were everywhere
manifest. Long sessions and frequent meetings of
the assembly increased the expenses of the counties
for the salaries of burgesses, some of whom drew
their stipend without attending, and charged up
against their constituents the cost of the liquors
they drank.* Little wonder that the people be-
came rebellious: government was in the hands of
a ring ; the assembly was elected by the wealthier
classes; councillors were exempted from taxation;
salaries were excessive, sessions long, meetings
frequent, and the abuse of office a daily practice.

The robbery at headquarters was accompanied
with maladministration in local affairs also. The
counties, of which in 1666 there were nineteen,
were governed by appointed commissioners, one of
whom was always made sheriff by the governor.
These commissioners had general oversight of
county affairs and constituted the court of the
coimty, and to the sheriff was intrusted the collect-
ing and disbursing of levies.' Other local officers
were the vestrymen ; the local collectors of export

* Cat. of State Pap., Col, 1675-1676, § 1068; 1677-1680, §§ 45,
82, 1211.

' Ludweirs account, i6t^., 1661-1668, §250; Va, Magasin^,
V.» 54-59; Hening, Statutes, II., 65, 66, 315, 316.

1672] VIRGINIA 211

dues, castle and port charges;^ and the king's
collectors of the penny a pound imposed by the
navigation act of 1672. Against these ojflficials
complaints were frequent and persistent.' The
justices were charged with oppression, with levy-
ing tobacco on the people for their own accommo-
dation, and with raising other funds in the in-
terest of particular friends. The sheriffs were
charged with buying their offices and remaining in
them longer than was lawful, with exacting ex-
cessive fees, harrying poor debtors, and misusing
funds.* The colonial collectors were complained
of in half a dozen counties for failure to render
accotmt of their collections and for pocketing the
money.*

The burden of bad government might not have
been so heavily felt by the poor classes of Virginia
had it not been for the instability of their staple
commodity — tobacco. Steadily during these years
the price of tobacco declined. Beverley ascribes
this fall in large part to the operation of the naviga-
tion acts, which, he says, cut with a double edge,
first reducing tobacco to a very low price, and,
secondly, raising the value of European goods to
whatever the merchants chose to put upon them.
Furthermore, the penny a pound levied after 1672
restricted export and reduced the profits of the

* Hcning, Statutes, I., 534; II., 13- ' ^Wi.. XL, 3S3-3SS-

■ Va. Magazine, II., 289, 290, 291, 387, 388.
*Ibid., II., 166, 169, 170, 386-389; III., 3$.

212 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1663

planters.* John Bland, in a famotis petition of
1663 against the operation of the act of 1660,
declared that France and Holland had begun to
grow tobacco of their own, and that the tobacco
industry of Virginia was threatened with ruin
because the demand was limited to what England
needed for her own consumption.* This assertion
was probably not true; but the Virginia assembly
made the same statement in the preamble to one
of its acts.*

More serious than the navigation acts in its
effects upon the economic life of the colony was
the overproduction of tobacco. Save for a trade
in beaver skins, Virginia had no other commodity
for export, and people raised no other crop except
the food that they needed. As far back as 1630
the attention of the planters was called to this
danger,* but no heed was paid to the warnings,
and the inevitable result followed. The price of
tobacco fell lower and lower. A greater ntunber
of pounds than before was required to obtain the
English goods upon which the Virginians depended ;
taxes, heavy at best, became heavier, because more
tobacco had to be deducted to meet them; fees,

* Beverley, Hist, of Virginia, $8, 59, 66 ; Va. Magazine, II.,
267, 268.

^ Ibid., I., 141; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1675-1676, §923;
Bruce, Econ. Hist, of Virginia, I., 360-362.

* Hening Statutes, II., 141.

* Va. Magazine, II.. 281 (art. 26); VII., 376; IX., 176-178;
Keith, British Plantations in America, 135.

1667] VIRGINIA 213

reckoned in depreciated currency, seemed exorbitant,
and the financial depression bore with exceptional
weight upon the poor planter. The price of tobacco
was not regulated by the demand in the colony,
for the great bulk of the crop went to England, and
the English merchants, possessing a monopoly of
the trade, paid for tobacco pretty much what they
pleased.* As the people said, **Tl>e planters are
the merchants' slaves.*'

Every effort was made to check production and
to raise the price. A dozen acts of assembly were
passed to encourage the growing of other staple
commodities, such as flax, hemp, and silk ; as many
more acts were passed forbidding the planting of to-
bacco for a given length of time, so that the supply
might be decreased. These measures proved futile.
The Virginians refused to turn their attention to
other forms of production, and the neighboring
colonies, notably Maryland, refused to co-operate
in diminishing the supply.

Virginia suffered from other troubles arising out-
side the colony. The war between England and
Holland led to an attack in 1667 by the Dutch
upon the shipping in the James River, that reminds
one of the contemporary disgrace in England when
the Dutch burned the English ships in the Medway.
Five Dutch men-of-war attacked the king's frigate
lying off Jamestown and carried off eighteen mer-

1 Thurloe, State Papers, V., 80; Tanner MSS., in Bod. Lib.,
3X, ff. 137-139-

214 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1667

chant ships.* Six years later, in 1673, the Dutch
appeared again, this time with eight ships, and in
a fight that lasted four hours burned eleven English
vessels.*

More serious than these attacks was the great
danger that threatened the colony when, in 1672,
the very year of the Stop of the Exchequer, Charles
11. granted the whole of Virginia for thirty-one years
to his friends and advisers, Ariington and Cxilpeper,
and erected it into a proprietary province similar
to that of Maryland.* The powers of the grantees
were to be those of a feudal lord, and many of the
political privileges which the colony possessed were
in danger of entire destruction. Immediately the
colony bestirred itself and sent three agents to
England to secure the vacating of the grant, and to
obtain a charter which would settle all questions of
land titles and forms of government in the future.
The agents labored earnestly and with success ; they
obtained from the grantees a renunciation of the
grant, with the exception of the quit-rents and
escheats, and were on the eve of securing a liberal
charter (November, 1675) * when civil war in the
colony compelled them to postpone further effort.

^CcU: of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, §1508; N. Y, Docs.
Rel. to Col. Hist., II., 527.

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, § 1123.

• Ibid., § 769.

* Ibid., 1669-1674, § 770; 1675-1676, §§602, 603; Burk, Hist,
of Virginia, II., App., Iv.-lvii.

CHAPTER XIV

BACON'S REBELLION AND ITS RESULTS

(1675-1689)

FOR some years before 1675 there were dan-
gerous symptoms in Virginia. In 1663 **the
discontented people of all sorts/' chiefly servants,
united under the leadership of some Cromwellian
soldiers in the "Berkenhead plot*' to murder their
masters. The difficulty then concerned tobacco;
the larger grievances had scarcely come to the front,
and the quarrel between the governing oligarchy
on one side and the overtaxed, neglected, and an-
gry colonists on the other had not begun.

The immediate cause of the serious outbreak
known as Bacon's rebellion was a war between the
colonists of Virginia and the Indians. Since 1630
relations with the tribes along the frontiers had been
peaceftd and the beaver trade brisk. In the sum-
mer of 1675 Doeg Indians murdered two Virginian
planters; and Mason and Brent, who commanded
the military forces of Northumberland County,
along the Potomac, with ill-judged zeal slew not
only the mtirderers but other Indians also. Soon
the frontier was in an uproar and the number of

2x5

•2i6 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1675

forays increased daily. The frightened colonists
appealed to Berkeley for aid, but the old man,
broken in health, deaf, very irritable, and in-
fluenced it may be by the ring of politicians who
controlled the government and made profits out
of the Indian trade, brought down upon himself
the maledictions of his contemporaries by refusing
to have anything to do with the matter/

When the Susquehannocks rose in January, 1676,
and murdered thirty-six Englishmen, the situation
became desperate, and again Berkeley was called
^ upon to protect the colony. He sent Sir Henry
Chicheley with a large force to guard the frontier of
the upper Rappahannock and Potomac rivers, but
before the militia was fairly under way he revoked
the order. Fearing for their lives, sixty planters
fled from their homes, but others less fortunate
were murdered, among them the overseer of yotmg
Nathaniel Bacon, a recent arrival in the province.
Even in this emergency Berkeley refused to act
until the next assembly, summoned for March.*

The assembly at first was active in providing
for the military defence of the colony,* but in the
end it proved as inefficient as the governor. The
Indians continued their ravages, and the people,
disheartened by the additional taxes which the

* Beverley, //t5^ of Virginia, 58; Va. Magazine, I., 57, 59; III.,
137-139; IV., 121.

* Va. Magazine, IV., 118; Mrs. Bacon's letter. Egerton MSS,, in
British Museum, 2 :,()$, f. 550. *IIcnin:;, StaiWcs, II., 326-336.

1676] BACON'S REBELLION 217

assembly levied for the building of forts, gave up
all hope of relief through their authorized leaders.
Once more they petitioned/ with the result that
Berkeley not only refused to Usten to them, but
ordered them to send no more petitions to him.
Then the men of Charles City County began to
enlist volunteers and selected Nathaniel Bacon as
their leader. With three htmdred men behind him
Bacon marched into the wilderness to seek the
enemy. Berkeley, hearing that Bacon had taken
military command without a commission, promptly
declared all the volunteers a band of rebels and
ordered them to return. All but sixty obeyed the
order and turned back, but the others continued
their march. Berkeley then raised a body of
troops and pursued the ** rebels,*' but without
success.' Bacon pushed on, stormed an Indian
palisade, and slew one hundred and fifty Indians.

In the mean time, stirrinig events were taking
place in Jamestown. During the governor's ab-
sence the people **drew into arms" and demanded
the dismantling of the forts, the dissolution of the
old assembly, and the summons of a new body that
should be elected by an open franchise. Berkeley,
fearing **the rage of the people,"* agreed to all
that was demanded, and soon after the meeting of
the new assembly, in June, 1676, pardoned Bacon,

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1675-1676, § 921.
' ** A Review, Breviary, and Conclusion," MS. in Public Record
Office, Colonial Entry-Book, No. 81, f. 41. • Ibid., 3.

2i8 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1676

and restored him to his place in the council, ap-
parently to prevent his entering the assembly to
which he had been elected and in which his in-
fluence was bound to be felt. According to the
Baconians, Berkeley promised Bacon a r^jular
conmiission as commander-in-chief of the militia.
The new assembly, under the guide of competent
leaders, became a refprming body and handled
many difficult questions with moderation and
judgment. It provided for an efficient prosecution
of the war against the Indians, and remedied many
abuses, notably in local government.*

While the assembly was in session a dispute
arose between Berkeley and Bacon regarding the
commission, the exact merits of which it is not
easy to discover. The governor either refused to
grant the commission or delayed so long that
Bacon, anticipating refusal and perhaps fearing
arrest, left Jamestown, and, gathering a body of
five hundred followers, determined to obtain the
commission, if necessary by force. Berkeley, im-
porttmed by both cotmcil and House of Burgesses,
yielded, and intrusted Bacon with a command
against the Indians;' but no sooner was Bacon
well on his way to the frontier than Berkeley
summoned the militia of Gloucester and Middlesex

* Hening, Statutes, II., 341.

' The various accounts agree in these details; Sherwood's
letter, Va. Magazine, I., 170; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1675-1676,

a 9^4* 965. 969-

1676] BACON'S REBELLION 219

counties to take the field against him. The troops
as well as the people refused to support Berkeley,
who, after a second time proclaiming Bacon a
rebel, fled across the bay to Accomack. There he
hoped to find a welcome, because the people of
this cotmty had been peculiarly loyal to Charles II.,
had proclaimed him king in 1649, and had declared
in 1652 that they were '* disjointed and sequestered
from the rest of Virginia." But even the people
of "this our kingdom of Accomack" now began
to talk of a redress of grievances and a greater
liberty of trade, and Berkeley soon found himself
deserted by all save a few faithftd followers.*

With the flight of Berkeley the sittiation under-
went a change. The question of Bacon's com-
mission and the war with the Indians fell into the
background, and the movement took the form of
a struggle between Berkeley and the people for the
control of the government. Bacon, turning back
from his campaign against the Indians, decided
to become a rebel in very fact and to lead his
followers against their legally constituted au-
thorities. That he was actuated by the ambition
of a demagogue we cannot doubt, but we must .
also believe that he sincerely desired to alleviate the
prevailing misery and distress.' But like others of his
kind, he was headstrong and self-willed, and though

* William and Mary Quarterly , I., 191 ; Burk, Hist, of Virginia,
II., App., iv.

' William and Mary Quarterly, IV., 133.

220 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1676

possessing force and eloquence, was lacking in
foresight and judgment. He was upheld by two-
thirds of the people of the colony — employfe, ap-
prentices, servants, slaves, small freeholders, and a
few planters — the **scum'' of the province, Berke-
ley's adherents most unjustly called them. His
lieutenants were not the ignorant, desperate ad-
venturers that the small clique of royalists declared
them to be, but were able and intelligent men like
the Scotsman, William Dnimmond, who had been
governor of Albemarle in the year 1664.

Bacon's first move was to stunmon a convention
or mass-meeting of leading men, which draughted
an oath of allegiance to the new order of things.*
He then made an appeal to the people of Accomack
justifying his conduct,* and sent his associates.
Bland and Carver, across the bay to capture Berke-
ley if possible. In the mean time he ordered the as-
sembly to meet on September 4, 1676, and himself
started on a new campaign against the Indians.
Berkeley, having defeated the expedition led against
him by Bland and Carver, took advantage of Bacon's
absence, returned to Jamestown at the head of six
hundred men, and seized the little town. Bacon,
hearing of this turn of affairs while wandering among
the woods near the falls of the James, hastened
down the river, and surrounding the town prepared

* A Narrative, 16-19; T. M., Bacon* s Rebellion^ 21; ** A Review,
Breviary, and Conclusion " (cited above), 7.
' Va. Magazine, I., 61, 62.

1676] BACON'S REBELLION 221

for a regular investment. He successfully defended
his men from a sally by the governor's party, and,
according to the commissioners who investigated
the matter afterwards, **got hold of the wives and
women relatives of the governor's party and used
them on the ramparts to keep the enemy from
firing." * For a second time Jamestown fell into the
hands of Bacon, and for the second time Berkeley
fled to Accomack.

On the night of September 19, Bacon set fire to
the town and burned church, state-house, and dwell-
ings, in order to prevent all sieges in the future ; but
while preparing to invade Accomack and to organize
an efficient settling of the government, he was
stricken with fever contracted **by lying in a very
wet season in the trenches before the town,"' and
he died. After the death of Bacon, October 26, 1676,
the rebellion dragged on for two months under In-
gram, one of Bacon's lieutenants, but without chance
of further success. It gradually degenerated into a
scramble for plunder. Ingram was finally persuaded
to surrender ; the servants and slaves among the fol-
lowers were sent home to their masters ; and the free-
men were imprisoned awaiting Berkeley's decision.

Although Charles II. had issued a proclamation
promising amnesty to all prisoners, Berkeley on his
return from Accomack paid no attention to the
king's decree, and, on the ground that too much

* Va. Magazine, IV., 148; A Narrative, 23, 24.

• ** A Review, Breviary, and Conclusion " (cited above), 11, la.

222 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1676

leniency would certainly incline the rebels to a new
rebellion, wreaked a bitter vengeance and caused
thirteen Baconians to be put to death.* William
Drummond refused to surrender, and was finally
captured in January, 1677. **Mr. Drummond,
you are welcome," said the old governor, bowing
low. **I am more glad to see you than any man
in Virginia. Mr. Drummond, you shall be hanged
in half an hour.'' To which Drummond replied
"As your honor pleases." And in four hours from
that time he was dead.' The king did not approve
of this summary proceeding, and eventually restored
to Dnmimond's widow the estates which Berkeley
had seized and confiscated.

The authorities in England had already taken
efficient steps for the suppression of the rebellion,
which, during the months from September to
November, 1676, loomed up before them as a
serious civil war. The king issued letters for
Berkeley's recall, appointed Sir Henry Chicheley
lieutenant-governor, proclaimed a general amnesty,
and considered sending a conunission with fleet
and troops to Virginia to suppress the revolt and
to inquire into the grievances of the colonists.
Notwithstanding the advice of Moryson, Virginia's
agent, to the contrary,' the cotmcil, in October, 1676,

» Hening, Statutes, II., 366-371; Force, Tracts, I., No. x.
' T. M., Bacon* 5 Rebellion, 23; Col. of State Pap,, CoL, 1675-
1676, § 1035 (p. 454). 1677-1680, §424.
* Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., A. 185, f. 256.

i677l BACON'S REBELLION 223

decided to despatch a fleet, under the command of
•Sir John Berry, and five companies of regulars (one
thousand men) and a body of volunteers, tmder Cap-
tain Herbert Jeffreys, of the First Guards, with equip-
ment and supplies for three months. Jeffreys,
Berry, and Moryson were constituted a commission
with instructions for- the pacification of the colony.
Jeffreys was appointed governor of Virginia, and a
general proclamation was issued against Bacon,*
October 27, the day after Bacon's death.

January 29, 1677, Berry and Moryson arrived in
Virginia, and shortly afterwards Jeffreys came to
anchor with the main body of the troops. The
first impression of the commissioners was favorable,
for Bacon was dead and the rebellion over, and they
were inclined to present Berkeley's conduct in a
friendly light. They were puzzled, however, to
know what to do with their soldiers, and probably
failed to appreciate Berkeley's sarcastic comments
on their position or the fears of the people at the
presence of so many troops.* Their favorable im-
pressions gradually altered, and they soon wrote
home that they had been mistaken or deceived in
Berkeley.

In fact, the old man, either fearing an infringe-
ment of his own authority or urged on by others,
hinde^ced the work of the commissioners by every
means in his power. He refused to recognize

* Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1675-1676, §§ 1036, 1044, 1045,
1050, 1053-1064, 1132. ' /Wd., 1677-1680, §25.

224 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1677

Jeffreys as governor or to return to England; he
paid no attention to the orders of the commissioners;
he persuaded the assembly to refuse to show them
official papers ; and he actually intimidated the peo-
ple and made it difficult for the commissioners to
obtain adequate information. He treated them
with mock honor, calling them ** Right Honor-
ables," until, as Moryson wrote, **This country will
make us all fools and shortly bring us to Cuddy
Cuddy/' Finally, Berkeley decided to sail for Eng-
land, and when the commissioners called Jbo take
their farewell leave of him capped the clinuys^ of in-
dignities by sending them home in his ijf&ch. with
the common hangman as postilion/ W .;

The commissioners, thoroughly angry» reported
Berkeley's conduct to the authorities in England,
and thus prepared a warm reception for the old
governor when, in his dotage, irritable and hardly
responsible, he came home to die in his native land.
The Lords of Trade passed a severe censure upon
him and upheld the report of the commissioners.
The king, greatly displeased, charged Jaim with
disobedience, bad government, and illegal exactions,
and refused to see him or to listen to })is plea.
But in consideration of present infirmities jttid past
service he took no action against him. Berkeley
died in July, 1677/ >

» Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1677 -1680, §§ 171, zg:g^.ax6, 821,
1675-1676, § 173. ^

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, II., 176-178; Ofk of StaU
Pap., Col., 1677-1680. §( 239, 244, 245. 247, 386. r

i677] BACON'S REBELLION 225

After Berkeley's departure Jeffreys asstimed the
office of governor and pushed forward rapidly the
work of investigation and inquiry. The commis-
sioners obtained from each coimty a statement of
its grievances, negotiated a treaty of peace with
the Indians, and relieved the province of a heavy
burden by sending back to England most of the
troops that for five months had been in camp in
Middle Plantation. A hundred men remained to
settle in the colony as planters. The commis-
sioners also prepared an elaborate account of the
rebellion for transmission to the king and Lords
of Trade,* and when all had been finished, in the
auttmin of 1677, Berry and Moryson returned to
England.

Bacon's rebellion was at bottom a protest against
bad government, and was induced by an unfavorable
condition of the industrial life of the colony.^ Men
complained of the way the government was carried
on; they objected to the management of affairs
by a few men who were exploiting the colony for
their own profit; and when the opportunity came,
gave vent to their discontent and their misery by
supporting a leader whom events had thrust to the
front. The favorable results of the rebellion were
that the colonists got rid of Berkeley, and obtained
through the commissioners an opportunity to state
their grievances; and many of the abuses were
remedied by the express command of the king.

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, §§ 171, 240, 272, 433.

VOL. v.— IS

226 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1677

They also gained peace with the Indians, to the
advantage of their fur trade.

Nevertheless, a great and lasting disadvantage
of the rebellion was that it checked the negotiations
with the king for a charter of privileges, and in the
end led to the issue of a doctiment far less liberal
than that which the king had originally intended
to grant. The draught ** Charter" of November,
1675, contained nearly all that the Virginians had
asked for; it vested full powers in the assembly,
and estopped the king from further interference
with the land titles of the colony. But the new
** Charter," or grant of privileges,* obtained after
the rebellion, said nothing about the right of the
assembly to control taxation; and on the question
of land ^ants made no promise as to what the king
would or would not do in the future.

Notwithstanding the efforts of the commissioners,
the colony remained in an excited and overwrought
condition. The people complained of Indian rav-
ages, of the quartering of soldiers upon them, and
of wide -spread ruin due to pillage and pltmder.
Jeffreys died in 1678, and was succeeded by Sir
Henry Chicheley, whom Baltimore spoke of as
superannuated," and whom a sea-captain called
very old, sickly, and crazy." Chicheley was im-
able to alleviate the distress. Lord Culpeper,
who was appointed governor in 1679 and served
till 1684, reached the colony the next year. An

* Burk, Hist, of Virginia, IL, App., iv.-lvii., Ixi., Ixii.

i68o] BACON'S REBELLION 227

assembly that he summoned to meet in Jime, 1680,
passed an act of indemnity and oblivion to quiet
the coimtry, and another ordering that all export,
castle, and port dues be devoted to the expenses
of the government — a wise and wholesome measure.

Culpeper was an able man, but he was corrupt
and pleasure-loving, extravagant and mercenary,
and came to Virgmia to recoup his fortimes. To
this end he persuaded the king to grant him an
annual salary of 3^2000, and £150 for house rent
out of the colonial revenue ; and during the four
months that he was in the colony (May 3-August
30, 1680) he extended perquisites and fees, trans-
formed gratuities into regular payments, and com-
pelled masters of ships or sailing-vessels to give,
instead of presents of liquors or provisions, twenty
or thirty shillings for every vessel clearing the
harbor.* Little wonder that Burk, in commenting
on Culpeper's withdrawal to England in August,
says that he had gone to enjoy ** the ample revenues
of his office."

In the mean time the colony fell into a sad state
of disorder because of the old difficulty — the low
price of tobacco. Culpeper comprehended the
situation during his short residence in the colony,
but saw no other remedy than free-trade.' After

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, 5 319; Hening, Statutes,
XL, 458, n., 466; Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, Present State of
Virginia, 142; Beverley, Hist, of Virginia, 78, 79.

» CaL of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, § 156.

228 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [i68a

Culpeper's return to England, Chicheley, as deputy
governor, summoned the assembly, which sought
to quiet popular agitation by passing a law limiting
the ntmiber of ports where merchandise could be
landed and tobacco shipped. The measure proved
of no avail, and in the attempts made to enforce
it many vessels sailed away without a cargo, and
the situation became worse rather than better/

Another assembly was called in the spring of
1682, and Chicheley wrote without effect to Balti-
more, hoping that the two colonies might agree on
a limitation of tobacco-planting for a year.* Then
nimibers of the people, disappointed that no limiting-
law had been passed, took the matter into their
own hands. Beginning in Gloucester Cotmty, bands
of men advanced from plantation to plantation
cutting down the tobacco plants and destroying
**in an hour's time as much tobacco as twenty
men could bring to perfection in a stunmer." The
rioting spread into New Kent and Middlesex coun-
ties, and for a time the militia was unable to con-
trol it. The plant - cutters at first acted openly
during the day, but afterwards did their work at
night, and were aided not only by the servants, but
by the planters themselves. When the men were
arrested the women took up the work, and com-

> Hening, Statutes, 471-478, 561; Col. of State Pap., Col.,
1681-1685, § 424.

' Bruce, Econ. Hist, of Virginia, L, 405, n.; Cat. of State Pap.,
Col., 1681-1685, § 232.

i684] BACON'S REBELLION 229

mitted serious damage before they were checked.*
These ravages went on until August, 1682, when,
after large amounts of tobacco had been destroyed,
the energy of the rioters flagged and the movement
came to an end.

In November, 1682, at the express command of
the king, Culpeper came back ; and though he had
been tmwilling to return to the colony, he showed
himself on the whole a prudent and energetic gov-
ernor. After the arrest of several of the tobacco-
cutters, the colony became peaceful, the price of
tobacco rose, fears of the Indians decreased; and
though rumors of pirates were frequent, no serious
trouble appears to have been caused by them at
this time. Still, Culpeper could not long maintain
an energetic rule, and could not forget his own
doctrine that no colonial governorship was worth
while in which there was no profit. Therefore, in
1684 he returned to England and was immediately
deprived of his governorship for having left the
colony without permission. Even after his return
he petitioned the treasury to aid him in suing the
colony for money that he claimed as his own.*

The people, still poor and in many ways thrift-
less, seemed to have exhausted their energies in
the late troubles. Nevertheless, the next governor.
Lord Howard of Effingham, got into constant

» Cal. of State Pap., Col, 1681-1685, 55 494. 49S» 5«4.
' Treasury, In Letters, Indexes, Reference-Book, ill., 3i4-3i^»
in Public Record Office.

230 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1688

difficulties with the deputies, who refused to pass
measures recommended by the governor tmtil some
grievances should be redressed/ A prolonged dead-
lock ensued. In truth, Lord Howard was not fit
for his place: he badgered and bulUed the assem-
bly, and, when it opposed him, complained to the
king of its ** peevish obstinacy." James II. upheld
his servant, approved of his actions, and reproved
the burgesses, whom he charged with holding irreg-
ular and tumultuous meetings.

The colony seemed on the eve of another revolt,
and when the news came of the revolution in Eng-
land, in the winter of 1 688-1 689, rumors of all kinds
spread among the people. Roman Catholics were
believed to be concerting with the Indians to mur-
der the Protestants; and people in various parts
of the colony took up arms to protect themselves.
Men feared that French war-ships were about to
attack the province, and in Virginia, as in Maryland
at this same time, it was believed that there was
neither king nor government in England. Finally,
in April, 1689, fears were quieted by orders received
from England to proclaim the new sovereigns; and
with "unfeigned joy and exultation" William and
Mary were declared sovereigns of England and her
dominions.

Virginia suffered during the years that followed
Bacon's rebelUon from the character of the men

* Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, Present State of Virginia,
137-142.

1691I BACON'S REBELLION 231

whom the Stuart kings selected to rule over her.
The colony was kept in a constant state of agitation,
for the people were prone to tumult and the assem-
bly to opposition; and the governors did little to
quiet the discontent. The settlers were pushing
into the back countries, establishing homes on the
upper waters of the Potomac, Rappahannock, York,
and other rivers, where they were suffering dangers
from the Indians incident to frontier and wilderness
life, and complaints of Indian raids from the north-
west were frequent. Great distances made govern-
ment throughout the colony difficult; councillors
lived widely scattered, om the eastern shore, in low-^
land necks, and in the up-country ; wind and weather
made rapid movement impossible; and, in winter,
days and even weeks passed before all the members
of the cotmcil could be assembled. With the bur-
gesses the difficulties were even greater. Neverthe-
less, the colony prospered, and when Nicholson came
in 1 69 1 as lieutenant-governor under Lord Howard,
a new and more peaceful era began.

c..

'^M

CHAPTER XV

DEVELOPMENT OF MARYLAND
(1649-1686)

MARYLAND reproduced more than Virginia
the religious and political conditions that pre-
vailed in the mother - country . The proprietary,
Lord Baltimore, possessed powers that were little
less than royal ; and the people, sharing in legislation,
yet prevented from controlling the government,
because of the prerogatives vested in the pro-
prietary by the charter, were divided into religious
as well as political factions, that were more un-
compromising in their hostility for each other than
were any of the parties that upheld or opposed the
policy of Berkeley. The first sixty years in the
history of the colony were contemporary with the
era of revolution in England, and there is scarcely
a phase of the home conflict, from 1640 to 1688,
that does not find its counterpart in the struggle in
Maryland.

The revolutionary changes in England during
these years often placed Baltimore in the awkward
position of standing between two fires. His charter,
granted by Charles L in 1632, was annulled in 1645

232

i6s2l MARYLAND 233

by the Long Parliament because of the Roman
Catholic character of his colony ; * and the republic
established in England after 1649 was hostile be-
cause Baltimore's acting governor, Thomas Greene,
a Roman Catholic, very indiscreetly proclaimed
Prince Charies as king of England.' On the other
hand, Baltimore, to whom toleration was a matter
quite as much of business as of conscience, gave a
welcome to all Protestants, in order to prevent the
establishment of a Jesuit regime in Maryland ; and
permitted a large body of them to settle half-way up
M the Chesapeake on the Severn River. This admit-
'^ tance of Dissenters cost him the favor of the Stuarts ;
"• and Charles IL, then in France, annulled his charter,
^ and appointed Davenant, the dramatist, as governor
^of Maryland.'

' The anomalous position occupied by the pro-
'prietary imperilled his authority in the province,
• and the Puritans even planned to separate from
his government and set up a state for them-
selves. This pressing danger of secession within
the province was soon lost sight of, however, in
the presence of a greater danger which threatened
the proprietary from abroad. On March 29, 1652,
the commissioners whom Parliament had sent to
America to effect the reduction of Virginia and

* Md. Archives, IIL, 164, 165.

' Bozman, Hist, of Md., IL, 670.

• Langford, A Clere and Sensible Refutation of Babylon* s Fall
(1655), quoted, ibid., 672.

234 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

"all the plantations within the Chesai)eake," ap-
peared at St. Mary's, and obtained the submission
of the colony to the "authority of the keepers of
the Liberties of England."

Baltimore, whose legal title was in no way im-
paired by this event, refused to allow his authority
in the province to go by default. He asserted
his right to hold his province imder Parliament as
formerly he had held it under the king, and de-
manded that the people of Maryland recognize
without limitation his full title under the charter.
He bade Governor Stone, whom he had appointed
in 1647 to succeed his brother, to issue a procla-
mation declaring that all land patents should tie
renewed and all writs issued in the name of the
proprietary, and ordering the inhabitants to take
an oath of fidelity on penalty of the loss of their
lands.*

The Puritans refused to submit, and sent a peti-
tion to the commissioners, stating that the oath
which Baltimore required was not agreeable to their
idea of liberty of conscience. They said that it
compelled them to swear "absolute subjection to a
government, where the ministers of state are bound
by oath to countenance and defend the Roman
popish religion, which we apprehend to be contrary
to the fundamental laws of England, the covenant
taken in the three kingdoms, and the consciences
of true English subjects, and doth carry on an

* Md. Archives^ III., 298-300.

i6s4l MARYLAND 235

arbitrary power, so as whatever is done by the peo-
ple at great costs in assemblies, for the good of the
people, is liable to be made null by the negative
voice of his lordship." *

Here in a nutshell is the issue frankly stated.
Lord Baltimore was a Roman Catholic, a royalist,
an upholder of toleration for Roman Catholics as
well as Dissenters, the proprietor of all lands under
the charter, and the possessor of prerogatives that
no parliamentarian could acknowledge. The Puri-
tans were Dissenters and parliamentarians, intoler-
ant in religion as were their fellows in England and
New England, hating all Roman Catholics, hostile
to the Stuart doctrine of government, and restless
under any other control than that of God and
themselves.

The commissioners in replying to the petition
protested against Stone's proclamation, but bade
the Puritans remain peaceful. When in 1654 Crom-
well became Lord Protector, Baltimore greeted his
elevation with satisfaction, believing that the master-
ful man who had just put an end to the rule of the
Rump Parliament and had suppressed Leveller up-
risings by force of arms, would give him support.
He bade Stone issue another proclamation recog-
nizing the protectorate and declaring that Mary-
land was "subordinate unto and dependent upon
the aforesaid government of the Commonwealth."'

• "Baltimore's Case Answered" (Force, Tracts, II., No. ix.),
29-31. ' Md. Archives, III., 304.

^36 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERXlfEXT [1654

The commissiQiiers, aroused by this defiant act, at
once returned to Maryland, and, when Stone refused
to withdraw the pixxrlamation, placed themselves
at the head of the Puritans of Patuxent and the
Severn, marched against St. Mary's, and compelled
him to submit.*

The next step was to depose Stone from the
governorship and place in his stead, in the name of
the Lord Protector of England, a Puritan, Captain
William Fuller. They remodelled the government
after that then existing in England and erected
a crnincil of ten men, the majority of whom were
Puritans. October 20, 1654, an assembly was called
at Patuxent, which bears unmistakable marks of
its Puritan character. By its votes, Roman Cath-
olics were disfranchised and practically outlawed;
and acts were passed touching drunkenness, swear-
ing, and keeping of the Sabbath, and regulating
arlministrative affairs. All was done in the name
of the Ix)rd Protector; and even Baltimore's title
to the lands of the province was ignored.*

Stone wrote a full account of these events to
Lf>rd Baltimore, who took immediate steps to re-
cover his province. On appeal to Cromwell, the
Protector wrote to Bennett, bidding him avoid
further trouble and in all probability recommend-
ing the colonists of Maryland, as he had done those
of Virginia, to pursue ** peace, love, and the great

* Account of the Commissioners. Md. Archives, III., 311, 312.
» Ibid., 339-356-

i6ss] MARYLAND 237

interests of religion."* Baltimore at the same time
wrote to Stone, enclosing a new set of instructions
and reproving him for his tame submission.^ Stung
by this rebuke, Stone, according to Bennett's report
to Thurloe. ** forced his highnesses' subjects to take
arms one against another, seized the records of the
province, armed Papists and others, plimdered, dis-
armed, and imprisoned all those who refused to join
with him, . . . railing at and reviling the people,
calling them Roimdheads, rogues, dogs, etc., setting
up Lord Baltimore's colors against the colors of the
conmion wealth . " "

In the presence of these threatening actions the
Puritans prepared for war. Stone sailed from St.
Mary's, March 24, 1655, with a flotilla bearing be-
tween one and two hundred men,* prepared for
making an attack on the Puritan settlement on the
Severn. There he was confronted by a force under
Fuller, numbering one hundred and seventy, drawn
up on shore to resist him. The day was won by
the Puritans, aided by a New England trading
vessel, under a Puritan master named Heamans,
which happened to be lying in the harbor. The
victory was stained by the unwarranted execution
of three of the defeated party and by the disposition
of the Puritans to carry their vengeance further.

* Ccd. of State Pap., Col., 1574-1660, J 4i3-

' Bozman, Hist, of Md., I., 694, 695; Thurloe, State Papers,
v., 485. " Ibid., 485.

* The accounts differ, one giving 137, another 200.

238 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1655

Only the intercession of the women and of some of
the soldiers themselves saved the lives of others of
the proprietary party.

The Puritans, who were now in full control, made
immediate use of their power. They sequestered
Stone's estate, kept Stone and many of his followers
prisoners, and put others xmder bonds for their
good behavior. However, they do not appear to
have abused their opportunity, for they demanded
no heavier punishment than the imposition of fines
upon thirty-six of the St. Mary's men, "to cover
losses made by the late march." *

When Baltimore heard of the defeat and capt-
ure of his governor he despatched to the colony
new instructions, appointing Josias Fendall, one of
Stone's party, governor in Stone's place, and naming
five others as his council. Thus two governments
existed for the province: one at St. Mary's, under
Fendall ; the other at Providence, under Fuller. Of
the two, the Puritan government was the stronger,
and there is reason to believe that the Puritans were
planning to separate themselves entirely from the
remainder of the province and to set up an in-
dependent government of their own.

Baltimore was by no means at the end of his
resources. With characteristic astuteness he bowed
to the rising sun, and presented to the Protector a
statement in which he emphasized in exaggerated
terms his devotion to the commonwealth.* Com-

* Md, Archives, X., 412-430. * Ibid.,, III., aSo, 281.

i6s7l MARYLAND 239

missioner Bennett, at this time also governor of Vir-
ginia, endeavoring to meet what he called Balti-
more's "specious pretences," also drew up a docu-
ment, in 1656, and attempted to show how false was
Baltimore's claim of loyalty to the existing gov-
ernment in England.* Yet Baltimore obtained a
reference of the case to the committee of trade.'
There the matter was discussed and a report pre-
pared, probably recommending some modification
of Baltimore's powers; but the Protector was too
much distracted by public business in England to
settle the government of Maryland.

The delay worked to Baltimore's advantage, for
in 1657 and 1658 indications in England were point-
ing to the failure of the Puritan commonwealth.'
Without waiting for a decision from Cromwell,
Bennett and Mathews, his colleague, made overtures
for a settlement, and reached an agreement with
Baltimore. Acting for the Puritan party, they
conceded the chief point at issue — recognition of
the proprietary's prerogative — and gave up the
struggle. The people of Maryland promised to re-
turn to their allegiance if the proprietary would
preserve all land titles and maintain in force the
toleration act of 1649. On November 30, 1657,
the agreement was finally signed.*

* Thurloe, State Papers, V., 483.

» Cal. of State Pap., CoL, 1574-1660, pp. 435. 43^. 447-
■ Thurloe, State Papers, V., 482.

* Md. Archives, III., 332-334.

240 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1658

Thus Baltimore won the victory over enemies
who had twice defeated his authorized deputy,
Governor Stone, and twice deprived him of his
proprietary rights. Though his success was due
to skilful diplomacy and to a shrewd regard for
the main chance, he might have had too little in-
fluence with the committee of trade, or even with
Cromwell himself, but that religious interests were
giving way to those that were political and economic.
Merchants who were members of the colonial and
trade committees in England were anxious for a
cessation of hostilities in order that the colonies
might be restored to a normal condition of pros-
perity. Baltimore's claims were entirely just from
the legal point of view, and there was no other
solution of the problem than to give back the
colony to its legitimate proprietary ; but the English
merchants, to whom the tobacco trade was a
means of livelihood, threw themselves into the
balance on the same side. At this time the influence
of the merchant and trading classes in shaping the
policy of the government at home was a factor of
great and growing importance.

Lord Baltimore, though victorious over the
Puritans, had one more crisis to face before he
could enter upon the full possession of his pro-
priety. Notwithstanding a long dispute with Vir-
ginia over the possession of Kent Island and the
proper location of the boundary -line between the
two colonies on the eastern side of the bay, Mary-

i66o] MARYLAND 241

land was always more or less influenced political-
ly by her powerfiil neighbor. In March, 1660, the
Maryland assembly attempted to follow the exam-
ple of Virginia ; and, despite the fact that Baltimore
was the legal and accepted head of the government,
the House of Delegates declared itself **a lawful
assembly, without dependence on any other power
in the province," and took to itself the authority
of the ** highest court of judicature." *

Fendall, whom Baltimore had appointed gov-
ernor in 1657, came out boldly against the pro-
prietary, and said that in the charter the king
had originally intended to grant the freemen full
power to make and enact laws, which, when pub-
lished in the proprietary's name, were to have
force without the proprietary's consent.^ He
carried the council, against the remonstrance of
Philip Calvert, who held his brother's commission
as secretary. Emboldened by this support, the
delegates proposed to abolish the upper house or
council altogether, and Fendall resigned his com-
mission as governor, to become speaker of the
lower house — an act implying a complete denial of
the rights of the proprietary.

The attempt was too late to be successful. Before
the news of this action reached England, Charles
II. was on the throne. Lord Baltimore acted
with efficiency and despatch. He appointed Philip
Carteret governor, and obtained from the king

> Md. Archives, I., 388. ' Ibid., 389.

VOL. V. — 16

j^ C0L03nAL SELF-GOVERSMEXT [c6te

a prr^danatsoa 'ienoancfng' FendalTs igtfftiinn azid
cr>cr.rriarTr:ir:g the peccie to yfipii-f ooedkoce to the
ptr^rietr^rj- In Xoverzbcr, r66o. Cahrert^ actzng
6n his brothers msunctions, prjciaimed a goaeral
satiMSlj ZTj an who woaii acknowledge Balrnrmce's
jtm^ictifjXi, Some of the members ot the as-
i«nr>Iy irer* parioceri^ others were deprived oc
their civil rights, and Fendall was aOowed to leave
the province. The cocspiracy is significant as an
early phase of the struggle between the assembly
and the feadal executive, that was to mark the
history of all the provincial colonies in later times.

The factional quarrel between the proprietary
and the Puritans checked the economic prosperity
of the province. Maryland was not wealthy, and
the colonists could hardly be called thrifty. The
settlements lay along the shores of the Chesapeake,
from St. Mary's north to the mouth of the Sus-
quehanna, and south on the eastern shore from
Hermann's plantation, called Bohemia, to Watkins
Point. The coast -line was broken by frequent
rivers and bays, about which were swamps and
mr>rasscs that made communication other than by
water almost impossible. Though the uplands,
where tobacco was cultivated, were fertile, induce-
ments to thrift and economy were few ; and, in the
main, farms were mean and small, and the taxes,
even when moderate, were felt to be a burden.

Alsr)i)'s description of the province in 1666, and
Hammond's statements in his Leah and Rachel, are

i67S] MARYLAND 243

probably too favorable, and give a picture of comfort
and ease that is not borne out by other observers
or the evidence of the laws. The main body of the
settlers lived isolated, often primitive, lives, subsist-
ing on wholesome but coarse food, including little
milk or butter, and drinking frequently and heavily
in those portions of the colony where lands were low
and the climate damp/ For planters and farmers
alike the sole industry was tobacco planting, and
so rich was the soil that, according to contemporary
report, tobacco could be raised for thirty years on
the same piece of land. Labor was performed by
servants and negroes, whose life, as seen by Bankers
and Sluyter, was wretched in the extreme.^ Yet
the Maryland people, though inclined to be un-
progressive and indolent, were comfortable and in
the main contented.

The colonists paid their quit-rents, taxes, and
fees in tobacco; and whatever touched the price
of this staple touched the welfare of the colony.
There was almost no coin in circulation, and the
demand made in Maryland by Lord Baltimore and
in Virginia by Governor Berkeley, that quit-rents be
paid in money, raised a great outcry. As tobacco
fell steadily in price after 1660, long and earnest
inquiry was made into the cause, and the assembly

> Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 216-219; Cook, Sot -Weed
Factor, 4, 5.

' Dankers and Slujrter, Journal, 191, 192, 217; Md. Archives,

XIII., 451-457-

344 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT (x66x

tried hard to effect an arrangement with Virginia,
whereby tobacco planting might be stinted ; but all
plans for this purpose were vetoed by the pro-
prietary/ Baltimore did not believe that over-
production was the greatest obstacle to the progress
of the colony, and he frankly told the Lords of
Trade that in his mind the navigation acts held
first place. Nevertheless, he made honest efforts to
carry out the acts,^ and pointed to the customs
receipts in England to show how valuable Maryland
was to the crown. The colony had no shipping of
its own, and was dependent on others to do her
carrying-trade. The irregular manner in which the
New - Englanders disposed of Maryland tobacco
can hardly be charged against the proprietary, so
long as he saw to the taking out of bonds or the
payment of the penny a pound demanded by the
act of 1672.

In 1 66 1 Charles Calvert was sent over as governor,
and on the death of Lord Baltimore in 1675 became
himself the proprietary. Except for an absence
in 1676, he remained in Maryland until 1684 and
personally directed the government of the province.
He had little of his father's tact, and made few
efforts to conciliate those who opposed him, or to
compromise with the dominant party in the colony.
He had his father's strength of will without his
sense of humor, and he saw no remedy for Mary-

* Md. Archives, III., 457, 476, 504, S47» 55©. 55^-
^Ibid,, 446, 454, 459» 484; v., 24, 25,31. 47» 123, 124.

x67sl MARYLAND 245

land's troubles except in manipulating government
in such a way as to maintain his authority. He was
always at the head of a minority. He ruled ar-
bitrarily, saw but one side of a difficulty, and em-
ployed men that were not always trustworthy and
means that were not always creditable. Never-
theless, he was interested in the colony, and studied
to improve its condition, winning his adherents
rather by adding to their prosperity than by heeding
their political demands.

Though life in the colony from 1661 to 1675
was peaceful, the old discontent was not quieted.
Complaints were frequent, quarrels between the
council and the lower house were of common oc-
currence, and government was in the hands of a few
and controlled by the proprietary's relatives. The
governor and the council were accused of levying
excessive taxation, of placing Roman Catholic mem-
bers of the governor's family in offices of state, of
favoritism in subordinate appointments, and of in-
terference in the elections. Many of the charges
were true, others were but the shreds and patches
of truth.

It is true that Calvert manipulated government so
that he might control it. He formed a political
ring made up of his relatives;* he followed the
example of Virginia in restricting the suffrage;'
and he summoned, as Virginia had done, but half

* Sparks, Causes of the Revolution of i68g, pp. 64, 65.
' Md. Archives, V., 77, 78.

246 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1676

the deputies elected, in order to save the counties
half the expense of their members. By limiting
the suffrage he disfranchised the poorer classes;
and by refusing to summon all the delegates, he
kept out of the assembly men of influence who
opposed him.

In 1676 Calvert, now Lord Baltimore, went to
England, and left Notley as governor in his place.
The discontent already prevalent in the colony was
increased by rumors of an Indian invasion, which
many of the Protestants declared was incited by
the Roman Catholics of Maryland, acting in col-
lusion with the French, for establishing a "Jesuit-
ical" government in Maryland.* The excitement
was increased by the reports that came from Vir-
ginia of Bacon's uprising; and scarcely were the
rumors of an Indian war shown to be baseless when
a number of colonists — Davis, Pate, and others —
** malcontents, but otherwise of laudable charac-
ters"^ — drew up a ** seditious" paper, and gathered
together sixty men for the purpose of overawing
the governor and the assembly (1676). Notley
acted with commendable speed, and arrested and
hanged Davis and Pate. This summary proceed-
ing, followed by the death of Bacon in Virginia,
brought the premature and ill-advised uprising to

* See remonstrance of 1676 in Md. Archives, V., 134-149;
Doyle, English in America, I., 317; Cal. of State Pap., Col.,
1661-1668, §404 (wronply dated).

* T. M., Bacon's Rebellion (Force, Tracts, I., No. viii.), 21,

i684] MARYLAND 247

an end.^ Like Bacon's rebellion, this revolt against
the authority of the proprietary in Maryland had
its origin in poverty, ignorance, and political dis-
content.

During the next four years, the rival powers of
governor and assembly came frequently into con-
flict in the legislature of the colony, the popular
body seeking to limit the authority of the executive.
Also after 1678 Lord Baltimore was confronted
with additional difficulties, the most unfortunate
of which was the dispute with William Penn.
The m'erits of this boimdary case can never be
satisfactorily determined: the technical right lay
with Baltimore, and we cannot admire Penn's
inclination to ignore it; nevertheless, sympathy
is bound to lie with Penn in his desire to save
his capital and to obtain a commercial outlet for
his colony.' In an age of confused and conflicting
land grants, when scarcely one of the colonies was
able to retain without dispute the boundaries
originally assigned, we can hardly accept a plea
based on nothing else than a literal interpretation
of the terms of a charter. Were such a plea ad-
mitted as final, every colony would be more or less
under indictment.

For both proprietaries the results were most
disastrous. Baltimore and Penn went to England
in 1684, each to present his own view of the case,

* Md. Archives, V., 153.

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, {{ 468, 469.

248 COLONIAL SELF^OVERNMENT [1676

and each, though eager to return, was detained
there at a time when his presence was greatly
needed in his colony to uphold his prerogatives.
Baltimore's presence in England was needed be-
cause he was already out of favor with the Lords
of Trade on accoimt of his quarrel with the royal
collector. Until 1676 Calvert acted as his own col-
lector of customs, but in that year he reconunend-
ed the appointment of Christopher Rousby, with
whom and with Badcock, the king's surveyor of
customs, he was soon in controversy. Rousby ap-
pealed to the Lords of Trade. Badcock accused
Baltimore of interfering with him in the performance
of his duty. The Lords of Trade in 1681 decided
in favor of the officers ; reprehended Lord Baltimore ;
bade him refund £2500, of which they claimed he
had defrauded the customs by his interference ; and
threatened him with the loss of his charter if he
did not obey the acts of trade.*

Rousby returned to Maryland, and, while Balti-
more was in England, became involved in a quarrel
with George Talbot, Baltimore's hot-headed relative
and head of the council, and was murdered. This
unfortunate incident led to the issue of a writ of
quo warranto against the charter, and though the
writ was never executed, Baltimore's standing in the
eyes of the home authorities was very much impaired.

If the trouble with Rousby pointed to the pro-
prietary's neglect of the acts of trade, a new trouble

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, III., 319, 320.

i68i] MARYLAND 249

with Fendall, who for twenty years had been a
leader among the Protestant enemies of the pro-
prietary, seemed to indicate imrest and discontent
within the province that Baltimore was unabfe to
control. In 1681, taking advantage of the quarrel
in England between Charles II. and the parliament
of that vear, Fendall endeavored to stir up the people
of Charles and St. Mary's counties, and to tamper
with some of the proprietary's officers. With a
fellow-agitator, John Coode, he planned the over-
throw of Baltimore's government and the expul-
sion of all Roman Catholics from Maryland.^ But
with Coode and another malcontent, Godfrey, he
was arrested and imprisoned; and in November,
1 68 1, was tried for ** mutinous and seditious speeches,
practices, and attempts" against the proprietary,
**to the subversion of the state and government
of the province." Coode was acquitted, Fendall
fined 40,000 pounds of tobacco and banished, and
Godfrey sentenced to be hanged, though the penalty
in the latter's case was afterwards remitted.^ The
evidence brought forward at the trial discloses an
imsettled condition of public opinion in the province,
and shows how ready were the enemies of Baltimore
and the Roman Catholics to take advantage of
every changing fortune in English affairs to effect
their overthrow.

* Col. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, $ 351.
' Md. Archives, V., 313-328; Cal. of State Pap,, Col. 1681-
1685, §391.

2SO COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1686

Baltimore planned to return to Maryland in
September, 1686, but was compelled to remain in
order to thwart Penn's attempt to obtain the dis-
puted territory below the fortieth parallel and to
meet the king's attack on the charter; he therefore
sent over William Joseph as his deputy. News of
the birth of a son to King James in 1688 led to
excessive demonstrations of loyalty in Maryland
that did not serve to allay popular fears regarding
the Roman Catholic and monarchical tendencies
of the government/ But the governor's speeches
and the proclamations regarding the young prince,
ridiculous though the phrases were in which they
were couched, did not arouse any special excitement
at the time; and a list of grievances which the
assembly handed in to the governor shortly after-
wards was so moderate in character as to show
that certainly the deputies, and probably the greater
part of the people, had no thought of revolution.

When contrasted with Virginia, Maryland shows
no such combination of circumstances leading to
revolution as prevailed below the Potomac at the
time of Bacon's rebellion. Indian difficulties were
less acute; the policy of the proprietary party,
though similar in character to that of the ring in
Virginia, was less offensive and less burdensome
than in that colony; the people at large, widely
scattered and divided by a broad expanse of water
into two parts, were less competent to act efficiently

* Md. Archives, VIII., 15; XIII., 184, 185. 210.

1 688]

MARYLAND

251

against the proprietor even had they been inclined ;
while there were present no leaders on either side
in Maryland like Berkeley with his spleen and
Bacon with his commanding personal magnetism.
The revolution that finally took place in Maryland
was, as the sequel will show, not a popular move-
ment nor one which would have succeeded inde-
pendently of influences from England. It was
but a phase of the general uprising in the colonies
which followed the revolution of 1688 in England.

CHAPTER XVI

DIFFICULTIES IN NEW ENGLAND

(1675-1686)

WHAT was going on in New England dtiring
these years of turmoil in the south? For a
long time after 1668, the enemies of Massachusetts
waited their time. The early complaints sent in
to the Lords of Trade were largely personal in
character, affecting individuals and not the crown.
These complaints and the report of the commis-
sioners, who had so unforttmate an experience in
1665 in Boston, gave the colony a bad name in
England, where she was charged with the possession
of a peevish and touchy humor; but they did not
offer a sufficient basis for an attack on the charter.
When, however, new complaints began to come in,
showing that the king's revenue and the king's
prerogatives were threatened by the colony, the
Lords of Trade began to consider in earnest a policy
of coercion.*

In 1675, when Massachusetts was involved in
King Philip's War, her enemies renewed the attack;

* Evelyn, Diary, IL, 66; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674,
§ 1059; Hutchinson Papers, IL, 174, 175, 204,

252

i67s] NEW ENGLAND 253

and in 1676 London merchants came to their aid
by declaring that New-Englanders were accustomed
to avoid customs dues by trading directly with the
Continent, and to get all the trade into their own
hands by underbidding competitors.^ In the eyes
of the council, New England was guilty of carrying
silk and wool to France and tobacco to Holland,
Spain, Portugal, and the islands; and of bringing
back European goods from the Continent and wines
and brandies from the islands, and so making New
England, and not old England, the mart and staple,
prejudicing the navigation of the kingdom, impair-
ing the king's revenue, lessening the price of home
and foreign commodities, decreasing trade, and im-
poverishing the king's subjects. It did not matter
that the charges were exaggerated; the Lords of
Trade took them seriously.

For Massachusetts the time was critical. The
rapid growth of population hastened the inevitable
struggle between the white man and the Indian for
the possession of territory that had hitherto been
large enough for both. As long as Massasoit, chief
of the Wampanoags, and Canonicus, chief of the
Narragansetts, lived, the relations were eminently
friendly. With the death of the former in 1660,
and of his son, Alexander, in 1662, conditions
changed, and tmder Meatocom, or Philip, as the
English called him, the Wampanoags were aroused
to war against the English.

» Col. of State Pap.^ CoL, 1675-1676, §787.

254 COLONUL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1675

The first attack was made on Rhode Island, at
this time tmder the control of the peace-loving
Quakers: and the first blood was shed at Swansea,
Jtme 24, 1675. Soon all central and southeastern
New England was ablaze. Efforts made by
Connecticut and Massachusetts to control the
Nipmucks failed; and in August that tribe joined
Philip and began a career of murder and pillage
that chilled the heart of the bravest of the colonists.
Deerfield, Northfield, Springfield, and Hatfield were
attacked, houses ravaged and burned, settlers slain
and scalped, women and children carried into
captivity.

Fearing that the Narragansetts were preparing
to join the murderous fray, Massachusetts, Plym-
outh, and Connecticut attacked their swamp fort
on December 19, 1675 ; ^^d after a fierce and bloody
fight, in which sixty-eight Englishmen were killed
and one hundred and fifty wounded, captured the
stronghold and dispersed the surviving members
of the tribe. The defeated Indians, hot with
desire for revenge, joined Philip and initiated a
second period of massacre. In Rhode Island the
men of the main-land fled to the island, leaving their
homes to be pillaged and burned; Captain Pierce,
of Plvmouth, was cut off and killed with a small
contingent of men; towns along the Massachusetts
frontier were sacked with wanton waste and then
destroyed.

For fotir months the horrors continued, but

1676] NEW ENGLAND 255

gradually the strength of the Indians gave way.
Canonchet, of the Narragansetts, was taken and
shot in April, 1676; in May one hundred and thirty
warriors were cut down on the Connecticut; and
others suffering from want of food began to weaken
in their loyalty to their leader. Philip's confeder-
acy of Wampanoags, Nipmucks, and Narragansetts
broke up. On August 12, Philip himself was run
down and slain by a doughty Indian fighter, Colonel
Benjamin Church, at the Indian stronghold, Mount
Hope ; and the last serious attempt of the Indians
to check the triumph of the English in New England
was brought to an end.

The war had wrought great devastation and ruin.
Houses and towns on the frontiers were in ashes.
During the campaign Indians had often penetrated
into the heart of the colony, and, as in the case of
Plymouth, had destroyed the growing crops, which
were at the fulness of their ripening. So serious
was the famine threatening some parts of New
England that the colonists sent to Virginia for food,
and bought such quantities of all sorts that the
Virginia assembly promulgated a law forbidding
the exportation of provisions from that colony.
More serious for the prosperity of New England
than the loss of the harvest was the injury done
to the beaver trade, which was almost entirely de-
stroyed; to the fishing industry, which was badly
crippled; and to the whole exporting business to
Barbadoes, whereby the New-Englanders obtained

2S6 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1676

•

wine, liquors, and money, and, by exchange with the
Virginia planters, tobacco and other commodities.
Governor Berkeley, writing before the war was over,
said that, as it was, the New England colonists
would not "recover these twenty years what they
have lost" ; and that if the war continued for a year
longer they would be ** the poorest, miserablest peo-
ple of all the English plantations in America." *

While in this plight Massachusetts was called
upon to face a renewal of the attack on her charter.
As early as August, 167 1, it was suggested that a
conmiissioner be sent to Massachusetts. The com-
plaints regarding trade touched king and lords in
a tender spot, and effected that which Quakers,
Anglicans, and other individual complainants had
not been able to accomplish. Two months before the
death of Philip (Jime, 1676), Edward Randolph, one
of the most remarkable characters in New England
history and an arch-defender of the Stuart cause
and policy, landed at Boston to begin an inquiry
into the condition and conduct of the colony. Ran-
dolph henceforth was the chief complainant against
Massachusetts. Looking into every part of the
colonial government, and criticising every detail
with a prejudiced eye, he concluded as early as
July, 1677, that a quo warranto ought to be issued
against the colony. From this time forward he
had but one object in view — to bring the colony
into a closer dependence upon the crown, and thtis

» Cal. of State Pap,, CoL, 1675-1676, $ 859.

i677l NEW ENGLAND 257

to make it more useful to the kingdom. To this
extent he was, in fact, the '* subverter of Massachu-
setts liberties."

All the old charges and complaints now rose up
to discomfort the colony : Massachusetts authorities
had failed to capture the regicides; had treated
insolently the commissioners of 1664; had evaded
the king's command to broaden the suffrage, even
while pretending to obey it;^ had disregarded the
Mason and Gorges claims in extending jurisdiction
over York County and the Merrimac territory ; had
oppressed weaker neighbors, as in the boundary
disputes with Plymouth, Connecticut, and Rhode
Island; had established a mint and coined money;
had levied taxes on non-freemen as well as on free-
men; had denied the right of appeal to England
from the courts of the colony ; and in general had
passed laws and exercised powers not warranted
by the charter.

Notwithstanding the gravity of these accusa-
tions, Massachusetts might have escaped but for
other charges, general rather than individual in
character, touching the interests of the king and
the kingdom: first, the independence affected by
the colony; secondly, the colony's neglect of the
king's express commands and its apparent in-
difference to the king's authority; and thirdly, its
evasion of the navigation acts, whereby the royal
revenues were curtailed.

* Hutchinson Papers, II., 146, 147.

VOL. V. — 17

2S8 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1676

The first of these charges was not new. The
commissioners of 1664 commented on the re-
fractoriness of the colony; and when they were
recalled, many people in England believed that
Massachusetts would separate from England and
set up for herself.^ The council declared that the
Massachusetts oath of fidelity ought to be abolished
because it placed allegiance to the colony before
allegiance to the king.' The colony, while molli-
fying the royal anger by letters of adulation and
offers to take the oath of allegiance, reaffirmed
the oath of fidelity more strongly than before,'
and took the definite groimd that, as regards the
orders of the king and the laws of Parliament, it
was protected by its charter; and that no act, of
navigation or other, had any validity in the colony
unless it had been passed by the colonial as-
sembly.*

These somewhat abstract complaints did not,
however, irritate and provoke wrath as did the col-
ony's impolitic disregard of the royal commands.
Massachusetts, while clinging to her prerogatives
with all the tenacity of a Stuart, seemed to go out
of her way to flatmt her claims in the face of the
home authorities. In 1665, when ordered to send

* Hutchinson Papers, II., 140-153; Toppan, Edward Ran--
dolph, I., 41, n., 103; Evelyn, Diary, II., 66.

> Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, § 668.

* Mass. Col. Records, V., 153, 154, 1 91-193.

* Randolph's Answers to Queries {Hutchinson Papers, 11.^
232).

i68i] NEW ENGLAND 359

over agents, she delayed until the Lords of Trade
could charge her with deliberate refusal.^

This policy was repeated ten years later, when the
agents arrived nearly two years after the colony
had been instructed to send them; and in each
case the agents were found to be so limited in powers
as to give the impression that the colony hoped to
tire out the home government by a policy of delay.
When for the third time the colony neglected the
king's order in this matter, and in others also, the
Lords of Trade became angry; charged Massachu-
setts with sending ** frivolous, insufficient excuses"
and ** insufficient pretences"; and in October, i68i,
wrote that if she did not despatch her agents
within three months they would order the vacation
of the charter. Strange as it may seem, the colony
delayed sending agents for four months, and then
instructed them, in case the charter were called in
question, to say that they had no instructions on
that point.^

Behind all else lay the charge that the colony
undermined the royal revenues. During 1676 and
1677, complaints regarding illegal trade increased,
and an important petition from the mercers and
silk-weavers of London charged New England with
depriving the ^ king of ;£6o,ooo a year. Immedi-
ately an embargo was placed on New England

> Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, § 266.
^ Ibid., 1675-1676, §§755. 1070. "86, 1677-1680, §§351,
1028, 1681-1685, §§ 266, 416.

26o COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1677

trade, and Massachusetts, in her alarm, passed a
law, October 10, 1677, enforcing the navigation
acts.*

With the appointment of Randolph as collector,
surveyor, and searcher of the king's customs, a new
cause of irritation was created, and the colonists
did not hesitate to abuse Randolph himself and to
obstruct his business. How little they loved him
may be inferred from the doggerel verse written in
January, 1679, to greet him after a month's absence
in New Hampshire:

*' Welcome, Sr, welcome from ye easteme shore
With a commission stronger than before

To play the horse-leach; robb us of our fBeeces,
To rend our land, and teare it all to pieces:
Welcome now back againe." '

Randolph, in his turn, had no sympathy with
the colonists, and was determined to do his duty
as he saw it. The colonists hated him and deter-
mined **to entertain him not with joy but grief."
He hated the colonists, and as a connection of the
Mason family, which had fought for twenty years
the claim of Massachusetts to New Hampshire, he
was prejudiced against them beforehand. Further-
more, he was dependent for his salary and position
on the good-will of those in office at home. He was

* Ccd, of State Pap., Col, 1675-1676, §§ 880, 881, 898, 1677-
1680, § 41 ; Toppan, Edward Randolph, I., 77 ; Mass. Col. Records,

v.. 155-

' Farmer and Moore, Historical Collections, III., 30-32.

i679l NEW ENGLAND 261

called upon to justify his employment both to the
Masons and to the Lords of Trade, and the pity
of it is that Massachusetts gave him many oppor-
tunities to prove his usefulness.

In the three years after Randolph's return to New
England, in 1680, his complaints numbered at least
twenty -nine. Of these, twenty -three deal with
nothing except breaches of the navigation acts —
all other questions seemed to him of less conse-
quence. The Mason and Gorges difficulty was set-
tled in 1679, when, by a decision of the Lords Chief-
Justices of the King's Bench and Common Pleas
and by a commission imder the great seal. New
Hampshire was made a crown colony.* Maine,
which Massachusetts had purchased of the heirs
of Gorges in 1678, without the king's consent, was,
by decision of the same judges, restored to its pro-
prietary; but as there was some doubt regarding
the legal assignment of the government, Charles IL,
in June, 1679, took the province into his own hands,
promising to pay Massachusetts the amount of the
purchase money whenever her agents surrendered
the title-deeds to the crown. Needless to say, this
condition was never fulfilled.'

Randolph's charges on trade may be divided into
three groups: (i) He complained that the mer-

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 3d series, VIII., 238-242.

' Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, § 1028; Journal of the
Lords of Trade, III., 21; Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., A 321,
f. 148.

262 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1679

chants and shippers of New England carried on a
constant and direct trade with foreign countries
and exported thither forbidden commodities, neither
giving bonds nor taking oaths; (2) he asserted
that the magistrates and people connived at this
illicit trade, making it impossible for the collector
to get justice in the courts, where the juries always
decided against the king; (3) and he charged that
the colony, maintaining that it was not bound by
the navigation acts of England, had usurped control
of the business by erecting a naval office in 1681,
which practically neutralized his own authority by
keeping all fines and forfeitures for contraband
goods, instead of dividing them between the in-
former and the king.

The lords believed what Randolph told them,
the more so as Culpeper, of Virginia, and Cranfield,
of New Hampshire, supported him. The commit-
tee reported to the king that the government of
Massachusetts was conducted without the slight-
est regard for the authority or the revenue of the
crown, ^ a charge which, in the eyes of the mer-
cantilists, was a sufficient warrant for annulling
the charter.

The colony was threatened with the writ of quo
warranto in 1681, and for two years Randolph con-
tinued to urge its issue on every possible occasion.
In 1682 the Massachusetts government was willing

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, {{ 147, 200, 264, 266,
954, 1129.

1683] NEW ENGLAND 263

to submit on nearly every point in dispute. But
in the mean time the Lords of Trade stiffened their
demands and determined that, even though Mas-
sachusetts should submit, her charter should be
modified. Therefore, they warned the agents that
if the colony would not instruct them to accept such
modifications the king would "cause a quo war-
ranto to be brought against the governor and com-
pany for the abuse of their charter."* The time
was critical. Charles IL was threatening mimici-
pal and other corporations in England, and the
agents, discouraged by the prospect, wrote to the
colony that many of the English corporations had
submitted and they feared that the colony would
have to yield.'

On June 12, 1683, judgment was filed against the
charter of London; and on the next day the Privy
Council ordered the attorney - general to bring a
writ against the Massachusetts company," a writ
which Randolph (in England at the time) was in-
structed to serve upon the colony. Again time and
distance saved the day. Randolph delivered the
writ, but, delayed by accident and by the tactics
of the obstructionist party in the colony, he was

' Col. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685. § 559. See instructions to
agents, Journal of the Lords of Trade, IV., 57-59 (omitted in
the Calendar).

' Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 4th series, VITT., 499.

• Mass. Col. Records, V., 421, 422; Journal of the Lords of
Trade, IV., 173-176; Col. of State Pap., Col., 1681 - 1685,

§1159.

264 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1684

unable to reach England again before the writ
expired.*

A second writ was issued but not sent. The
council finally decided to bring a suit in the court
of chancery upon a writ of scire facias, which, being
against the corporation and not against the indi-
vidual members, would require no delivery in the
colony, and so not be affected by time and distance.
On October 23, 1684, the court adjudged the patent
forfeited,' and Massachusetts stood deprived of her
J / charter.

ff^ With the annulling of the charter of Massachu-
* f setts the lords were confronted with a new problem.
What form of government was ** fittest for the
king's service in these parts?"* They had already
made up their minds that no more proprietary
colonies should be created; for when, in 1682,
Robert Barclay asked for a grant of East New
Jersey, and the earl of Doncaster for a grant of
Florida, they refused, saying **that it was not
convenient for his Majesty to constitute any new
proprieties in America or to grant any further^
powers which may render the plantations less de-
pendent on the crown." *

Although they had already declared in 1684 that

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, §§ 1159, i54it 1566,

1567-
' Toppan, Edward Randolph, I.. 243, 244; Mass. Hist. Soc.,

Collections, 4th series, II., 246-278.

• Journal of the Lords of Trade, V., 21, 22.

* Ibid., IV., 64.

1 68s] NEW ENGLAND 265

the charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island de-
barred them from adding those colonies to Mass-
achusetts, they went deliberately to work to ob-
tain evidence whereon to base new writs of qiw
warranto. Edward Randolph easily obtained suffi-
cient information for them, and with almost no
debate the decision was reached to annul the char-
ters of these colonies, and to add them, as well as
New York, the Jerseys, and Delaware, to the pro-
posed ** dominion *' of New England. The plan for
a g overnor-gener al of New England had been under
consideration for at least eight years,* and was
urged by Randolph and by various governors of
New York. The Lords of Trade came to believe
that it was prejudicial to the king's interest to
have so many independent governments maintained
** without a more immediate dependence on the
crown.'' '

To carry out the new policy. Colonel Percy Kirke
was already selected to be lieutenant and governor-
general of the new dominion of New England. He
had recently come back from Tangier, where his ex -
periences had hardly prepared him for the govern-
ment of a liberty-loving people like the stubborn
inhabitants of Massachusetts. Randolph had wit
enough to know that Kirke was not the proper man,
and repeatedly said so in his appeals to the Lords

> Nowell to Bull, September 26, 1676 (Mass. Hist. Soc., Col-
lections, 4th series, VIII., 573).

• Journal of the Lords of Trade , V., 163.

266 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1686

of Trade and others ; * but Kirke was supported by
Charles II., and his commission was actually drawn
up when Charles died. James had other work for
Kirke to do, and in his place selected Sir Edmund
Andros, who was nominated governor of New
England, May 16, 1686.'

During the interval a temporary government had
been put in force in Massachusetts, with Joseph
Dudley as president and Randolph as secretary,
and many members of the new council were taken
from the old government. The new system differed
in one striking particular from that established
under the charter : the colony no longer possessed a
representative assembly, and a clause authorizing
such an^^isWIlbly was purposely struck out of
Kirke' s commission, probably at the instigation of
the duke of York. Even though the attorney-
general declared that the colonists had the right
**to consent to such laws and taxes as should be
made or imposed on them," notwithstanding the
forfeiture of the charter, James II. struck a sim-
ilar clause out of Dudley's commission. An ad-
miralty system was established in Massachusetts,
and Dudley wrote in June, 1686, that he was pre-
paring to carry out the navigation acts. More seri-
ous still was the proposal to demand new patents

' Toppan, Edward Randolph, I., 247, 248, 259, 261; N. E,
Historical and Genealogical Register, XXXVIL, 269.

'Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections, 5th series, IX., 145-152;
Col, of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, { 680.

i686] NEW ENGLAND 267

of land and to impose quit -rents upon grants
of unoccupied territory/ June 15, 1686, for the
first time an Episcopal church was established in
Boston.^

The government thus erected did not include Con-
necticut and Rhode Island. The Lords of Trade were
far from sure whether charges against them could be
obtained sufficient **to ground such a process on.""
Nothing can be more censurable than the deliberate
way in which the duke of York for his own ad-^
vantage went to work to destroy the independence
of these colonies. Whatever the provocation from
Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had
given none. James, whether as duke or king, had
no appreciation of the term ** liberties of English-
men," and he endeavored to destroy the corpora-
tions in New England, in the interest of his revenues,
with the same indifference he showed in manipulat-
ing corporations in England in the interest of a
Tory majority in Parliament.

Hence, Randolph had no difficulty in finding
** articles of high misdemeanor" against several
colonies, and without discussion or delay the writs
were issued. The stated reason was that the
duke and the Lords of Trade had become con-

» Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, §§ 1928, 1953, 1685-1688,
5 357 ; for the attorney-general's report, see Journal of the Lords of
Trade.V. ,i93\ Toppan^Edward Randolph,! 1 30; IV., 81, 114, 115.

' Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, I., 44.

• Toppan, Edward Randolph, I., 244; Journal of the Lords
of Trade, V., 22; N. Y, Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 340, 341.

268 COLOXIAL SELF-GOVERXICEXT [i6M

vixsced that tt was to the great and giuwiu^ I»cj>
tidice of the king's affairs in tbe plazttatkm ^nd
to ius costoms revenue in Englaiid that soc^ in.
dependent government shoold co atum e to exist.*
Randolph went to America with five writs in hs
pocket — against Rhode Island, Connecticixt^ the two
Jerseys, and Delaware. The first two he delivered
soon after his arrival, recommending to the ccdooies
immediate snbmission. Although the writs had
expired before they were delivered, both cokxiies
gave Randolph the impression that they would be
willing to surrender their charters.'

In the mean time matters did not run smoothly
in Massachusetts under the temporary government.
Dudley and Randolph did not work well together,
the latter thinking the president too considerate
of the "independent faction."* At the same time
an opposition began to gather strength among the
people. Ipswich, Rowley, and Wobum refused to
obey the orders of the government, individuals ut-
tered seditious words and were arrested and impris-
oned, hatred of Randolph became everjrwhere mani-
fest, and every possible obstacle was placed in his
path. So serious had the situation become that

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, i 279; Toppan. Edward
Randolph, I., 257, 258; A^. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 36a.

* Ibid., 368, 386, 387; Conn. Col. Records, III., 352, 356;
R. I. Col. Records, III., 190; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688,

I 794.

■ Toppan, Edward Randolph, IV., 161, i6a; Hutchinson,
Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, I., 350, 351.

i686] NEW ENGLAND 269

Randolph was glad enough when, on December
20, 1686, Andros finally reached Boston and took
charge of the government as governor - general of
the dominion of New England.

The administration of Andros lasted from Decem-
ber, 1686, to April, 1689, a period of two years and
a half. During that time his efforts were directed
to the one great task of erecting a firm, centralized
government for his large territory, besides cultivating
friendship with the Indians, securing his frontiers,
and settling the internal organization according to
his instructions. In this difficult and practically
impossible undertaking he displayed the same qual-
ities he had shown as governor of New York ; but
he had a far more difficult people to deal with,
and was himself much more out of touch with
the principles and ideas that they represented than
he had been with those of the majority of the
New-Yorkers.

The administration of Andros was throughout an
attempt to unite and consolidate a number of self-
governing colonies under the rule of a singleja^,
and to govern them according to a system diamet-
rically opposed to that previously in force. He
had a better appreciation of the difficulties of the
task than had his master, James II.; but as a
soldier and subject it was his business not to use his
own judgment but implicitly to obey the orders
that had been given him. Hence, soon after his
arrival he organized his government, quieted the

270 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1686

disturbed people by friendly promises to uphold
their interests, and took meastires to strengthen
the fortifications around Boston.

The next step was to write to Ptymouth, Rhode
Island, and Connecticut, bidding them surrender
and accept annexation. Plymouth and Rhode
Island submitted, and sent representatives to sit in
Andros's council in December.* On January 12,
1687, Andros dissolved the Rhode Island govern-
ment, broke the seal of the colony, changed the ad-
ministration to that of an English county, and ad-
mitted seven of the inhabitants to his legislative
council.' The Connecticut authorities, upon whom
Randolph had served a second writ, December 28,
1686, replied that they had sent a letter to the
king begging to be allowed to remain as they were.
This letter, which was ambiguously worded, left
the impression upon the minds of the Lords of
Trade that the colony was ready to surrender if the
king insisted; and consequently they recommended
to the king that Andros be instructed to signify
*'his Majesty's good liking and acceptance of their
dutiful submission" and to take them tmder his
government.'

The king's order to this effect, signed at Windsor,

* Toppan, in Amer. Antiq. Soc., Proceedings, October, 1899,
p. 342.

* R. I. Col. Records., III., 219.

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 4th series, II., 297; Journal
of the Lords of Trade, VI., 69; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688.
§§ 1321. 1534; Conn. Col. Records, III., 377, 378.

1687] NEW ENGLAND 271

June 27, 1687, did not reach Andros until October
18. Soon after its receipt the governor, who had
held off because he knew perfectly well that the
colony had not submitted/ wrote to Governor
Treat announcing his purpose of visiting Hartford.
October 26, he left Boston, met the Connecticut
court called in special session on November i, and
read his own commission and the king's special
order.' He dissolved the government, erected a
coxmty organization, appointed judicial and military
officers, and admitted Connecticut representatives
into his council. The colony was thus annexed to
the dominion of New England, but it never sur-
rendered its charter, tradition having it that the
instrument was spirited away and' hidden in an
oak-tree, ' and that the colony was never deprived
of it by any legal process.

The enlargement of the dominion of New Eng-
land by the annexation of Connecticut and Rhode
Island was but preliminary to a larger union of all
the colonies from Delaware Bay to Nova Scotia.
Such a plan had been decided on as early as March,
1686, on the ground that for defence against the
French and Indians one government was better

^ R. 1. Col. Records, III., 224.

' Bulkeley, Will and Doom (Conn. Hist. Soc, Collections,
III., 137-142); Toppan, Edward Randolph, II., 45, 46; Sewall,
Diary, I., 193.

•Trumbull, }Iist. of Conn., I., 390; Bates, in Encyclopedia
Americana, art. "Charter Oak " ; Hoadly, in Acorn Club, Publica-
tions, No. 2, 1900.

272 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1688

than ten;* but not until July 3, 1688, was the
commission to Andros issued whichx constituted
him captain-general and govemor-in-chief of all
that tract of land from forty degrees north latitude
to the St. Croix and St. Lawrence rivers and
westward to the South Sea, Pennsylvania and
Delaware only excepted.' August 11, Andros vis-
ited the newly annexed territory of NciV York and
received from Dongan the seals of office. He
published his authority in the Jerseys, visited
Albany and the Five Nations, and solemnized the
birth of the prince of Wales, news of which event
he received from Boston." Having appointed
Francis Nicholson deputy governor of New York,
he returned to Boston, and soon after journeyed
to Pemaquid, where he made careful inquiry into
the conditions of his frontiers.*

' Toppan, Edward Randolph, IV., 216.

' Journal of the Lords of Trade, VI., 142; A^. V. Docs. Rel.
to Col. Hist., III., 537.

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, §§1877, 1895. 1901;
N. Y. Docs. Rel.toCol. Hist., III., 550-554; N.J. Archives, II., 26.

* Toppan, Edward Randolph, IV., 239-243.

• ' •

• • • •

• "•• . *

• •

CHAPTER XVII

THE REVOLUTION IN AMERICA

(1687-1691)

WHILE James II. was thus consolidating the
royal power in America he was destroying it
in England. A long course of arbitrary acts cul-
minated in the attempt to ** dispense" with the
effect of acts of Parliament in April, 1688. A body
of nobles wanted William of Orange, nephew and
son-in-law of James, to take the throne; he landed
in England November 5 ; James quitted the king-
dom December 22; and in February, 1689, Parlia-
ment offered the crown to William and his wife Mary,
daughter of James. This revolution did much more
than to overturn James II. : it set aside the doctrine
of the divine right of kings and substituted the
authority of Parliament for the royal prerogative;
it demonstrated the right of the people to resist
the claims and demands of their rulers, when these
demands went counter to the needs and the con-
stitutional privileges of their subjects ; and it marked
the close of a long period of constitutional reor-
ganization which had begun with the reforms of the
Long Parliament in 1641.

VOL. V. — 18 273

274 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1687

The English revolution, even in its widest aspect,
was not the cause of the movements in America,
but it often gave shape to the action of the colonists
and direction to their efforts. Local causes were
always operative: fears of the French and Indians,
rumors of Roman Catholic conspiracies, and tales
of governmental plots spread with remarkable
rapidity; they seized upon the imaginations of
the colonists, and provoked action long before the
news that William of Orange had landed reached
any of the colonies. The earliest, the boldest, and
the completest of these local revolutions was in
Massachusetts.

In 1687 Andros undertook to establish his new
dominion at his seat of government, Boston. The
system as defined m his commission was strictly
feudal and autocratic. As governor he was com-
mander-in-chief, vice-admiral, and dispenser of
pardons; and with the advice and consent of his
council he could make laws and impose taxes, erect
courts, administer justice, grant lands, and collect
quit-rents. These were royal powers which in the
hands even of a tactful and conciliatory man would
have aroused opposition in democratic New Eng-
land. In the hands of Andros, who was a soldier
and disciplinarian, a man faithful to duty and accus-
tomed to command, an obedient subject who con-
sidered the orders of the king of more importance
than the wishes of the people, they led to revolution.

The men of Massachusetts, needing to justify

i687] REVOLUTION IN AMERICA 275

their action, and failing to realize that the revolution
was a conflict between two irreconcilable systems
of government, held Andros guilty of injustice,
tyranny, and abuse. They charged him with having
governed arbitrarily and in excess of his powers.
They said that he demanded new patents of land
and imposed quit-rents payable to the king; that
he deprived the people of their liberties in making
laws and imposing taxes without their consent;
that he allowed a faction to control the government,
knowing that it would oppress the colony; that he
authorized tyrannical and illegal laws ; that his ad-
ministration of justice was oppressive and unjust;
that he and his friends made themselves rich by
illegal exactions, fines, and fees ; that he endeavored
to deprive the colony of religious liberty and was a
conspirator in a ** popish plot, '* and that his acts as
vice-admiral brought misery upon the province and
stifled trade.*

A critical study of the acts of Andros in the light
of his instructions shows that these adversaries
grossly exaggerated the burdens of the govern-
ment, and that Andros gave to Massachusetts a
better administration than that of Maryland or Vir-
ginia. Andros did not go beyond his orders. Bluff,
impatient, and hot-tempered he often was, but he
was neither brutal nor oppressive nor beyond the
law.

Indeed, there is not one of these charges that may

' Whitmore, Andros Tracts, I., passim.

276 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1687

not be disproved altogether or shown to be based
on a legitimate attempt of the governor to cany out,
unwisely it may be, the orders of the king. For
example, the allegations that the writs were oppres-
sive is vague and unsubstantial and will not stand
the test of comparison with the facts. The claim
that the colonists were illegally deprived of the
privileges of the Habeas Corpus act is not justified,
inasmuch as the act had no application to the
colonies;* the belief that Andros was engaged in
a Roman Catholic conspiracy was part of that
general suspicion prevalent throughout all the colo-
nies, notably in New York, Maryland, and Virginia,
that the royal and proprietary governors were
planning to call in the French and Indians to over-
throw the Protestants;^ and a reflection from the
corresponding fear in England that was aroused by
the tales of Titus Oates.

Whsit bore most heavily upon the colonists was
not the enforcement of the navigation acts, as Ran-
dolph would have us believe, but the loss of a rep-
resentative assembly. As early as August, 1687,
Ipswicn and 'ropsfield refused to pay taxes levied
without their consent, and later Andover did the
same. Individuals who declared that the existing
situation was one of slavery were called to account
for seditious utterances.* Others, objecting to a

'Carpenter, in Amer. Hist. Review^ VIII., ai.

' Toppan, Edward Randolph, IV., 264, 265.

• Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, §§ 1447, 1534. iv., v.

1689] REVOLUTION IN AMERICA 277

government deprived of the representative princi-
ple, and to all laws of whatever character that were
not made by the people, petitioned the king for an
assembly, but without result.*

With the issue of the new commission in 1688,
the news of the birth of the prince of Wales, and
the rumor in the spring of 1689 that James II.
had taken flight, the excitement in Boston steadily
increased. Since Andros had proclaimed widely the
news of the prince's birth, he roused suspicion by
endeavoring to suppress the declaration of the
prince of Orange.* The agitation spread. ^ The
general buzzing among the people, '* of which An-
dros wrote to BrockhoUs, soon grew into a revolt.
April 18, 1689, the inhabitants of Boston rose
against the government, seized the fort, castle, and
king's frigate, imprisoned Andros, and sent Ran-
dolph to the common jail. **We have been quiet,
hitherto," was their declaration, **but now [that]
the Lord has prospered the undertaking of the
prince of Orange, we think we should follow such
an example. We, therefore, seize the vile persons
who oppressed us.** '

The insurgents established a council, with Brad-
street, the former governor, as its president; and
on May 24, following the example of the English

* Hutchinson, Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, I., 362, n.

^Andros Tracts, I., 75-79, II., 194; Toppan, Edward Ran-
dolph, v., 57.

•Toppan, Edward Randolph, IV., 271-281; Cal. of State
Pap., Col., 1689-1692, §§ 152, 196, 261.

rt-.ji-j. --t.-

278 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1689

revolutionists, they summoned a convention, and
re-established the government according to the old
charter. With the arrival of a vessel from England
on May 26, bearing orders for the proclamation of
William and Mary, all danger was over. The joy
of the people was intense, for the revolution had
been bloodless, as had been that in England.

Connecticut and Rhode Island, on hearing of the
revolution in England, resimied their charter gov-
ernments and restored their organization as it had
been before the arrival of Andros. This act was
upheld by legal opinion in England on the ground
that the charters, having never been surrendered,
remained good and valid in law; and that the
corporations, notwithstanding their submission to
the authority of Andros,* had a perfect right to
execute again the powers and privileges that had
originally been granted them. None of the many
attempts made afterwards to invalidate their char-
ters proved successful.

Massachusetts was, however, to suffer for her
former stubbornness and excessive caution. Even
while Andros was in power, the agent of the colony,
Increase Mather, tried to persuade King James to
restore the charter. The king replied with fair
words, promising a ** Magna Charta of Liberty";

* Conn. Col. Records, III., 250-253; R. I. Col. Records, III.,
257; Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections, 5th series, IX., 175; Hutchin-
son, Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, I., 406, 407; Cal. of State Pap.^
Col., 1689-1692, § 746.

1691] REVOLUTION IN AMERICA 279

but nothing further was done. From time to time
rumors came to the colony that the old charter was
to be restored ; and the attorney-general, Sir Thomas
Powys, a very fair-minded man, raised hopes by
stating that the charter had been illegally vacated.*
Yet, notwithstanding every effort of Massachusetts,
William III. took the ground that the government
under the old charter had been insubordinate; and
when in 1 69 1 a revised charter was granted, it created
a government of the type of New York or New Jer-
sey, instead of the old, popular government.

In Maryland the beginning of the storm came
in the autumn and winter of 1688, when reports
of an Indian attack became current ; and many be-
gan to believe once more that the Jesuits were in
league with the French and Indians to massacre
the Protestants. For a time excitement ran high,
notably on the Eastern Shore; and it was only
after strenuous efforts by those who knew the false-
ness of the rumors that the terrors were allayed.'
Scarcely was this crisis passed, when new reports
spread regarding the policy of the proprietary. In
December came the flight of James II., and in Feb-
ruary, 1689, William and Mary became sovereigns
of England.

After the receipt of the news in the colony,
weeks passed before any proclamation of the new

^ CaL of State Pap., Col., 1689 -1692, §152; Hutchinson,
Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, I., 373; Andros Tracts, III., 130.
' Henry Darnell's narrative {Md. Archives ^ VIII., 156).

28o COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1689

king and queen was made in Maryland. Baltimore,
it seems, had sent the necessary instructions, but
the orders never reached the province/ The delay,
for which Baltimore was in no way responsible,
gave strength to the rumor that he did not intend
to proclaim the new sovereigns, but was planning to
make Maryland a Roman Catholic colony by force.
The people believed that Governor Joseph, who did
not dare act without authority, was concealing his
orders for purposes of his own; and so great was
the excitement that Colonel Spencer, of Virginia,
wrote to William Blathwayt, secretary of the Privy
Council and auditor general, prophesying an up-
rising of the people and the proclamation of Will-
iam and Mary * ' to the entire disorganization of the
government." ^

Such was the situation in the spring and summer
of 1689: the proprietary was absent, irritating con-
flicts were taking place in the assembly, and a plot
was brewing against the government. The revolu-
tion in England, which drove a Roman Catholic
from the throne, gave to the hostile Protestant
faction in Maryland a precedent and an example
for revolutionary action.

In April, 1689, an association was formed, with
John Coode at its head, for the purpose of defend-
ing the Protestant religion and asserting the right of

* The messenger died at Plymouth. See Md. Archives ^
XIII., 113, 114.

^ Ibid.t 112; Cal, of State Pap., Cot., 1689-1692, § 92.

1689] REVOLUTION IN AMERICA 281

William and Mary to the province of Maryland.
Coode began to raise an armed force on the Poto-
mac,* and was joined by Jowles, colonel of the
militia, Blakiston, collector of customs, and Chesel-
dyne, speaker of the assembly. The rebels hav-
ing seized St. Mary's and captured the records on
July 27, issued a proclamation in which they de-
fended their course and presented a large number
of grievances framed for revolutionary purposes.'
August I , Coode attacked and took Mattapany fort.
Lord Baltimore's residence, where lay the leaders
of the proprietary party, and with this capture
of the headquarters came into possession of the
government. The leaders at once despatched an
address to William and Mary, couched in terms of
fulsome flattery, laying the province at their feet;
they issued summons for the election of an assembly,
and on September 10 proclaimed the new sovereigns.
The Maryland revolution was complete.

Baltimore made zealous eflorts to recover his
province, but was entirely imsuccessful. The new
Lords of Trade were determined to adopt the policy
of their predecessors, and in the interest of trade
and military defence to bring all the colonies into a
closer . dependence upon the crown.* The Lords
having no special reason to favor Baltimore, they

* Henry Dameirs narrative (Md. Archives, VIII., 156).

* Ibid., 101-107; Steiner, Revolution of i68g, 299-302;
Sparks, 102-107.

* Col, of State Pap., Col., 1 689-1 692, §§ 102, 124.

«wi

282 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT (1688

listened with patience to the presentation of both
sides of the case; and King William, desiring a
settled government in the colonies as well as
at home, was naturally friendly to the Protes-
tants.

Just at this point the situation was rendered
worse for Baltimore by the murder of John Payne,
collector of customs and a prominent member of the
association in Maryland, by the sailors of Sewall,
Baltimore's step-son. The king and his council had
every reason to think that Baltimore's party was
the aggressor, and this belief gave weight to the list
of grievances that the association sent to be laid
before the king.'

Though no legal proceedings were instituted
against Baltimore's charter; and though Baltimore
himself was never formally deprived of his province,
the result for the time being was the practical loss
of the charter. The king, reserving to Baltimore
his revenue and land titles unimpaired, took the
government into his own hands, and sent over
Copley as governor, with orders to investigate the
situation and to report to the Lords of Trade.
Copley arrived in Maryland, and on April 9, 1692,
opened the first assembly under the royal govern-
ment. He made no investigation of the rights of
the case and sent no report. The question was not
again brought up for discussion by the English

^ Md. Archives^ VIII., 163, 219-220, 241-262, 307-312; Col,
of State Pap., Col,, 1689-1692, ( 1206.

1689] REVOLUTION IN AMERICA 283

authorities, but for a quarter of a century Maryland
remained a royal province.

In New York the effect of the English revolu-
tion was even more picturesque and dramatic
than in Maryland. Though no democratic insti-
tutions had been recognized by the royal proprie-
tary, the prevailing discontent was so active as to
render it certain that the English colonists in the
city and adjacent counties would take an early ad-
vantage of every dilemma in which the king might
find himself.

For a few months after the appointment of
Nicholson, in 1688, matters went smoothly, and
negotiations with the Indians formed the most im-
portant part of the duties of the deputy governor.
Then came rumors of the revolution in England;
in April, 1689, the report that Andros had been
seized and imprisoned in Bostoa. Finally word
was brought that Louis XIV. had declared war on.
England, and that the French were preparing a new
invasion of colonial territory. New York and the
adjoining towns at once revealed their latent dis-
like of the royal government. The towns of east-
em Long Island, and likewise those of Queens and
Westchester coimties, drove out the king's officers
and set up others of their own.' Eastern Long
Island demanded that the forts should be placed
in the hands of such men as they could trust,
and the militia of New York drew up a loyal ad-

* N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 575.

284 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1689

dress to the new sovereigns. Nicholson, in lack
of oflScial orders to proclaim William and Mary,
hesitated, and contented himself with summoning
the cotmcil, city magistrates, and officers of the
militia to consult "how best to allay the uproar
and rebellion." *

Tactful and conciliatory measures at this jtmcture
might have calmed the people, but Nicholson lost
his temper and gave utterance to words that stirred
the people to wrath.^ In May, 1689, the rumor
spread that he was going to bum the city and that
the inhabitants were to be "sold, betrayed, and
murdered." Led by a German merchant, Jacob
Leisler, a man of energy and ability, but rash in
action and careless of the means employed, a faction
of the people seized the fort and refused to obey
their legally constituted authorities. The uprising
in New York, like that in Maryland, was directed,
ostensibly, at least, against the "papists"; and
there is reason to think the Maryland movement
served as an incentive to the New-Yorkers.* On
June 10, Nicholson foolishly deserted his post, took
ship for England, and left the government in the
hands of three of the council — Phillips, Cortlandt,
and Bayard. Leisler, disregarding their authority,
summoned a convention composed of delegates from

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III.. 587, 591.

* Cortlandt to Andros, ibid., 594; CaL of State Pap,, Col.,
1689-1692, § 190.

* Doc. Hist, of New York (octavo ed.), II., 2$, 31, 42,
Z8Z-183.

1690] REVOLUTION IN AMERICA 285

seven of the counties, which in its turn appointed
him captain of the fort and commander-in-chief of
the* province with almost dictatorial powers.*

Notwithstanding this commission Leisler desired
a more legal warrant for his position, and an oppor-
tunity to obtain one soon came: for on December
II, 1689, orders arrived from King William, author-
izing Nicholson, or in his absence **such as for
the time being take care for preserving the peace,"
to assimie the full governorship of the province;
Leisler seized the doctmient and claimed that it
applied to him. With this order as his commission
he established a government for the city, appointed
justices, sheriffs, clerks, collectors, and officers of
the militia. He beat down all opposition, and though
upheld by only a minority of the people, was able
to overawe the remainder. Albany at first refused
to recognize his authority, but finally yielded, in
March, 1690, because of Indian troubles.^

The English government received early informa-
tion of the rebellion, but the Lords of Trade were
involved in a multitude of vexatious problems
connected with the colonies, and had in their hands
the appointment of at least six new colonial govern-
ors. Yet they acted promptly and with wisdom,
and in August, 1689, recommended that a governor

* Doc. Hist, of New York (octavo ed.)» II. 1 11, 2$.

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III.. 606; Doc. Hist, of New
York, II., 45. 51, S3, 56. 65. 66. 77-79, 97-99. ^oS, 117. 120, lai,
xa7, 128, I4S, 148, 150-154, i79-i8a, 291, 347-354, 3^9. 430-

286 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1690

be selected at once, and that troops be sent to over-
throw the rebellion. In September the king com-
missioned Henry Sloughter as governor, and au-
thorized the raising of two companies of troops.
Partly because of confusions in the admiralty of-
fice and partly because of deliberate intention (so
Sloughter believed), the expedition was delayed
month after month till November 12, 1690, while
the Lords of Trade and the enemies of Leisler con-
tinually urged the importance of speedy departure.
Though the troops reached the city in February,
Leisler refused to yield to Ingolsby, their captain,
and Sloughter did not arrive in New York till March
16, 1691/

On his arrival, however, Leisler surrendered, and
in May was tried, and, with his son-in-law, Milbome,
was sentenced to be hanged. Sloughter, to his
shame be it said, signed the death-warrant, and the
sentence was carried out.' Leisler was no traitor;
he was loyal to his sovereigns; and though he had
been the chief actor in a rebellion, he had done so
believing that he was upholding a righteous cause.
His methods were tyrannical and his government
was often unnecessarily harsh, but he was no more
deserving of death than were his compatriots in
Massachusetts and Maryland.

» Cal. of State Pap., Col, 1689-1692. §§ 395. 399. 451, 887,
891, 89a, 897, 939, 1013, 1020, 1040, 1076, p. 429, 1465; AT. y.
Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 761.

^ Doe. Hist, of New York, II.. 372-382, 386. 433, 434.

1691] REVOLUTION IN AMERICA 287

After Leisler's rebellion and the change of sov-
ereigns in England, a continuance of arbitrary gov-
ernment in New York was impossible. By his
commission, Sloughter was instructed to summon
an assembly of the freeholders, who were to join
with governor and council in the making of laws.*
April 9, 1 69 1, the first assembly tmder the new
commission met, and on May 13 passed an act
"declaring what are the rights and privileges of
their Majesties* subjects in New York." This act
was practically a duplicate of the charter of 1683,
except that it called for annual instead of triennial
elections, defined a freeholder as one possessing
forty shillings a year in freehold, and disfranchised
Roman Catholics. Strangely enough, this statute,
less liberal than that which the duke of York
had approved, was annulled by the Protestant
William on the ground that it granted **too great
and unreasonable privileges."" ' Though from this
time forward New York possessed representative
government, the rights and privileges of the people
in their assemblies remained undefined, and the
struggle for free press and free speech continued |
for a quarter of a century longer. _^jU-r'

' A^. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 624; Colonial Laws of
New York, I., 221.

* Colonial Laws of New York, I., 244-248; N. Y, Docs. Rel,
to Col. Hist., IV., 263, 264.

■\

\ I

CHAPTER XVIII

SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS LIFE IN THE COLONIES

(1652-1689)

THE number of the colonists in 1689 may be esti-
mated at from two hundred thousand to two
hundred and fifty thousand, variously distributed:
New Hampshire contained about five thousand in-
habitants; Massachusetts, including Plymouth and
Maine, fifty thousand ; Rhode Island, four thousand ;
Connecticut, between seventeen and twenty thou-
sand; New York, between eighteen and twenty
thotisand; East New Jersey, somewhat fewer than
ten thousand; West New Jersey, four thousand;
Pennsylvania and Delaware, twelve thousand ; Mary-
land, thirty thousand; Virginia, between fifty and
sixty thousand; North Carolina, between two and
three thousand ; and South Carolina not more than
three thousand.

The territory thus occupied extended for about a
thousand miles from Pemaquid to Charles Town, for
the colonists passed but short distances back from
the ocean, and then chiefly along the navigable
rivers. Between adjoining colonies, even in 1689,
boundaries were largely imdefined, and, except where

288

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 289

rivers determined the line of division, were destined
to be a source of perplexity and trouble, in some
instances for a century to come. Territorial claims
growing out of conflicting royal grants continued to
offer to the colonists difficult and vexatious prob-
lems that could be solved only by compromise and
agreement; and unfortunately in some cases the
mutual good will essential to such a solution was
wanting.

In the main the settlers were of English stock.
New England was ethnically almost homogeneous,
though' a few French Huguenots, Scots-Irish, and
Jews were found scattered among her people. In
New York more than half the inhabitants were
Dutch, the remainder English and French, the
former largely predominating^ and a sufficient num-
ber of Jews to warrant the building of a synagogue.*
New Jersey was largely English, though there were
many Scots, Dutch, and French living here and
there in the towns and plantations. West New
Jersey contained many Swedes and Dutch as well
as English; and Pennsylvania was a composite of
Finns, Swedes, Dutch, Germans, Scots, Welsh, and
English. Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina
were settled by Englishmen only; South Carolina,
on the other hand, a colony of one city, had already
begun to show diversity of stocks, and though in
large part settled by Englishmen, included French-

* Miller, Description of New York, 31, 37; Lodwick. '* Account
of New York," Shane MSS., in British Museum, 3339, f. 252.

VOL.V.— 1©

290 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

men and Scots among its inhabitants. Not tmtil
the next century, however, did the immigration
of Swiss, Scots-Irish, and German palatines into
South Carolina begin in earnest.

This population • was made up of free settlers,
bond servants, and slaves, though bondage and
slavery played a very small part in New England,
where the economic conditions were unfavorable
to such labor. Still, Randolph could report two
hundred slaves there in 1676,* and we know that,
notwithstanding the Quaker protest against the
slave-trade in Rhode Island, Newport was the
receiving and disbursing centre for most of the
negroes who were brought from Guinea and Mada-
gascar.' In New York slaves were used chiefly
as body - servants and for domestic purposes,
and Coxe mentions four in West New Jersey in
1687.

Even in the South the economic importance of
slavery was as yet hardly recognized, and though
there were ma^y slaves in Maryland, Virginia, and
South Carolina, they did not form the indispensable
laboring class that they afterwards became. Berke-
ley, writing in 1671, said that there were forty thou-
sand persons in Virginia, of whom two thousandJ^ere
** black slaves" and six thousand "ChristJOT ser-
vants"; and that in the preceding seven years but
two or three ships of negroes had come to the

' Hutchinson Papers , XL, 219.

• Amer. Antiq. Soc., Proceedings, October, 1887, p. iii.

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 291

colony.* Yet the numbers increased rapidly, and
towards the end of the century a planter, stocking
a new plantation, was able to draw his supply
from the colony itself.'

/During the seventeenth century in the south,
white servants were preferred to the negroes as
laborers] and Berkeley could say that fifteen hundred
came every year to Virginia. Many were Irish and
Scottish, but the great mass of the servants was
English. They came to America under the in-
denture or redemption system, according to which
servants boimd themselves to work for a certain
number of years, generally from four to six, on the
lands or in the houses of the masters who advanced
money to pay the shipmasters for their passage.]
This practice became one of the most efficient
aids to colonization in the seventeenth century,
and thousands of settlers came to America imder
this obligation to labor. The New-Englanders had
few servants, except on hired wages,' but they
experimented with Indians, who proved very in-
efficient as laborers and servants, being not only
inapt but unwilling.

Writers differ somewhat in their estimates of the
servant's life in America. Bankers and Sluyter,
the Labadist missionaries, strongly prejudiced

* Berkeley's Answers to Queries, in Public Record Office,
Colonial Papers, XXVI., No. 77, i.

* Bruce, Econ. Hist, of Virginia, XL, 87, 88.
■ Hutchinson Papers, II., 219.

292 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

against the practice, spoke in terms of severe con-
demnatiori of the ''planter's avarice, which must be
fed and sustained by the bloody sweat of their poor
slaves." * But other accoimts are more favorable.
Alsop, himself an indentured servant, believed that
the position was less grievous than that of the or-
dinary apprentice in England.' Hammond says
that servants were not put to *' so hard or continu-
ous labor as husbandmen and handicraftsmen were
obliged to perform in England. . . . Little or noth-
ing is done," he adds, **in winter time, none ever
work before sunrising or after sunset. In the sum-
mer they rest, sleep, or exercise themselves five
hours in the heat of the day; Saturday afternoon
is always their own, the old holidays are observed,
and the Sabbath spent in good exercise."* G. L.,
writing from West New Jersey, confirms this account
when he says that ' ' servants work here, not so much
by a third as they do in England, and I think feed
much better, for they have beef, pork, bacon, pud-
ding, milk, butter, fish, and fruit more plentiful than
in England, and good beer and syder." *

However hard the servant's life may have been,
there was always the expectation of serving their
time and becoming hired laborers at two shillings
or two shillings and sixpence a day. Some of the

* Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 191, 192.

' Alsop, Character of the Province of Maryland, chap. iii.
■ Hammond, Leah and Rachel, 12.

* ** Quaker's Accoimt of New Jersey," Rawlinson MSS,, in
Bod. Lib., D 810, f. 55.

(

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 293

best of the later colonists, particularly in the south,
traced their descent to industrious indentured ser-
vants who "crept** out of their condition/ got good
estates of cattle, houses, and servants of their own,
and became husbandmen and freeholders.*

During the period from 1650 to 1690 the colonists
gained steadily in the conveniences and comforts
of living/ Food and shelter were easily obtainable,
and in the large towns even luxury prevailed to a
small extent. There was sometimes serious suffering
from the miseries of Indian attacks, the frequency
of serious sickness, and in the north the inclemency
of the winter. In South Carolina many of the new-
comers complained of tha miseries of chills and
fever — "seasoning** they called it; and in Mary-
land and Virginia there was a good deal of pov-
erty owing to the flucttiations of the tobacco crop.
Moryson, speaking for Virginia in 1676, said that the
"better sort*' lived on poultry, hogs, and what deer
and fowl their servants could kill for them. They
drank, though "this not common,** beer and ale.'

Thomas Newe, in 1682, foimd the people of Charles
Town drinking molasses and water, and learned
that no ipalt up to that time had been made in
the colony.* In the Jerseys beer was a common

* "Quaker's Account of New Jersey " Rawlinson Af55., in
Bod. Lib., D 810, f. 55; Hammond, Leah and Rachel, 14; Wil-
son, Account of Carolina (Carroll, Hist. Collections, II., 24).

' Moryson 's ''Answers," Rawlinson A/SS., in Bod. Lib., A
185, f. 256.

■ Mewe to his father, May 17, 1682, ibid., D 810, f. 53.

294 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

drink, and we hear occasionally of brew-houses, and
meet with requests sent to England for brewers.
Cider was used chiefly in the middle and northern
colonies, and occasionally brandy and wines were
obtainable, when vessels from the West Indies and
Canaries came to the colonies.

The ''ordinary sort" of people in Virginia, Mary-
land, and Delaware lived on Indian coni, **a grain
of general use to man and beast." **They beat it in
a mortar," says a traveller, *'and get the husks from
it, and then boyle it with a piece of beef or salted
pork with some kidney-beans, which is much like
to pork and pease at sea, but they call it hommony."
The people ate also bread made of the same com,
ground by hand, for grist-mills, common in New
England, were scarce in the southern colonies; and
raised a few vegetables, often of the coarsest kind.*
Cook describes the planter's home in Maryland in
words that may well be based on experience :

*' So after hearty Entertainment,
Of Drink and victuals without Pa5nnent;

For Planters* Tables, you must know,

Are free for all that come and go.
While Pon and Milk, with Mush well stoar'd,
In wooden Dishes grac'd the Board;

With Homine and Syder-pap,

(Which scarce a hungry Dog wou'd lap)
Well stuflfd with Fat, from Bacon fry'd,
Or with Molassus dulcify 'd." '

* Moryson's ''Answers," Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., A 185,
f. 256; Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 217, 218; Sloane MSS., in
British Museum, 2291, f. i.

' Cook, SoUWeed Factor (Md. Hist. Soc, Fund Publications
No. 36), 4.

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 295

( In South Carolina the conditions were better, \
and Wilson assures us that while thpse living near
the marshes were subject to ague, settlers on the
higher ground did very well. He says that the
soil was fertile /and produced good com, excellent
pasture, wheat, rye, barley, oats, pease, and garden
vegetables in large variety ; that cattle, sheep, horses,
and other animals were easily raised, while negroes
thrived better than in the north and required fewer
clothes, which, as he naively remarks, ''is a great
charge saved." * Thomas Newe's letters to his
father give a favorable view of the colony, and are
especially valuable as the unbiased impressions of
a new-comer. *'The soil," he writes, '*is generally
very light, but apt to produce whatever is put into
it. There are already all sorts of English fruit and
garden herbs, besides many others I never saw in
England." He thinks that the colony is in very
good condition, considering the fact that most of
the first settlers were ** tradesmen, poor and wholly
ignorant of husbandry, and till of late but very few
in number, so that their whole business was to
clear a little groimd to get bread for their families,
few of them having wherewithal to purchase a
cbw."

« As for prices, Newe thought things dear in
Cliarles Town : milk, 2d. a quart ; beef, ^d. a pound ;
pork, 3d. a potmd, **but far better than our Eng-
lish" ; ' and he attributes these prices to the fact that

* Wilson, in Carroll, Hist. Collections, IL, 26, 27.

296 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

" cattle sold so well to new-comers that the planters
,8aved none for killing," being furnished by the

/Indians with fowl, fish, and venison **for a trifle." * ^
G. L. shows that prices were a little lower in West
New Jersey, and quotes pork at 2^d. a pound,
beef and venison id. a pound, a fat buck 55. or 65.,
Indiai com at 25. 6d. a bushel, oats 2s., and barlev
25.' By witness of all, money was very scarce,
payment being made in natural products, or oc-

'casionally in Spanish coin, receivable in England
at four or five shillings less in the pound than in
the colonies.

In Pennsylvania, New York, and New England
the standard of living was higher than in Maryland
and Virginia, for the attention of the colonists was
not absorbed in the cultivation of tobacco to the
neglect of other staple products of the soil. Many
fruits and vegetables were raised, and others were
found growing in the woods; cows, sheep, goats, hogs,
as well as geese and chickens, were easily cared for ;
and in the large cities of the north, and of the south
as well, colonial products, such as cloves, pepper,
and other spices, could be found, brought from
England or the West Indies. In many of the col-
onies, notably South Carolina, Maryland, and the
Jerseys, oysters were obtainable in large quanti-
ties from the river mouths and inlets, and every-

* Newe to his father, Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., D 810,

ff- 53. 54-

* ** Quaker's Account of New Jersey," ibid., £.55.

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 297

where fish was plentiful, and venison was easily
procured, i

1 Houses were at first of logs ; later frame buildings,
clfitpboarded and shingled, were erected^ In West
New Jersey, says G. L., **the poorer sort set up a
house of two or three rooms themselves in this
manner. Their walls are cloven timber about
three inches broad, like planks, set upon end in the
ground, the other [end] nailed to the raising, which
they plaster warm, and they build a bam after the
same manner." ^ Bankers and Sluyter mention
similar houses in East New Jersey, **rude in struct-
ure but comfortable, constructed of trees split and
stood on end and shingled.** ' The great majority
of houses everywhere were built of wood, often
larger than those just mentioned, having two or
three rooms to a floor, and in New Engl§md a sec-
ond floor, an attic, and generally a lean-to. ^ A few of
the southern plantations boasted elaborate wooden
houses. j

In the cities some brick buildings existed. In
1660 Boston was a great town, with two churches,
a State-house, market-place, and good shops;* in
1679 it was described as ** a large city on a fine bay,
with three churches, the houses covered with thin
cedar shingles nailed against frames and then filled

* '* Quaker's Account of New Jersey/* Rawlinson MSS., in
Bod. Lib., D 810, f. 55.

» Bankers and Sluyter, Journal, 173, 175.

* Maverick, Description of New England (N. E. Historical
and Genealogical Register, XXXIX., 43).

298 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

with bricks and other stuff." * Maverick describes
Plymouth and New Haven as poor towns, the latter
not as glorious as it once was ; Hartford as a gallant
town with many rich men in it.'j (Albany had
about two hundred houses,! mostly of stone and
brick, and a fort fifteen feet high, made of logs.
New York had eight himdred houses built of the
same materials, and a fort, with four bastions and
thirty-nine guns, well maintained and garrisoned
with a large body of soldiers. It faced the harbor,
in which Governor Dongan thought a thousand
ships might ride safe from wind and weather. Its
chaplain, Wolley, was not very favorably impressed
with the appearance of the city, but Denton thought
it exceedingly pleasing with its houses covered with
red tiles.*

Across the river were the towns of East New
Jersey, small and unpretentious, though Elizabeth
had a court-house, a prison, and six hundred in-
habitants, and was the largest and most important
in the region. Perth Aniboy was well situated at
the head of a spacious harbor, into which, says
G. L., a ship of three hundred tons btirden could
''safely come and ride close to the shore within a
plank's length just before the houses of the town.
. . . The land there,** continues the same writer,

* Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 394, 395.

* Maverick, Description, 45, 47.

■ Wolley, Two Years' Journal, 55; Denton, Brief Description
of New York, 2 ; Dongan's Answers to Queries (1687) , Cal. of State
Pap., Col., 1685-1688, }3a7.

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 299

*'is not low, swampy, marsh groimd, but pretty
high grotmd, rising thirty, in some places forty, foot
high, and yet hath many conveniences for landing
goods."* The whole region from the Hudson to
the Delaware, according to the testimony of many
witnesses, was healthful and fertile, and many of
the correspondents of this period think a man
better off in New Jersey and Pennsylvania than in
England.'

From East New Jersey to West New Jersey and
Philadelphia one stepped into a different social at-
mosphere. There were large places like Burlington,
Salem, and Gloucester, centres of commerce and
trade, and readily accessible '*in boats from a
small canoe to vessels of thirty, forty, fifty, and in
some places of a hundred tons." * Gabriel Thomas
describes Burlington as a famous town, with many
stately brick houses, a great market - house, with
markets and fairs to which the people from the
country round were wont to gather; while outside
the town were country-houses for the gentry,
gardens and orchards, bridges and ferries over the
rivers.* Wherry boats plied across the Delaware
to Philadelphia, already a large and commodious
town, with wharves and timber-yards, ship-yards

* " Quaker's Account of New Jersey," Rawlinson MSS., in
Bod. Lib., D 810, f. 55.

' Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, App., passim.
■ " Quaker's Accotint of New Jersey," Rawlinson MSS.^ in
Bod. Lib., D 810, f. 55.

* Thomas, Description of West New Jersey, 15, 19.

300 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

and rope-walks. Near by were four market towns
— Chester, Germantown, New Castle, and Lewistoti \
— among which watermen plied their wherries.
Farther back in the coimtry were villages — ^Haver-
ford, Merioneth, and Radnor — ^whose names betray
their Welsh origin.

Passing from the Delaware to the Chesapeake, a
traveller entered still another environment, and,
as he pushed down the eastern shore, journeyed
generally on foot or by boats from plantation to
plantation, crossing many creeks and rivers, and
lengthening his course by circuitous routes around
marshy places and impassable morasses. On the
high ground lived the planters, rich and poor, with
their servants and slaves. Nowhere in Maryland
were there compact settlements such as we find
in New England, nor yet were the conditions ex-
actly the same as those in Virginia. The Puritan
settlement, Annapolis, was a town, and the names
of Oxford Town, Calvert Town, Charles Town, and
Battle Town bear witness to the efforts of the
proprietary to erect centres of population in his
province. His best endeavors were never very suc-
cessful; even St. Mary's City, the seat of govern-
ment, was without social or economic unity, for its
inhabitants lived for thirty miles along the bay.
Virginia, on the other hand, had not a semblance of
a town. As contemporary writers put it, *' there
were neither towns, markets, nor money,'* * only

* Hart well, Blair, and Chilton, Present State of Virginia.

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 301

scattered plantations along the rivers, each with its
wharf and landing-place, an independent, self- *
sufficing community, fin North Carolina, if we
may judge from the accoimt given by George Fox
in his journal, the inhabitants lived as widely
separated from one another as in Virginia, com-^
municating with difficulty /knd at rare inter\'als.
South Carolina had one cityl Charles Town, situated
on low grotmd at the jtmction of the Ashley and
Cooper rivers. Fotmded as a village of a few
houses in 1680, it had risen by 1682 to be a town of
one himdred structures, all built of wood, though
there appears to have been good material for
brick in the neighborhood. The city faced an ex-
cellent harbor, was capable of strong defence, and
was readily approached by small vessels and (with
the aid of a pilot) by ships of many tons burden.
In the immediate neighborhood were a few planta-
tion settlements, but up to 1689 no attempts were
made to push back the frontier and explore the
interior.

Among the colonies, as a whole, communication
was infrequent. Coasting vessels ran from New
England to New York, the Delaware, Virginia, and
Carolina, and larger ships occasionally put in from
England or the West Indies. Transportation was
almost entirely by water ; horses were used at times
for cross-cotmtry travel, but they were expensive,
and the colonists bred them rather for export than
for use. Land travel was generally on foot, and

302 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

consequently the mass of the people journeyed very
little.

Habits and modes of life throughout all the
colonies were of the very simplest sorti Very few
houses were elaborately furnished, and, except in
the commercial centres, few fabrics or furniture of
English or foreign manuf acttu-e were seen. It is ex-
traordinarily rare to find a settler, like Giles Brent
of Maryland, boasting of three estates, well stocked,
large quantities of gold and silver plate, many
precious stones, including '*one great diamond"
worth ;^2oo, tapestry wrought with gold and silk,
linen, pewter, and brass suflScient to furnish two
large houses, and **a fair library of books" worth
;^i4o.^ One can but wonder if Brent had friends
among the buccaneers.

Daily intercourse was devoid of ceremonial, and,
in New England especially, social standards, though
often rigid and even aristocratic, were free from
the strict class distinctions of English society. In
New York, among the officials of the city and
the soldiers of the garrison, and in the southern
colonies among councillors, governors, and propri-
etaries, English practices and ceremonies prevailed.

An example of stateliness was the ftmeral of
William Lovelace. The room in which the de-
ceased lay was heavily draped with mourning and
adorned with the escutcheons of the family. At

' Copley c. Ingle, Admiralty Court ^ Libels, Public Record
Office, 107, No. 265.

i689] SOCIAL LIFE 303

the head of the body was a pall of death's-heads,
and above and about the hearse was a canopy
richly embroidered, from the centre of which hung
a garland and an hour-glass. At the foot was a
gilded coat of arms, four feet square, and near by
were candles and fumes which were kept con-
tinually burning. At one side was placed a cup-
board containing plate to the value of £200. The
ftmeral procession was led by the captain of the
company to which the deceased had belonged,
followed by the "preaching minister," two others of
the clergy, and a squire bearing the shield. Before
the body, which was borne by six ** gentlemen
bachelors," walked two maidens in white silk,
wearing gloves and ** Cyprus scarves," and behind
were six others similarly attired, bearing the pall.
After the maidens came the uncle of the deceased.
Governor Francis Lovelace, and his councillors, and
four halberts wearing coats richly embroidered
with crests. Then, preceded by the mace, came the
mayor of the city, the aldermen, and a long line of
ship - captains, burghers, and others, Dutch and
English, walking two and two. The procession
wended its way to the fort, where amid salvos of
musketry the body was lowered into the grave.
Until ten o'clock at night wines, sweetmeats, and
biscuits were served to the mourners.*

> *' Funeral Solemnities at the Interment of Mr. William Love-
lace at New York, 1671" {Ashmolean MSS,, in Bod. Lib.,
846, f. 54).

304 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

Such elaborate and expensive ceremonies were
elsewhere unknown to the colonists; usually the
commemorations of births, ma^pages, and deaths ^
were exceedingly tmpretentious. Money was scarce, ■
and while a few governors, like Berkeley in Virginia,
kept a coach and pair, and could have diamond-
shaped panes in the windows of their house^ even the
royal appointees at this time made but little attempt
at ostentatious display^ Exhibitions of wealth and
of family arms and crests were hardly in keeping
with the temper of the colonists ; and though there
were families of rank in New England as well as
in Virginia, there was little opporttmity, and less
desire, to exercise the prerogatives of rank. \
\ Outside New England, religious and intellectual
life was as yet undeveloped. The Church of Eng-
land was to all intents and purposes the estab-
lished church of South Carolina, as it was of Virginia^''
and there are few traces of other denominations,
though Nonconformists had aided in settling the
colony. Virginia in 167 1 had forty-eight parishes,
and presumably as many ministers, though that
does not necessarily follow. ^ Berkeley spoke of the
ministers as well paid, but wished that they would
pray oftener and preach less, and said that no
ministers of ability had come to Virginia since " the
persecution in Cromwell's tyranny drew divers
worthy men hither." *

* Berkeley's Answers to Queries (MSB. in Public Record Office,
Colonial Papers, XXVI. , No. 77, i.).

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 305

(Maryland has been considered the strongest
Anglican colony} but the strength of the church in
Maryland has been exaggerated. \ Three-quarters of
the colonists were Dissenters, and of the remainder
a considerable number were Roman Catholics) In
1676, John Yeo reported only three ministers of the
Church of England in Maryland, though he spoke
of others who pretended to be such **that never
had a legal ordination." In 1677, ^ven Baltimore
could mention only^ f our ministers with planta-
tions of their own.* Contemporary evidence shows
clearly that in many ways the condition of the
church in Maryland was deplorable. Yeo, writ-
ing from Pawtuxent to the archbishop of Canter-
bury in 1676, bewails the state of the province,
calling it a Sodom of uncleanness and a pest-house
of iniquity. Bankers and Sluyter speak of the re-
ligious life there as stagnant, the people as god-
less and profane, listening neither to God nor to
His commandments, and having neither church nor
cloister.' This statement may be deemed a prej-
udiced one, as the narrators were Labadists, seeking
a home for their sect in America ; nevertheless it is
borne out by the petition of Mary and Michael Tany
of Calvert Town, who about 1685 prayed king,
archbishop, and all the bishops of England to send
over a minister to a suffering community, where the
people were too poor, on account of the navigation

* CaL of State Pap., Col. yi6ys-i6y6,iioos, 1677-1680, § 348.
' Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 218.

VOL. v.— ao

3o6 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

acts, to maintain church or clergy. They recalled
the fact that as a result of a former petition Charles
II. had sent over ** a minister and a parcel of Bibles
and other church-books of considerable value," but
that now they were without church or settled min-
istry of any kind.* Cook, in his Sot-Weed Factor,
agrees with these views.'

I The Labadists were hardly more complimentary
to New York, where an Anglican clmrch had been
established at the conquest in 1664I Though the
duke oi[ York appointed a chaplain to the garrison
at New York as early as 1674, no clergyman ap-
peared until WoUey came over in 1680, as chap-
lain of the fort. Miller in his description is very
scornful of the religious life of New York,^ deem-
ing all Dissenters only ** pretended ministers') and
charging them with leading ungodly lives.' \ In New
Jersey the first Anglican church was at Elizabeth,
where the services were conducted by a lay reader ;
and in Philadelphia, the first Episcopal church was
not built until 1695.

Though by express command of the king Epis-
copacy was tolerated in Massachusetts after 1660,
the authorities there were wholly averse to the dis-
cipline of the Church of England, and resisted every
attempt to organize a congregation. Mason, of New

* Petitions of Mary and Michael Tany, Tanner MSS.^ in Bod.
Lib., 31, f. 137-139-

* Md. Hist. Soc, Fund Publications No. 36, p. 5.

* Miller, Description of New York^ chap. iii.

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 307

Hampshire fame, brought over Books of Common
Prayer sent by the bishop of London before 1682,*
but an Episcopal church was not established in
Boston tmtil 1686. The colonists were fearful lest
the Stuarts should force Episcopacy upon New
England,' but the fear was unfounded, and Epis-
copacy made no progress in the^ Puritan colonies
during the seventeenth centur^. Even/ Maine,
which had begim as an Anglican settlement, was
Congregationalized before 1692.

At first all the Anglican churches in the colonies
were under the charge of the archbishop of Canter-
bury ; and a very important part of Clarendon's pol-
icy after 1660 was his plan of making a bishopric of
Virginia, and consolidating all the colonial churches
tmder the authority, inspection, and jurisdiction
of Archbishop Sheldon andJbiis supcessors. About
1666 a patent was drawn up constituting Virginia
a bishopric and a diocese, and declaring all the
churches in the Bahamas, Bermudas, Jamaica, and
the other island and continental colonies — except
New England — to be parts* and members of the
diocese of Virginia.^ Though this patent does not
appear to have been acted on, the appointment of
Alexander Murray, former companion of King
Charles in his wanderings, and at this time in-

* Letter from Boston (unsigned), December 11, 168 a, Tan^
ner MSS.^ in Bod. Lib., 35, f. no.

' Patent for the erection of Virginia into a bishopric, ibid.,
447, ff. 69-76.

/^aoS COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

cumbent of Ware parish in Virginia, to be bishop
of that colony was seriously considered in 1673/

Jurisdiction over the colonial churches was soon
after vested in the bishop of London, Who, as a
member of the Lords of Trade and Plantations,
took frequent occasion to impress upon the com-
mittee the needs of the church in America. But
for many years to .come the Episcopal jurisdiction
amounted to little; and did not include the licens-
ing of marriages, probation of wills, or induction of
ministers. In Virginia, a commissary, representing
the bishop, was sent over in 1689, but inasmuch as
his authority was too limited t(3 be of importance,
he became little more than a special correspondent
who sent letters to the bishop regarding the religious
condition of the colony.

In the north, Congregationalism, not Episcopacy,
was established. Every town in New England had
its Congregational church supported by taxation,)
and the larger communities and townships had two
or more ecclesiastical societies. Connecticut had
chiefly ** large" Congregationalists, who accepted
the Half-way Covenant, and a few ** strict" Con-
gregationalists, Presbyterians, and Quakers.' Rhode
Island had no state church, recognizing to the ut-
most the right of ''soul liberty"and inviting all denom-
inations to share its territory. Quakers and Baptists,
however, predominated over other denominations.

* Harleian MSS., in British Museum, 3790, ff. 1-4.

' Conn. Col. Records ^ III., 297; Allen, History of Enfield.

1689I SOCIAL LIFE 309

From New York to Pennsylvania a mixture of
religious faiths appears* In the former, besides
the Anglicans, were the Dutch Lutherans and
Calvinists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and
Jews/ In Albany all the colonists were Dutch
Calvinists, in Long Island the majority were Con-
gregationalists. There were many French Hugue-
nots on Staten Island, but they had no church.'
In New Jersey there were mainly Congregational-
ists, Lutherans, and Quakers. In West New Jersey
there were several Quaker /meetings and some
Presbyterians and Baptists./ In Philadelphia the
Quakers, who were divided into two bodies by the
apostasy of George Keith, controlled the govern-
ment : but the city contained also congregations of
Swedish Lutherans, English Baptists, and Presby-
terians.

In the southern colonies were many Nonconform-
ists — Presbyterians, Baptists, Roman Catholics,
Labadists (about a hundred, in Maryland), and
Quakers. In North Carolina the Anglicans had done
nothing to establish Episcopacy, and the colony was
in control of the Quakers* Thus, in the main, the
Church of England was the established church of
the south, and Congregationalism was the estab-
lished religious system of the north; while in the
middle colonies there existed a mixture of religious

* Miller, Description of New York, 37; iV. Y. Docs. Rel. to
Col. Hist., III., 262.

' Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 142; Lod wick's Description.

3IO COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

bodies, no one of which could claim superiority to
"\ the others in numbers or influence. ■

The educational and intellectual life of the colo-
nies was low. Public schools were common in New
England, where the people, coming from the towns
of old England, had high ideals of the value of
education. Massachusetts and Connecticut provided
schools for nearly every township. Plymouth and
Rhode Island were more backward, and education
made little progress in those colonies until the next
century.

In New York there seem to have been no schools
at all-^at least, no contemporary speaks of them, and
Andres in his reply to the queries of the Lords of
Trade says nothing of education. New Jersey had
no schools until 1693,* and Budd in his account of
New Jersey and Pennsylvania urges the establish-
ment of schools, and proposes that white men and
Indians alike shall be educated, not only in liberal
arts, but in manual training also.^ Ten years later
Gabriel Thomas reported several good schools of
learning in Pennsylvania, and we know that William
Bradford introduced a printing-press there in 1685.

Apparently Maryland had no schools of any kindf?
Berkeley's famous reply to the queries of 167 1 in-
dicates the condition of Virginia at that date.
**But I thank God," he says, "there are no free
schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not have

> Whitehead, East Jersey, 159-174.

' Budd, Account of New Jersey and Pcnnyslvania, 43, 44.

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 311

these hundred years, for learning has brought dis-
obedience and heresy and sects into the world and
printing has divulged [them] and libels against the
best government. God keep us from both." * A
few years later provision was made for schools
and school - masters and for a system of licens-
ing whereby the standard of teaching might be
raised. The greater part of the colony, however,
retained the old customs, in accordance with which
every man instructed his children according to his
ability.

The only institution for higher education in
1689 was Harvard College, founded in 1636 and
incorporated in 1650. It was quartered in **a fair
and comely edifice, having in it a spacious hall, and
a large library with some books in it."' ** Every
scholar that on proofe is found able to read the
Originals of the Old and New Testament into the
Latin tongue, and to resolve them Logically, withall
being of godly life and conversation; and at any
publick Act hath the Approbation of the Overseers
and Master of the Colledge, is fit to be dignified
with his first degree." • Higher qualifications of
a similar character admitted the student to the
second degree. Mather, writing in 1691, said that
the degree of master of arts was won after "seven

* Berkeley's Answers to Queries, MSB. in Public Record Office,
Colonial Papers ^ XXVL, No. 77, i. (query 23). But c£. Tyler,
England in America ^ chap. vi.

* Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 385.

* New England* s First Fruits (1643), i^*

312 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

years standing, as 'tis in Oxford and Cambridge. . . .
. We never,** he adds, ** (more's pity) had any Drs." *
Those who watched the college at its birth, who
draughted the ** Rules and Precepts that are ob-
served in the CoUedge," and who drew up the *' Times
and Order of their Studies," with " Chaldee at the 9th
houre" and **Syriack at the loth houre," might
have been scandalized had they read the account
of Bankers and Sluyter, written after visiting the
college in 1679. These men declared that they saw
only ten students sitting around, smoking tobacco
in a room which smelt like a tavern; that they
tested these students in speaking Latin, with sad
results; and that the Ubrary contained nothing
in particular. The authorities of Harvard might
have been equally scandalized had they knowTi
of the later career of Sir George Downing, who as
Georgius Downingus, in 1642, fulfilled in part the
requirements of the first degree by defending
successfully such ethical theses as these: Justitia
mater omnium virtutum, Mentiri non potest qui
verum dicit; Juveni modestia summum ornamentum.
Except for theological writings in New England,
and a few journals and descriptions of country and
travel, the colonies developed little literature before
1689. There were very few physicians and scarcely
any lawyers, a strong prejudice against the latter
existing everywhere. Letchford, in Massachustts,

* Increase Mather to Anthony d Wood (Tanner MSS.^ in
Bod. Lib., 26, f. 48).

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 313

had not been allowed to practise his profession and
took his revenge by writing in his Plaine Dealing a
scathing criticism of the colony's method of doing
justice. Lawyers seem to have been allowed in
East New Jersey ; * but the Quakers in Pennsylvania
were bitterly opposed to law-suits in every form.
Gabriel Thomas rejoiced that Pennsylvania did not
need either the tongue of the lawyer nor the pen of
the physician, both, he says, being ** equally de-
structive of men's estates and lives." ' Alsop, in
Maryland, said that if the lawyer there had "noth-
ing else to maintain him but his bawling, he might
button up his chops and bum his buckram bag";
and Cook shows his opinion of lawyers when he
speaks of them as breaking the peace and wrangling
for plaintiff and defendant. The hostility for this
class of professional men became in Virginia so
marked as to lead to legislation against the practice
of law.* A few years later Colonel Byrd said that
while there were a few men in the colony who called
themselves doctors they were "generally discarded."
As for North Carolina, a resident of Albemarle Coun-
ty wrote to his father in England that " those who
profess themselves doctors and attorneys are scan-
dalous to their profession, impudence and notorious
impertinence making up their character."

> Whitehead, East Jersey, 166.

' Thomas, Account of the Province of Pensilvania, 32.

"Alsop, Character of the Province of Maryland, 47; Cook,
Sot'Weed Factor, 12, 19; Hening, Statutes, I., 495, II., yi\ Shane
MSS., in British Museum, 748, f. 12, 4040, f. 151.

CHAPTER XIX

COMMERCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN

THE COLONIES

(1652-1689)

THOUGH education and religion were neglected,
and the colonists were content with home-made
remedies for disease and home-made methods of
settling disputes, their material needs had to be
provided for. During the first seventy years, life
in the colonies was largely agricultural, and the ,
settlers busied themselves with cutting down the ^
forests and extending the cultivable area. It was
not an easy matter for them to discover at once
the natural staples of the country, though as early as
1 61 6 Virginia appreciated the merits of the tobacco
industry and by 1640 Maryland made tobacco her
leading product. South Carolina, though experi-
menting with rice and indigo at an early date in
her history, did not realize till after 1 700 that either
was especially adapted to her climate and soil.*
In fact, the colonists, often urged on by those
pecuniarily interested at home, were continually

* Rivers, South Carolina, 172, «.; McCrady, Hist, of South
Carolina f L, 349.

314

1689] ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 315

trying experiments to make the new country more
profitable and to supply England with materials
that she herself could not produce.

To the men of the seventeenth century the New
World was a kind of Eldorado, capable of supply-
ing not only herbs, drugs, and fruits unknown to
Europeans, but also an infinite variety of valuable
products for which Englishmen were dependent on
other and rival countries. For this reason many of
the descriptions that have come down to us of the
proprietary colonies must be taken at something
less than their face value.

During the first twenty years of its career as a
settled colony South Carolina developed very slowly,
owing to the small number of the colonists and to^^
their inexperience as agriculturists and farmers.
As elsewhere, the finer grains, such as English
wheat and barley, though successfully cultivated in
Carolina, were generally disregarded owing to the
greater profitableness of Indian -com, which was
not only easy to raise but was also more useful as
food. In addition, each family had its stock of
pigs and cows, with the increase of which it was
able to build up a small export trade. Planters who
lived on larger estates outside the town, notably
on the southern side of the Ashley River, devoted
themselves to raising cattle and com; while others,
nearer the pine belts, prepared tar and pitch
and made clapboards. After supplying their own
needs the settlers were able to furnish vessels,

3i6 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

privateers and others, which came into the harbor
for victualling ; and often on this accoimt th^ colo-
nists were charged with harboring pirates, of whom
there were many along the coast. They also sent
cattle, com, pork, pitch, tar, and clapkaSHls to
Barbadoes more cheaply than the other plantations,
because of their nearness to the West Indies. In re-
tufn they received sugar, rum, molasses, and ginger,
the greater part of which was sent to England and
exchanged for manufactured goods. We are told
that in 1680 ** sixteen sail of vessels, some upwards
of two hundred tons, came from divers parts of the
king's kingdom to trade at Charles Town.''

The colony had, however, little trade with Eng-
land in staples of its own, for fur and cedar wood
were the only articles available for that purpose,
and there is reason to believe that none of the lat-
ter commodity had actually been exported at this
time. In truth. South Carolina was still more
closely connected with the island plantations than
with those of the main-land. Its isolation, south-
erly location, and the character of its economic
life during the seventeenth century, place it apart
from the northern colonies, in a group with the
English plantations in the West Indies.*

After 161 6 the shipping of tobacco to England
from Virginia became regular, and though Indian-

* Wilson, Account of Carolina; Ashe, Carolina , in Carroll,
Historical Collections, II., 19-35; Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib.,

D 810, ff. 53-55-

i689l ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 317

com and some English wheat were grown, they
were kept in the colony for home consumption.
A few other things were exported ; * but as tobacco
was the superior commodity, and the most lucrative,
various attempts to cultivate flax, rice, and cotton
failed utteriy. Tobacco became the chief source
of Virginia's wealth, the staple product that con-
tributed most largely to her material prosper-
ity, inasmuch as in colonial days it was the only
product that could be exchanged with the mother-
country for manufactured goods at a reasonable
profit.

Virginia could not be roused to take an interest
in domestic manufactures except so far as they
aided agriculture. Many attempts were made to
bring over mechanics and artisans, but their em-
ployment was always uncertain, and in some
instances they succtmibed to the seductive influ-
ence of tobacco and became agriculturists.^ Ship-
building was confined to small craft used for local
transportation ; and other industries, such as glass-
making, were undertaken with but little success.
Attempts at mining and smelting iron and the
plan of exporting linen made of flax spun in the
colony came to nothing. Cotton was spun and
woven on the plantations, and clothing from both
cotton and wool was made, but only for domestic

* Brown, Genesis of tite United States, I., 783; CcU. of State
Pap., Col., 1 574-1660, 17; Tyler, England in America, chap. v.
' Bruce, Econ, Hist, of Virginia, XL, 413.

fc»-"»» :»■'-■ ■ -'■ ;-.- ^' . _i- "!""_

318 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

purposes. Other trades and crafts were pursued
only for the purpose of promoting the interests
of a dominant agricultural class.

Much the same conditions prevailed in Mary-
land, where tobacco was the currency and the
leading staple. It was easy to raise, and its
cultivation brought abimdant returns. We may''^
not doubt that tobacco planting encouraged in-
dolence and thrif tlessness ; and we have seen that
overproduction in both Virginia and Maryland
created a panic among the poorer colonists and
brought distress and poverty upon them. Mary-
land having no shipping of her own was obliged
to export her produce in vessels furnished by
Vii^nia and New England and in Dutch freight-
boats and merchantmen; though the latter, after
1665, were forbidden to carry colonial commodities.
The New - Englanders brought wines and sugars
and took off tobacco and furs, though, as Alsop
blandly remarks, they would rather have got fat
pork for their goods than tobacco and furs.* Ves-
sels from England also came, bringing silks, linen
and woollen manufactures, and household goods,
which were exchanged for tobacco.

Towards the end of the century there appears to
have been an increase in the sowing of com and /
wheat, and the colony did what it could to encour-y
age the building of grist-mills. Very few planters,
however, made use of these mills, for, inasmuch as

' Alsop, CJtaracter of the Province of Maryland, 68, 69.

i689l ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 319

wheat flour was used only by the rich, and was
therefore not a staple, most of the planters preferred
to do their own grinding on their own estates by
hand-mills, which were needed for grinding the com
and beating the hominy used by the negroes/ Al-
most nothing was manufactured save what was
needed for domestic purposes, so that the colonists,
despite the efforts of the government to promote
the manufacture of linen and woollen cloth,' did
not pass out of the agricultural stage during the
seventeenth century.

In that wide stretch of country between the
Chesapeake and the Hudson, the Swedes, Finns,
and Dutch, in what has been wittily called the pre-
Pennian era, led a flourishing agricultural and trad-
ing life. The Swedes built churches and houses of
residence, cultivated their gardens, orchards, and
farms, and raised goats, cattle, and swine. They
did a good business in tobacco and furs, and con-
tinued their agricultural and trading life even after
the subjection of the region by the Dutch.* D'Hino-
jossa brought the colony to a high state of effi-
ciency,* and before New Netherland fell into the
hands of the English, had made provision for ex-
tending the fur trade with the Indians and the to-
bacco trade with Maryland.

^ Tyson, in Md. Hist. Soc., Fund Publications, No. 4, zz;
Bankers and Sluyter, Journal, 2z6, 2Z7.

• Aid. Archives, II., 324.

^ Pa. Magazine, VII., 271-281; Acrelius, Hist, of New
Sweden, 36. * N. Y. Docs. Ret. to Col. Hist., II., 2zo.

320 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

The impulse thus given to fanning and trade
continued after the region came under the control of
Penn. He found within his colony at least a thou-
sand colonists on the right bank of the Delaware,
who owned well-managed and well-equipped planta-
tions. The lower coimties became a supply field
for the commodities that Pennsylvania exported,
and large quantities of produce and tobacco were
sent up the Delaware in Uttle boats built at
Fort Christina (Wilmington) and New Castle. The
governments of West New Jersey and Pennsylvania
established fairs, where the farmers exchanged their
garden stuff for manufactured articles. Before
the end of the century the lower counties had be-
come what they continued to be throughout their
colonial history — a farming region having its market
at Philadelphia.*

Penn, on his arrival, encouraged industrial activ-
ity of every kind and endeavored to promote trade
with the Indians in furs and skins. From the
beginning of his undertaking he intended to make
his colony a centre of commerce and industry as
well as of agriculture. The words of the charter
itself have a commercial ring,^ and disclose some
of the innermost of Penn's thoughts. In his
various proposals to adventurers, Penn lays stress
upon the ** capacity of the place for further im-

* Holm, in Pa. Hist. Soc, Memoirs, III., 90; Scharf, Hist, of
Delaware, I., 155-170.

' See charter, §§xi., xii., xiii.

i689l ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 321

provements in order to trade and commerce." *
He incorporated the unfortunately unsuccessful
Free Society of Traders for the ** better improve-
ment of trade," ^ on the ground that ** honest and
industrious traffic has been the usage and praise of
many nations" ; and that ** tmion of traffic prevents
emulation," since ''every one is interested in every-
one's prosperity and the profit must be greater and
surer."

Ship - building began early in the north, and ^
commerce, both by land and sea, sprang up between
New England, New York, Philadelphia, Maryland,
Virginia, Carolina, and Jamaica, Barbadoes, and
other West Indian islands. In the first account of
his province (1683) Penn said, **More being pro-
duced and imported than we can use here, we
export it to other countries in Europe, which
brings in money or the growth of those countries,
which is the Sjame thing, and this is to the ad-
vantage of English merchants and seamen."" The
forest trees were suitable for ships, some of them
being ** stately oaks fifty to sixty feet long and
clear from knots, being straight and well grained";
and the harbor was **safe and commodious, with
numerous docks where quite large ships could lie."
In 1685 a *'fair key three htmdred feet square" was

' Penn's first proposals, in Hazard, Annals, 505-513; "A Fur-
ther Account of the Province," Pa. Magazine, IX., 64.

• Hazard, Annals, 541-550; Pa. Magazine, V., 37-50.

• Hazard, Register, I., 306; Annals, 507.

VOL. v.— ai

322 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

built, and also a rope-walk for the making of cord-
age.* From these beginnings the commerce of
Philadelphia grew rapidly and the city became the
entrep6t for the trade of the surrounding country.
A great variety of commodities was carried to
Europe and the other colonies, to the West Indies
and Central America, for the trade was practically
free.

Among these exported articles were no manu-
factured goods whatever ; ^ commerce overshadowed-
every other economic interest. With money ob-
tained from the West Indies, with sugar obtained
from the French sugar islands, and with such ex-
changeable commodities as they and their neighbors
produced, the Pennsylvanians secured all that they
wished in the way of manufactured goods from
England. Hemp and flax were spun and woven
into cloth for coarse varieties of clothing, and flax
and wool were used for druggets, linsey-woolsey,
and the like; but the better sort of goods, for
men as well as women, were imported directly or
made from imported materials. Philadelphia was
against homespun and in favor of goods of foreign
manufacture.

West New Jersey stood in much the same relation
to Philadelphia as did Delaware. Economically, it
belonged to the group of which Philadelphia was the

* Pa. Magazine, IX., 66; Thomas, Account of West Jersey cnid
Pensilvania, 38, 39; Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania, 204.

• Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, III., 164.

1689] ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 323

centre and market, and was, therefore, distinct from
East New Jersey, which both in staple products and
economic connections was attached to New York.
At first Burlington promised to be an independent
commercial centre. A letter written in 1680 spoke
of the town as likely to become **a place of trade
quickly." Business was done with Barbadoes, and
there was every reason to believe that a good trade
with the West Indies might be built up.* But as
Philadelphia rose, Burlington declined. With its
wharves and timber-yards, it was an important
centre, and was inhabited by artisans who made
cotton and woollen goods, and held fairs for the ex-
change of produce and wares.'

Gabriel Thomas sums up the situation in West
New Jersey when he says that in Burlington County
the staples for home consumption and for export
were peltage and beaver skins, otter, mink, muskrat,
raccoon, wildcat, martin, and deer; in Gloucester
County, pitch, tar, rosin, grain, and fruit; in Salem
Coimty, rice and cranberries, ** which in picle might
be brought to Europe; and in Cape May County,
oil and whalebones." By the beginning of the
seventeenth century West New Jersey had given up
its trade in furs and was confining its attention to
agriculture. Outside of the cities of Burlington,
Gloucester, and Salem compact settlement did not
exist. The country was filled with wide-stretching

» Smith, Hist, of N. J., 113, 114.

» Thomas. Account of West New Jersey, 15. • Ibid,, 32, 33.

324 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

plantations, on which com and other commodities
were raised for the Philadelphia and home mar-
kets.

In passing northward to the settlements on the'^
west side of the Hudson River, we enter a dif-
ferent economic world. The settlers came mainly
from Long Island and New England and brought
with them many of the habits and practices common
to the agricultural life of New England. About the
Raritan and Passaic rivers they built up a miniature
New England, in which settlement was by towns
and outlying plantations. Lands in Elizabeth,
Newark, Woodbridge, Piscataway, and other towns
were held in small parcels, while the outlying dis-
tricts, which in the course of time became separate
towns and villages, were occupied by farmers, and
were known as out-plantations or quarters. At
first the staple products were garden stuffs; later,
fish, nuts, and fruits were added. A farmer of this
district, writing in 1676, says, **This is a rare
place for any poor man, and I am satisfied that
people may live better here than they do in old
England." '

The proprietaries were not content that East
New Jersey should remain simply an agricultural
Arcadia. They wished to foster a spirit of trade
and to stimulate the production of articles suitable
for export. In 1676 Governor Carteret made an
effort to clear a ship at Elizabeth, but was pre-

' A Further Account of New Jersey (1676) ,2,3.

1689] ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 325

vented by Andros, in New York.* Three years later
Carteret made another attempt, declaring Perth
Amboy a free port and stating that all vessels
desiring to come and trade with East New Jersey
might do so freely.^ Thereupon ensued a long
and bitter struggle on the part of the province to
obtain the right of independent trade, which the
authorities in New York resolutely refused to grant,
on the grotmd that a port of entry in East New
Jersey would ruin the trade of New York. The
duties imposed by Pennsylvania and New Jersey
were irregular and temporary in character, while
those imposed by New York were permanent and
onerous, consisting of a two-per-cent. duty on all
excepting certain specified goods, which paid ten
per cent." The duke of York, desiring profit from
his province, continued the Dutch duties, which had
originated in the monopoly of the Dutch West
India Company, and expected that New Jersey
should contribute to his revenues.

Soon after the arrival of Dongan, in 1682, William
Dyer was appointed collector at Perth Amboy,
and refused to permit any vessel to enter that
port unless it had first gone to New York and paid
the customs duties there. The New Jersey people,
who hated Dyer because he interfered with their
freedom, made his official life a burden by ob-
structing his efforts to prevent illegal trade. Dyer

' N. J. Archives, I., 231. • Ibid., 232.

• Co/, of Sta^e Pap., Col., 1685-1688. §§ 330-331-

326 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

complained that the juries brought in verdicts
against him and that he could not uphold the laws.
Finally, he was himself chained with the costs of a
case, deprived of his horse in part payment, and
shut up in prison in default of the remainder.*

This episode seemed a high misdemeanor to the
Lords of Trade, and helped to provoke the issue of
a quo warranto against the proprietaries, and the
annexation of East New Jersey to the dominion
of New England. The proprietaries endeavored
to defend their rights in the matter, while the
New York governors asserted that the colony was
a nest of illegal traders, and that New York was in
danger of ruin if a free port were allowed to exist
so near at hand. The Lords of Trade finally com-
promised, and in 1687 consented that Perth Amboy
should be a separate port of entry, provided the
same customs were paid as in New York. The/
revolution of 1689 gave the question a temporary
rest, and in 1694 New Jersey erected a custom-
house at Perth Amboy and passed an act to en-
courage trade. ^

Bellomont, then governor of New York, took up
the controversy, and, after long negotiation and
many heart-burnings, the port question was finally
carried to Westminster Hall, a trial at bar was
obtained, and the case was decided in favor of

> Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, § 261
^ Ibid., §§ 1014, 1160; A^. y. Archives, I., 540, 543; White-
head, East Jersey, 102.

1689] ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 327

New Jersey (1700). It may be an open question
how far East New Jersey would ever have developed
a trade of its own, but it is certain that the struggle
over the port checked its progress at a critical
time and that the favorable decision came too late
to be of service. Lord Combury could report in
1 708 that East New Jersey had no export trade ; *
and during the remainder of the colonial period it
was in large part only a supply territory, receiving
its European goods through New York, just as West
New Jersey received its goods through Philadelphia.

New York was slow in building up its trade, and
during the seventeenth century was more backward
than Philadelphia. Dtiring the early history of the
colony the Dutch were concerned chiefly with the
fur trade, and not until 1638 did they give much
thought to the raising of grain. The monopoly
of the company was abolished in that year and
the cultivation of the soil was thrown open to all.
Farms were sown with com, cattle and horses were
imported, and during Stuyvesant's administration
flour, oats, pease, beans, pipe-staves, and lumber be-
gan to be exported. But Stuyvesant was hampered
by the heavy export and import duties, and the
enforcement of the navigation act of 1651 enr
couraged illegal trade in tobacco with Maryland
and Virginia.

With the transfer of New Netherland to the Eng-

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist, IV., 719., V., 59; N, J,
Archives, III., 333.

328 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

lish the internal development of the colony be-
came rapid. Settlements were established farther
inland, the fur trade increased, and the city grew.
But its growth was not in proportion to its
age, and very naturally, for New York, after the
loss of East New Jersey, controlled but a small
area of supply for her shipping; the free -trade of
adjoining colonies attracted many of her settlers,
and the towns of Long Island, the most densely
settled portion of the province, produced but little
for export. Within the colony the struggle for
political rights, the jealousy of the coimtry districts y
for the city, of the farmers and producers for the
burghers and merchants,* the want of an efficient
encouragement of trade, the prevalence of a large
amount of smuggling, due to the heavy duties and
the operation of the navigation acts — all these con-
ditions affected the prosperity of the colony.

Gradually, however, the city rose to prominence.
It became a centre for the produce of the adjoining
regions, its harbor attracted shipping, a small ship-
building industry came into existence, and ketches
and other coasting vessels were made. The mer-
chants sent flour, biscuit, beef, pork, bacon, and
train-oil to the English colonies in the West Indies,
and similar commodities to Surinam, Curagoa, and
St. Thomas. In return they received sub-tropical
products of many varieties, liquors, and Spanish
coin. The majority of these commodities, except

' Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 353-355.

i689l ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 329

the coin, together with furs, pitch, tar, and rosin,
were shipped to England in exchange for manu-
factured goods. On all these articles duties were
paid, but the accounts of the revenues from 1690
to 1696 show striking fluctuations that may be due
to decay of trade or to smuggling.^ Not until
Bellomont's administration did trade become steady
and prosperous.

In New England, as in the other colonies, the
earliest phase of life was agricultural. Although
the winters were severe, the summers were favorable
to agriculture, and in all the colonies first attention
was devoted to the turning of new ground and the
cultivation of a supply of food. There were no
large plantations and no lai?ge yield of any single
commodity; but on the acres assigned to each in-
habitant a plentiful supply of com, pease, and other
garden vegetables could be raised. *'The people
make a good shift for victuals,*' reported Bradstreet
to the Lords of Trade, '* owing to the free allotment
of lands at their first coming hither." ^ The largest
single staple was Indian-corn, but English wheat
was successfully raised, and hay was prepared for
the cattle. The meadows, which were divided into
unfenced lots and thrown open in the autumn to
the cattle of the proprietors, were a feature of all
New England towns. Besides cattle and garden

* N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 389-417, IV., 173, 599,
600, 756, 1150, V. 57.

• Col. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, f 529.

330 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

produce, pipe-staves, clapboards, and Itimber were
exported to the West Indies, and fish and pel-
tries were sent to New Amsterdam and England,*
Nearly all the colonies established frontier trading-
posts, and, until the fisheries became prominent,
furs were a leading staple.

Fishing, not only off the banks of Newfoundland,
but off many portions of the New England coast,
was recognized eariy as an industry destined to
add to the wealth and prosperity of the colonies.
Cod and mackerel were caught, dried, and salted in
large quantities and sent to Portugal, Spain, and
Italy. From New York and New England sloops
went with provisions and rum to Newf oimdland and
brought back fish, which in ttim were exchanged
in Europe for manufactured goods. It was es-
timated that in 1709 three hundred vessels of a
hundred tons each, from New England, Nova
Scotia, and Newfoundland, were engaged in the
industry; and that of all the fishermen those from
New England ports took the largest share of the
fish from the banks. Mackerel, which were sent
to the West Indies, could never compete with cod-
fish, which were in great demand in European coxon-
tries. Though the fishing industry was seriously
affected by King Philip's War, it speedily recovered
and remained a prominent feature of New England's
economic life to the end of the colonial period.'

* Weeden, Econ. and Social Hist, of New England, I., 180, 181.

* Ibid., 133-136. 139, 371-373-

1689] ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 331

/ Thus the mainstay of New England's commerce
was the trade in furs and fish.^^rom the begin-
ning the instincts of exchange led to export, while
necessity and mechanical ingenuity prompted the
building of ships; and there is no more interesting
feature of New England history than the way in
which nearly every town on sea-coast or navigable
river became a builder of vessels, and the ease
with which every colonist became a sailor. From
1 63 1, when the Blessing of the Bay was launched at
Mystic, ship-building became a part of the life of
New England. Writers have ascribed this activity
to the influence of the navigation acts, but there
were many ships in New England before 1651. Six
are mentioned in 1635, and also ship-carpenters, who
were competent to build vessels of any burden.^

After 1640 Boston, Salem, Scituate, Dorchester,
Gloucester, Plymouth, Newport, New London, and
New Haven were all building vessels and sending
them, loaded with produce and lumber, to adjacent
colonies, Barbadoes, and England.' The vessels
were generally small, designed for the coasting
trade, though The Trial was of three hundred tons
burden ; and the quality and workmanship so good
that the vessels found ready market whenever the
owners desired to sell, as they frequently did, not
only the cargo, but the vessel also.

' Col. of State Pap., Col., 1574-1660, §§ 158, 212.
• Weeden, Econ. and Social Hist, of New England, I., 143,
151. 162, 163.

332 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

During the ensuing half -century ship-building in-
creased, but commercial activity began to centre
in a few places adapted for trade and export, such
as Boston, Salem, Newport, and New London.
Other towns, such as Wethersfield, kept up a small
shipping industry, but one that became incon-
spicuous as the years passed. The larger towns
became the seats of exports and imports, receiving
supplies from the cotmtry round about and fur-
nishing the people with English goods. In 1676
Randolph reported that seven hundred and thirty
ships had been btiilt in Massachusetts, but no
** ships of burthen," as far as he knew, in either
Plymouth or Connecticut. Two years later Andros
said practically the same thing; and in 1689 Dongan
said that Connecticut had only a ketch or two and
a few sloops, and had a small trade with Boston,
New York, and the West Indies.*

These statements were not strictly accurate, but
in the main they were true, and show that trade,
partly from natural causes and partly from the
necessities of the customs service, was con^mng
itself to a smaller ntimber of ports of entry. Plym-
outh could say very definitely in 1680 that she
imported nothing directly and had as vessels
**but scallops and fishing ketches"; and in the
same year Connecticut said that most of her com-

^ Hutchinson Papers, II., 232; Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1675-
1676, §1067; 1685-1688, § 329; AT. y. Docs, Rel. to Col. Hist,,
III., 263.

i689] ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 333

modities were transported to Boston- and there
bartered for clothing, though a little direct trade
was had with the West Indies, Madeira, and Fayal.*
Rhode Island did a considerable export business,
and in 1680 reported forjy-nine vessels of all kinds.
Massachusetts Bay was the leading commercial
colony, and at this time Boston was the chief com-
mercial city. Massachusetts was also the birth-
place of American manufactures, which in the
beginning, as in all the other colonies, took the
form of homespim work for domestic purposes.
Grist-mills, saw -mills, and tanneries were to be
foimd everjrwhere; and salt works, brick -yards,
glass works, pottery works, and cobblers' shops all
existed , as auxiliaries to farming. Much the same
conditions prevailed in Connecticut to the middle
of the next century ; but Massachusetts at a rather
early date turned her hand to more elaborate
manufacturing. Cotton from Barbadoes, wool from
the backs of domestic sheep, as well as from
Bilbao and Malaga, furnished the material. Iron
works were started at Saugus and Weymouth
in 1640, and a man named Jenks was granted a
patent in 1646 for making scythes at Lynn. There
is reason to believe that edged tools of other varieties
also were made.'

* Col. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, {{ 522, 577.

^ Mass. Col. Records, II., 105, III., 298; Cal. of State Pap.,
Col., 1 661-166 8, § 75; Weeden, Econ. and Social Hist, of New
England, I., 183, 184.

334 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

Later these industries expanded until the greater
part of the New England colonists were wearing
articles of their own making, and were using in their
daily work utensils hammered out at their own
forges. Every New-Englander was a bom mechanic ]
and craftsman, and if tmable to obtain supplies
elsewhere, either because of distance or poverty,
knew how to provide for himself. He was not
manufacturing for export, he was only trying to
live and to work. But the home government,
urged on by the manufacturers in England, who
desired a market for their products, viewed even
the homespim industry with suspicion, fearful lest
it might curtail the colonial demand for English
goods. No restrictions were imposed during the
period imder discussion, but during the last decade
of the seventeenth century, induced by the com-
plaints of agents in America and urged on by in-
terested parties at home, the English government
began to adopt measures designed to prevent the
increase of manufacturing in New England and >
New York.

Thus we see that from the point of view of in-
dustry and staple products the colonies fall into
certain defined groups. South Carolina was an ag-^
ricultural colony, carrying on a meagre commerce
with the West Indies and closely allied to the West
Indian group. Virginia and Maryland, absorbed
in the production of tobacco, were wholly agri-
cultural. The middle colonies, areas of agricidt-

i689] ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 335

ural activity, made up two groups with centres
in Philadelphia and New York, to which they
sent their surplus products for transmission to
foreign coimtries, the West Indies, or neighboring
colonies. Delaware, Pennsylvania (outside of Phila-
delphia), and New Jersey had no independent eco-
nomic life, being self-sufficing agricultural regions,
and reaching the outside worid only through the
adjacent commercial cities to which, economically,
they were attached, ^^efore 1689 no one of the
southern or middle colonies had developed an in-
dependent manufacturing life or had carried do-
mestic industry to such a point as to arouse the^/
suspicions of the home government. In the south,
manufacturing was subordinate to agriculture, and
in Philadelphia to commerce. In New York, partly
because of a growing mining industry in the hills
across the Hudson, manufacturing tended to be-
come a matter of importance; but even there it
remained for the most part of little consequence
in the seventeenth century.

In New England manufacturing in mills was
carried on only in the tidewater regions, an area
exceedingly small as compared with the agricult-
ural district behind it, in which manufacturing was
subordinate to agriculture, lumbering, and com-
merce. The instinct to manufacture was an in-
grained characteristic of the New-Englander, and it
is not surprising to find that manufacturing per-
meated the New England colonies as it did none of

,vni4^i>^^

taami

336 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

the others. But at best it did not pass out of
the domestic stage : people made their own clothes,
hammered out their own nails> and provided^
thousand and one other necessary conveniences for
comfortable living.

At no time in their colonial history did English
merchants have any special reason to fear colonial
competitions, and though the restrictive policy
of England may have succeeded in holding the
colonies in check, it is an open question how far
the colonists would have manufactured for export
had they been let alone. England furnished New
England and all the colonies with her own manu-
factures as well as with those of other countries;
but she failed signally in making the colonies
in all particulars a vent for her own commodities.
All the colonies provided themselves to a certain
extent with what they needed, and in New England
two-thirds of the people dressed in cloths of their
own making.

The mercantilist theorv, like others of a similar
character but of later date, took no account of the
colonist as he actually was. Statesmen of the day
created an ideal colonist, and from a vantage-point
three thousand miles away endeavored to apply a
system of colonial management which they believed
to be best adapted to the interest of all. But
the mercantilist as well as the Stuart had no com-
prehension of the difficulties of the problem.

1-'

CHAPTER XX
CRITICAL ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL AIDS

FOR general reader and student alike the great biblio-
graphical aid on colonial history is Justin Winsor,
Narrative and Critical History of America (8 vols.,
1888-1889): the field of colonial affairs from 1650 to
1689 is covered by parts of vols. III., IV., and V.; the
bibliographical chapters and notes are abundant but not
very discriminating. Channing and Hart, Guide to the
Study of American History (1896), contains lists of secondary
authorities on state and local history (§ 23), and a list of
colonial records classified by colonies and including local
records (S 29); {{ 98-108, 120-128, are topical lists in the
field of this volimie. The Guide now needs bringing up
to date. J. N. Lamed, Literature of American History, a
Bibliographical Guide (1902), contains descriptive and crit-
ical notes on the principal authorities on colonial history.

GENERAL SECONDARY WORKS

The period from 1652 to 1689 has been liberally dealt
with by writers on colonial history. George Bancroft,
History of the United States (last revision, 6 vols., 1883-
1885), has devoted three-quarters of a volume to the
subject; but his version shows strong hostility to the
policy of the English government and is marred by un-
necessary digressions. Richard Hildreth, History of the
United States (6 vols., 1849-1852), passes over many
phases of the subject with little appreciation of the issues.
VOL.V.— aa 2jy

r.'-4l.*^IV.

■

338 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

Bryant and Gay, Popular History of the Untied States (5
vols., 1896), contains much information, but the treat-
ment is strictly popular. John Fiske's various volumes
are of the same character, but of a higher order of thought
and scholarship ; though written with great charm of style,
they vary considerably in value, and often neglect some
of the most significant aspects of colonial life. While
apparently philosophical in treatment, most of Fiske's
writing runs along on the surface and does not penetrate
deeply into the causes and conditions of colonial history.
Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America
(8 vols., 1888-1889), contains in vol. IIL excellent chapters
on the period; but they are xmduly condensed, and the
narrative has been sacrificed to the critical apparatus.
J. A. Doyle, English Colonies in America (3 vols., 1882-
1887), as yet incomplete, is the most pretentious work on
the period, and the most important; it shows insight and
scholarship, but is badly arranged, and is often based on
inadequate information. George Chalmers, Political An-
nals of the American Colonies (issued in quarto, 1780),
consists of one volume and closes with 1688. The same
author's Introdtiction to the Revolt of the American Colonies
(reprinted in two volumes in 1845 with a valuable preface)
carries the subject from 1606 to 1760. Chalmers's writings
are of very great importance, and bring out as no other
work has done the imity of colonial history.

GENERAL COLLECTIONS OP SOURCES

The only collection of documentary materials that covers
the entire period and subject of this volume is the Calendars
of State Papers, Colonial Series , America and West Indies,
1 574-1696 (9 vols., 1 860-1 903). The publication of this
indispensable work marks an era in the writing of American
colonial history. The calendaring has been admirably done,
but no abridgment can take the place of the complete
documents, to which the student should go if possible.
Fortimately many of the documents have been printed in

1689] AUTHORITIES 339

full in America; and manuscript copies of the volumes
known as Proprieties and Plantations General are in the
library of the Pennsylvania Historical Society.

Among the collections of documents and extracts which
facilitate the work of students and readers are: Peter
Force, Tracts Relative to the Colonies (4 vols., 1836-1846);
Albert Bushnell Hart, American History Told by Contem-
poraries (4 vols., 1 898-1 902; most of vol. I. treats of
English colonization). Lists of specific references to
smaller collections will be fotmd in the New England
History Teachers* Association, Report on Historical Sources
in Schools (1901). The colonial charters appear in full
in Ben Perley Poore, Federal afid State Constitutions (2
vols., 1877), and reprints of some in William MacDonald,
Select Charters (1899). The three great series. Documents
Relative to the Colonial History of New York (14 vols, and
index, 1 856-1883), Documents Relating to the Colonial
History of New Jersey (22 vols., 1 880-1 900), and Colonial
Records of North Carolina (10 vols., 1 886-1 890), contain
much general material.

RELATIONS WITH THE MOTHER-COUNTRY

England's Colonial Policy. — Little has yet been writ-
ten upon England's colonial system and policy. The sub-
ject may best be approached through William Cunningham,
Growth of English Industry and Commerce (3d ed., vol. I.,
1902; vol. II., two parts, 1903); H. E. Egerton, Short
History of British Colonial Policy (1897); and G. L. Beer,
Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies
(1893). On mercantilism, the best sketch is by Gustav
SchmoUer, The Mercantile, System (W. J. Ashley's Economic
Classics, 1896); the chief contemporary treatises are
Thomas Mun, England's Treasure by Forraign Trade (1664) ;
Sir Josiah Child, Discourse on Trade (1665); and Joshua
Gee, Trade and Navigation of Great Britain Considered
(1727).

Navigation Acts. — No adequate study of the navigation

r.T**VirT1Hi ri

340 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

acts has been made. Edward Channing's article, "The
Navigation Acts" (American Antiquarian Society, Pro-
ceedings, 1889), does not go behind the letter of the statutes.
A useful study is G. L. Beer, "Cromwell's Economic
Policy" (Political Science Quarterly, XVL, 582-611, XVII.,
46-70). Some information regarding the circiunstai^ces
xmder which the acts were passed may be obtained from
Clarendon, History of the Rebellion (1888); Cobbett, Parlia-
mentary History of England, 1066-1803 (London, 1808);
Journals of the House of Commons (127 vols., 1 547-187 2);
such contemporary writings as Edmund Ludlow's Memoirs
(new ed., 1902), Samuel Pepys* Diary (1659-1669) ; and such
biographies as W. D. Christie, Life of Shaftesbury (187 1),
and T. H. Lister, Life of Clarendon (1838). Texts of the
navigation acts in full appear in Statutes of the Realm, to
1813 (12 vols., London, 1810-1838); V. Pickering, Statutes
at Large (109 vols, and index, London. 1762). There are
significant extracts in William MacDonald, Select Charters
(1899); American History Leaflets; and elsewhere.

Administrative Organs. — ^The organization and policy
of the various councils and committees of trade can be
studied only in their records. Of first importance is the
official Journal (i vol., 1660-1663; 6 vols., 1675-1692).
A copy of the entire jovimal after 1675 is in the library of the
Pennsylvania Historical Society. The abbreviated minutes,
reports, and recommendations of the committees, and other
papers given in the Calendars, are often unsatisfactory, and
the original, if possible, should be used. Many of these
documents are printed in full in the various printed colonial
archives. Almost nothing has been written on the ad-
ministration of the navigation acts in the colonies, except
two very brief articles by W. J. Ashley, in Studies ^ Eco-
nomic and Political (1899).

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Social Life. — Little has been done in the way of a
comprehensive study of the social conditions prevailing in

1689] AUTHORITIES 341

the colonies during the seventeenth century. W. B.
Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England
(2 vols., 1891), contains many facts regarding costumes,
ftimishings, and habits of life. The writings of Mrs. Alice
Morse Earle are excellent, and abound in illustrations from
contemporary material. Culture history can best be ex-
amined in the journals, descriptions, letters, and diaries of
the time. Samuel Maverick, Description of New England,
1660 (New England Historical and Genealogical Register ,
XXXIX., 33), is important. John Dunton, Letters from
New England, 1686 (Prince Society, Publications, 1867),
was written by **an impartial and trustworthy observer."
Samuel Sewall, Diary, 167 4- 1729 (Massachusetts His-
torical Society, Collections, 5th series, V. -VII.), is a
standard authority for Massachusetts; and Thomas Minor,
Diary, 1 653-1 684 (1899), throws a little light on Rhod^
Island and Connecticut history.

Daniel Denton, Brief Description of New York (1670,
Gowans* Bihliotheca Americana, 1845, reprinted 1903);
John Miller, Description of the Promnce and City of New
York (1695, Cjowans' Bihliotheca Americana, 1862, reprinted
1903); and Charles Wolley, Two Years* Journal (1701,
Gowans* Bihliotheca Americana, i860, reprinted 1902),
give us an account of that province. Dankers and Sluy-
ter, Journal, 1 679-1 680 (Long Island Historical Society,
Memoirs, I.), contains some account of several of the
colonies. Many unprinted documents are referred to in
the foot-notes above.

For the Jerseys there are many pamphlets and letters
contained in W. A. Whitehead, East Jersey under the
Proprietary Governments (with ** Miscellaneous Topics" and
Appendix, 1875); in Samuel Smith, History of New Jer*
sey (1765) ; and referred to in Whitehead's article in
Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, III.,
421.

For West New Jersey and Pennsylvania we have Coxe's
Account and A Quaker* s Account (referred to in the
foot-notes above); Gabriel Thomas, Historical and Geo^

^mmm^uamtm*~iT

342 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

graphical Account of West New Jersey and Pensihania
(1698, reprinted 1903); Thomas Budd» Good Order es-
tablished in Pennsylvania and New Jersey (1685, Gowans'
Bihliotheca Americana, 1865, reprinted 1902); the many
letters of Penn (see references in foot-notes above); and
James Claypoole's Letter-Book, extracts from which are
printed in Pennsylvania Magazine, X., 188, 267, 401.

For Maryland we have George Alsop, Character of the
Province of Maryland (1666, Gowans* Bihliotheca Americana,
1869; Maryland Historical Society, Fund Publication No.
15, reprinted 1903); Lord Baltimore, Answers to Queries of
Lords of Trade, 1678 {Maryland Archives, V., 264-269);
Hammond, Leah and Rachel, or the Two Fruitful Sisters,
Virginia and Maryland (1656); and E. Cook, Sot-Weed
Factor and other poems, in B. C. Steiner, Early Maryland
Poetry (edited for the Maryland Historical Society, Fund
Publication No. 36).

For Virginia we have Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton,
Present State of Virginia (Massachusetts Historical Society,
Collections, ist series, V.); Berkeley's and Moryson's an-
swers to queries (see references in foot-notes above) ; many
papers dealing with Bacon's rebellion and the tobacco-
cutting riots; and John Clayton, Virginia (Force, Tracts,
IIL, No. 12).

For North Carolina there is little contemporary evidence
except that contained in George Fox, Journal, and the
papers in the Calendars dealing with the uprising there in
1677. For South Carolina we have the letters from Thomas
Newe to his father, noted in the text. Other excellent
books are Samuel Wilson, Account of the Province of
Carolina', and Thomas Ashe, Carolina, or a Description of
the Present State of the Country (both in B. R. Carroll,
Historical Collections, II., 19-35, 59-84).

Religious Life. — The standard authority on the Church
of England in the colonies is J. S. M. Anderson, History of
the Church of England in the Colonies (2d ed., 3 vols., 1856) ;
of greater completeness and scientific value is Arthur L.
Cross, The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies

1689] AUTHORITIES 343

(Harvard Historical Studies, IX., 1902), dealing chiefly with
the conditions of the eighteenth centtiry. Of importance
are S. E. Baldwin, ** Jurisdiction of the Bishop of London"
(American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, October,
1899); W. S. Perry, History of the American Episcopal
Church (2 vols., 1885); F. L. Hawks, Contributions to the
Ecclesiastical History of the United States (2 vols., 1836-
1839); I. Backus, History of New England, with Particular
Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists
(i 777-1 796, 2d ed. 187 1) ; and the volumes of the American
Church History Series with the accompanying bibliog-
raphies. W. Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families
of Virginia (2 vols., 1857), is full of interest for the church
in that colony. Special monographs in the Johns Hopkins
University Studies in History and Political Science are P. E.
Lauer, Church and State in New England; George Petrie,
Church and State in Maryland; S. B. Weeks, Church and
State in North Carolina,

Economic Conditions. — On the economic history of the
colonies only two comprehensive works of value have been
written: W. B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of
New England (2 vols., 1896), and P. A. Bruce, Economic
History of Virginia. The general and state histories, so
far as they deal with this subject, are commonly inade-
quate.

Labor System and Slavery. — On slavery and the in-
dustrial servant system, see Waltershausen, Die Arheitsver-
fas sung der Englischen Kolonien in Nord Amerika, a study
based largely on secondary authorities. Other papers (all
in the Johns Hopkins University Studies) are: J. H. John-
son, Old Maryland Manors; Edward Ingle, Virginia Local
Institutions; J. C. Ballagh, White Servitude in the Colony
of Virginia; B. C. Steiner, History of Slavery in Connecticut;
H. S. Cooley, Study of Slavery in New Jersey; J. S. Bassett,
History of Slavery in North Carolina. Still others are:
Edward Bettle, Notices on Negro Slavery in Pennsylvania
(Pennsylvania Historical Society, Memoirs) ; W. B. Weeden,
Early African Slave -Trade in New England (American

344 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

Antiquarian Society, Proc^^di«g5,October, 1887) ; A. J.North-
rup, Slavery in New York (State hihrary, Bulletin History, No.
4, 1900).

RELATIONS WITH THE INDIANS

The accoiint of King Philip's War in the text is based
on the following: Old Indian Chronicle (2d ed., 1836);
Thomas Church, Narrative (Dexter's ed., 2 vols., 1865);
William Hubbard, History of the Indian Wars (Drake's
ed., 2 vols., 1865); Increase Mather, Relation of Troubles
with the Indians (1671); John Easton, Relation (Palfrey,
III., 180); G. M. Bodge, "Soldiers in King Philip's War"
(New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 31 parts,
January, 1883 -October, 1890); Edward Randolph's re-
port {HiUchinson Papers, II., 226-230).

MASSACHUSETTS

For the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony the
Standard authorities are: Thomas Hutchinson, History of
th£ Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 1628-1774 (3 vols., 1764-
1828) ; John G. Palfrey, History of New England During the
Stuart Dynasty, 1620-1689 (3 vols., 1858-1864). Palfrey's
work is indispensable, but it is a long and one-sided defence
of Massachusetts, very deficient on the economic and
social sides. J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts (3 vols.,
185 5- 1857), is an excellent work, clear and readable, but
devoid of originality. Justin Winsor, Memorial History
of Boston (4 vols., 1880- 1882), has a good chapter (vol. I.,
chap. X.) on the loss of the charter.

The leading collections of documents for Massachusetts
and Plymouth are: Records of Massachusetts Bay, 1628-
1686 (5 vols, in 6, 1853-1854); Records of Plymouth (12
vols., 1885-1887), of which vols. IX. and X. contain the
records of the United Colonies. For council proceedings
we have John Noble, Records of the Court of Assistants,
1673-1692 (1901); R. N. Toppan, "Andros Records"
(American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, October,

i689] AUTHORITIES 345

1899); and, more complete, the minutes calendared in the
Calendars of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1 685-1 688.

Por the general history of the period, three publications
of the Prince Society are of first rank and importance,
finely planned and ably edited: Hutchinson Papers (2 vols.,
1865); W. H. Whitmore, Andros Tracts (3 vols., 1868); and
R. N. Toppan, Edward Randolph (5 vols., 1898-1899). Of
the greatest service are the Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections (63 vols., in seven series), and Proceedings (37
vols., in two series). Additional serial publications are:
New England Historical and Genealogical Register (227
numbers in 62 vols., 1847-1903); American Antiquarian
Society Collections (7 vols., 1 820-1 885), and Proceedings
(15 vols., in two series, 1880- 1903); Essex Antiquarian
(7 vols., 1877-1903); Essex Institute Collections (39 vols.,
1 859-1 902). A partial list of printed town records may be
found in Channing and Hart, Guide, no, in.

MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE

The history of these colonies diuing the period tmder
discussion is included in the history of Massachusetts Bay.
J. Belknap, History of New Hampshire (3 vols. I., 1784, II.,
1792, III., 1792), and W. D. Williamson, History of Maine
(2 vols., 1829), are the standard authorities. Valuable col-
lections are: New Hampshire Provincial and State Papers
(29 vols., 1 867-1 896); J. S. Jenness, Transcripts of Original
Documents in the English Archives Relating to the Early
History of the Stale of New Hampshire (1876) ; New Hamp-
shire Historical Society Collections (10 vols., 1824-1893).
Documents for the history of Maine may be found in York
Deeds, 1642-1726 (11 vols., 1887-1896); and Maine His-
torical Society Collections, 2d series, III. -VIII (1875-
1902).

CONNECTICUT

The best history of Connecticut is Benjamin Trtmibull,
History of Connecticut (2 vols., 1797, i8i8;newed., indexed.

■--dlStlZil

346 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

1898), which carries the subject to 1794: it says nothing of
social or economic life ; G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut
(2 vols., ist ed., 1855; 2d ed., 1857), carries the subject to
1857, but is of little value for the period in question.
Alexander Johnston, Connecticut, in American Common-
wealth Series (1887, new ed., 1904), is delightful, but is
influenced by an untenable theory regarding the relation
between town and state. For sources see The Colonial
Records of Connecticut (15 vols., 1 850-1 890); Connecticut
Historical Society Collections (9 vols., i860- 1903), and
Annual Reports (i 890-1 903), containing valuable lists and
historical notes. Other publications are. The Acorn Club
of Connecticut Publications (9 vols., 1899-1904); The
Connecticut Quarterly, merged in The Connecticut Maga-
zine (7 vols., 1 895-1 903): full of local color. Boundary
questions are ably discussed in C. W. Bowcn, Boundary Dis-
putes of Connecticut (1882).

New Haven. — E. E. Atwater, History of the Colony of
New Haven (1881, new ed., 1901), is full and complete, and
contains many documents. C. H. Levermore, Republic of
New Haven (1886) , is especially valuable for the period after
1664. The documentary material is chiefly printed in
Records of the Colony of New Haven, 1 638-1 665 (2 vols.,
1857-1858), and in New Haven Historical Society Papers
(6 vols., 1862-1900).

RHODE ISLAND

S. G. Arnold, History of the State of Rhode Island and Prom-
dcnce Plantations, 1636-1700 (2 vols., 1859-1860; new ed.,
1894), though written in rather a heavy style, is an ad-
mirable work, scholarly and complete. J. B. Richman, Rhode
Island, its Making and Meaning [to 1683] (2 vols., 1902), is
equally scholarly, and more philosophically presented.
The public records of the colony have been printed in the
imperfect Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Provi-
dence Plantations, 1636-1792 (10 vols., 1856-1865). The
Rhode Island Historical Society has issued Collections

1689] AUTHORITIES 347

(9 vols., 1827-1897, to be continued); Proceedings (23 nos.,
1 87 2-1 902, to be continued), and Publications (8 vols., 1893-
190 1, discontinued). Roger Williams' letters, a collection
of rare interest and value, appear in Narragansett Club
Publications^ ist series, No. 4, vol. VI. (6 vols., 1866-1874).

NEW AMSTERDAM AND NEW YORK

The literatxire and material for the colonial history of
New York are very extensive. William Smith, History of
New York (London, 1757, and later editions; reprinted in
New York Historical Society Collections, 2 vols., 182 9-1 830),
is a work deservedly famous. For the period before 1689
it has been entirely superseded by E. B. 0*Callaghan*s
History of New Nether land (2 vols., 2ded., 1855), and J. R.
Brodhead's History of the State of New York (2 vols.,
rev. ed., 1872). Both these standard works are accurate,
detailed, and well supplied with references. Among the
works of secondary importance are James Grant Wilson,
The Memorial History of the City of New York (4 vols.,
1892, vol. I., covering seventeenth centtiry); John Fiske,
Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America (2 vols., 1899);
E. A. Roberts, New York, in the American Commonwealth
Series; and Martha J. Lamb, History of the City of New
York (2 vols., 1877).

Documentary materials on New York are voluminous.
Of first rank are: Documentary History of the State of
New York (4 vols., 1849-1851; quarto ed., 4 vols., 1850-
1851); Documents Relative to tfie Colonial History of New
York (14 vols, and general index, 185 3-1 861); J. Pearson,
Early Records of the City and County of Albany (1869)
(entirely documentary); Joel Munsell, Annals of Al-
bany (10 vols., 1850-1859; revised reprint of vols.
1-4, 1869- 187 1), and continued in Collections on the
History of Albany (3 vols., 1865); The Records of New
Amsterdam, 1653-1674 (7 vols., 1897), contains the min-
utes of the coiut of burgomasters and schepens during

348 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

the Dutch period. The Dutch colonial laws are printed in
Laws and Ordinances of New Netherlands 1 638-1 674; the
"Duke's Laws," in the Collections of the New York
Historical Society, ist series, I., 307-347; in Laws of
the Province of Pennsylvania (ed. Linn), 3-77; and in
Laws of Colonial New York, L, 6-100. Later English
laws are printed in Laws of Colonial New York (5 vols.,

1894).

Valuable materials are found in the New York Historical
Society Collections, ist series, 5 vols., 3d series or Publica-
tion Fund Series, 27 vols. ; and in the Long Island Historical
Society Memoirs (vol. I., 1867). Other doctunents and
reprints in Historical Magazine, Magazine of American
History, and American Historical Review,

For Long Island the standard account is B. F. Thompson,
History of Long Island (2d ed., 2 vols., 1843), which incor-
porates bodily the work by Silas Wood, entitled. Sketch of the
First Settlement of Long Island (1828). The documentary
history of the region can be found in Documents Relative
to the Colonial History of New York, vol. XIV., and in
the town records.

NEW JERSEY

Samuel Smith, History of the Colony of New Jersey (1765,
reprinted 1877), besides the text, includes letters and
documents, some of which cannot be obtained elsewhere.
W. A. Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietary Gov-
ernments, 1846 {Collections of the New Jersey Historical
Society, I., 2d ed., enlarged, 1875), with a valuable ap-
pendix of documents. In J. Whitehead, A Civil and
Judicial History of New Jersey, is an admirable introduc-
tory chapter on the constitutional history of colony and
state.

Documentary materials for New Jersey history are to
be found in Documents Relating to the Colonial History of
the State of New Jersey (22 vols., 1 880-1 902): commonly
cited as New Jersey Archives, A good account of con-

1689] AUTHORITIES 349

temporary pamphlet material written to promote emigra-
tion, in Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, III. 499.

PENNSYLVANIA

The best and ablest accotmt of the Society of Friends in
America from the historical point of view is that of James
Bowden, History of Friends in America (2 vols., 1851-1854,
new ed. , 1 86 1 ) , which furnishes an admirable and fair-minded
survey of the Quaker settlements. The journals of George
Fox and William Edmtmdson, each issued in many editions,
give graphic pictures of the condition of the Quakers in
America in 1671 and 1672. The following special essays
may be noted: Henry Ferguson, Essays in American
History (1894); Caroline Hazard, The Narragansett Friends
Meeting (1899); A. C. Applegarth, The Quakers in Penn-
sylvania {Johns Hopkins University Studies, X., nos. 8, 9);
H. R. Mcllwaine, Struggle of Protestant Dissenters for
Religious Toleration in Virginia (ibid., XII., no. 4). There
is no satisfactory life of William Penn: Thomas Clarkson,
Memoirs of William Penn (2 vols., 181 3; new ed., 1849), is
still valuable, though one-sided and incomplete. S. M.
Janney, Life of Penn (1852), is the best and most trust-
worthy, though the author is interested in the religious
rather than in the political side of Penn*s career. W. H.
Dixon, William Penn (185 1, new eds., 1856, 1872), is in-
terestingly written, but idealizes the Stuarts, and frequently
makes statements not borne out by the evidence.

The oldest history of the colony is Robert Proud, History
of Pennsylvania in North America, 1 681-1742, with an
appendix of doctmients (2 vols., 1 797-1 798); it is still a
very useful and important work. T. F. Gordon, History of
Pennsylvania to 1776 (1829), is an accurate but lifeless
treatise, with little in it to attract the reader. W. H. Egle,
Illustrated History of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(1880), is a co-operative undertaking chiefly of local in-
terest. Sidney D. Fisher, The Making of Pennsylvania
(1896), is strictly a popular work. W. R. Shepherd's

3SO COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

scholarly History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania
(Columbia University Studies, VI., 1896), is written in a hard
and often confused style, appealing only to students. Special
works of importance are Isaac Sharpless, History of Quaker
Government in Pennsylvania (2 vols., 1 898-1 899) : a very able
interpretation of the history of the colony from the Quaker
point of view. Glenn, Merion in the Welsh Tract; J.J. Levick,
John ap Thomas aftd his Friends (Pa. Magazine, IV.) ; S. W.
Pennypacker, Settlement of Germantown (1899), and A. C.
Myers, Immigration of the Irish Quakers into Pennsylvania^
1682-1750 ( 1 902 ) , are important contributions to the subject.
The docimientary material for the early history of Penn-
sylvania is scattered. There is no complete collection of
Penn's letters. Valuable materials appear in Samuel Hazard,
Annals, 1 609-1 682 (1850); SdaxiMeX'RBZQX&, Register of Penn-
sylvania (16 vols., 1 828-1 834) ; J. F. Watson, Annals of Phil-
adelphia (1830). The Historical Society of Pennsylvania
has published Memoirs (14 vols., 1826-189 5); and the
valuable Magazine of History and Biography (27 vols..
1877 -1903). The acts and proceedings of the Pennsyl-
vania council and assembly can be foimd in the following:
Colonial Records, 1683-1736 (3 vols., 1838-1840; reprinted
with different pagination, and continued to 1790 in 16
vols., 1852); Pennsylvania Archives, ist series, I.; Votes
of Assembly, i662-iyy6 (6 vols., 1752-1776); Charters and
Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania (1879); particularly
The Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania, vols. 1 1. -VII. (1899,
ed. Hildebum).

DELAWARE

The materials for the history of Delaware are scanty,
and no satisfactory history of the colony has been written.
Benjamin Ferris, A History of the Original Settlements on
the Delaware (1846), closes with 1682; Francis Vincent,
History of Delaware (1870-187 1), ends at 1664. J. T.
Scharf, History of Delaware (2 vols., 1888), is similar in
mode of treatment to his history of Maryland and equally
poor. The Historical Society of Delaware has issued a

1689] AUTHORITIES 351

series of Papers (37 numbers, 1879-1903), chiefly of a
biographical character. Documents Relative to the Colonial
History of New York, XII., includes papers on the Dutch
and Swedish settlements on the Delaware.

VIRGINIA

The best general authorities on Virginia are J. A. Doyle,
English Colonies in America, I., chap, vii.; Charles Camp-
bell, History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia
(1847); and John Fiske, Old Virginia and her Neighbors
(1897). No one of these works is entirely satisfactory. Of
the older writers, J. D. Burk, History of Virginia (2 vols.,
1805), is the best, giving many details not fotmd elsewhere
and printing valuable appendices. Robert Beverly, History
of Virginia (1722) ; Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, An Account
of the Present State and Government of Virginia (1727), and
Hugh Jones, Present State of Virginia (1724, Sabin reprint,
octavo, no. 5), have almost the value of original documents.

The greatest and the essential collection of original
material for Virginia's history is W. W. Hening, Statutes at
Large, 1619-1792 (13 vols., 1823). Next in importance is the
Calendar of Virginia State Papers, still in process of publica-
tion. Many documents of the first importance are printed in
the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (9 vols.,
1 893-1 903), and in the William and Mary College Quar-
terly (11 vols., 1 89 2-1 903). Occasional doctunents may be
found in the Historical Magazine aftd Notes and Queries (3d
series, 23 vols., 1857-1875). John Thurloe, State Papers (7
vols., 1 742), contain material for Virginia's history from 1650
to 1660; while the Calendars of State Papers, Colonial, is a
mine of information throughout. Peter Force, Tracts, I.,
contains reprints of some able pamphlets. For Bacon's
rebellion we have the Calendars, IV., V., and five con-
temporary accounts of the movement: (i) The Beginning,
Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia,
by T. M. (probably Thomas Mathews, a member of the
assembly in 1676); (2) Mrs. Ann Cotton of Q Creek,

"'■• - -■' rmww^^i^-

352 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

An Account of our Late Troubles in Virginia (the briefest
and most reliable of all); (3) A Narrative of the Indian
and Civil Wars in Virginia (Massachusetts Historical So-
ciety, Collections, 2d series, L, 27-80) — all three reprinted
in Force's Tracts, and in American Colonial Tracts; (4)
The Report of the Commissioners to the King; (5) A Re-
view, Breviary, and Conclusion drawn from the foregoing
Narrative, being a Summary Account of the late Rebellion in
Virginia, together the best extant accotint ; both in Calen^
dars of State Papers, Colonial, 167 7-1 680, nos. 437-439. but
nowhere printed in full.

MARYLAND

J. A. Doyle's treatment of Maryland's history is one of
the least satisfactory in his work ; and on the revolution
of 1689 it is distinctly misleading. J. V. L. McMahon,
Historical View of the Government of .Maryland (183 1),
considering the inadequacy of the material then available,
is a remarkable book. J. L. Bozman, History of Mary-
land, to 1658 (2 vols., 1837), is a classic, full, accurate, and
impartial though diffuse. James McSherry, History of
Maryland (1849), is merely a readable compilation.
William Hand Browne, Maryland, the History of a
Palatinate (1884), and George and Cecilius Calvert (1890),
are based upon full knowledge of the subject, but are not al-
ways written with anxmbiasedpen ; the elaborate J. T. Scharf,
History of Maryland (3 vols., 1879), is in many respects
what a history should not be: it contains valuable material*
crudely organized, badly arranged, and unreadable. The
admirable scientific study by N. D. Mereness, Maryland as a
Proprietary Colony (1901), is a series of essa5rs analyzing
the government and organization of the colony.

Maryland possesses a splendid mass of doctimentary
material for the writing of her history. The Archives of
Maryland (23 vols., 1 883-1 903), published by the Mary-
land Historical Society, is composed of the acts of assem-
bly (to 1699), journals of council (to 1779), court records,

1689] AUTHORITIES 353

Governor Sharp's correspondence, and many documents
from the Public Record Office, London. The Maryland
Historical Society has issued Fund Publications (37 vols.,
1 867-1 901), and over sixty occasional papers and reports.
Thomas Bacon's edition of the Laws of Maryland (1765) con-
tains the titles of laws not otherwise known.

Bozman is the chief guide for the period to 1658, and after
1650 may be supplemented by documents in John Thurloe,
State Papers, the Calendars, and the Archives, Among rare
pamphlets are: Lord Baltimore, Case Concerning the Province
of Maryland (1653) ; Virginia and Maryland ^ or Lord Balti-
more's Case uncased and answered (1655); Leonard Strong,
Babylon's Fall in Maryland, a fair warning to Lord Balti-
more (1655), upholds the Puritan cause ; compare John Lang-
ford in A Just and Clere Refutation of ** Babylon's Fall**
(1655). Two admirable monographs have been written: F.
E. Sharp, Causes of the Revolution of i68g in Maryland
{Johns Hopkins University Studies, XIV. nos. 11, 12), is
rather unfair to the proprietary ; B. C. Steiner, The Protestant
Revolution in Maryland (American Historical Association,
Report, 1897, 281-353), minimizes the revolutionary spirit.

The controversy between Lord Baltimore and William
Penn has never been fairly written. For the Maryland
side of the case: W. H. Browne, Maryland; Archer, Dis-
memberment of Maryland (Fund Publications, no. 30), with
an undignified show of temper ; more temperately, but still
not impartially, N. D. Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary
Colony, 29-33. For ^^^ Pennsylvania side, W. B. Scaife, in
Pennsylvania Magazine, IX., 241-271; Pennsylvania Mag-
azine, Yl., 412-434; W. R. Shepherd, Proprietary Govern-
ment in Pennsylvania, 1 1 7-1 46 (confused).

THE CAROLINAS

For the early history of South Carolina, W. J. Rivers,
Sketch of the History of South Carolina to 171 g (1856), has
long been the standard authority, and has not by any means
been superseded by a longer and more elaborate volume,

VOL. V. — 23

.1»:?1?1

354 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT [1652

Edward McCrady, South Carolina under the Proprietary
Government (1897). Little tise can be made of the older his-
tories, Alexander Hewatt, Historical Account of the Rise and
Progress of South Carolina and Georgia (3 vols., 1779), and
David Ramsay, History of South Carolina (2 vols., 1809, 2d
ed., 1858). In a series called Year-Book, City of Charleston
(4 vols., 1 883-1 886), Mayor Conrtenay began a new era in
the historiography of the state by printing a number of ex-
ceedingly valuable contemporary relations. The Records
of North Carolina (16 vols., 1886- 1902) is a collection
of rare value and importance for both Carolinas. The
South Carolina Historical Society Collections, V., contains
The Shaftesbury Papers (1897). A comparison of the
originals, thus published, with the abstracts in the Calen-
dars shows how inadequate often are the Calendars for his-
torical purposes.

On North Carolina the best work is F. L. Hawks, His-
tory of North Carolina (2 vols., 1857-1858), although it is
marred by prejudice. In the Johns Hopkins University
Studies are three monographs of importance: S. C. Hughson,
Carolina Pirates and Colonial Commerce (XII., nos. 2 to 7) ;
E. L. Whitney, Government of the Colony of South Carolina
(XIII., nos. I and 2) ; and J. S. Bassett, Constitutional Be-
ginnings of North Carolina (XII., no. 3).

ISLAND COLONIES

For the island colonies, so important in their connection
with the early history of the Carolinas, see R. H. Schom-
burgk, History of Barbadoes (1848) ; J. H. Lefroy, Memorials
of the Bermudas, 1511-1687 (2 vols., 1877-1879), and N. D.
Davis, The Cavaliers and Roundheads of Barbadoes, i6§o-
1652 (1887).

INDEX

Accomack, in Bacon's rebel-
lion, 219-221.

Acts of Trade. See Navigation
Acts.

Administration. See Colonies
and colonies by name.

Admiralty. See Courts.

Agents, colonial ,36,176; Massa-
chusetts, 259.

Albany, named, 8^; charter, 98;
yields to Leisler, 285; ap-
pearance, 298.

Albemarle. See North Carolina.

Amstd, fort, captured, 81;
called New Castle, 83.

Andros, Sir Edmtmd, governor
of New York, character and
views, 90. 93, 269, 275; re-
duces Long Island towns,
91; attempt on Connecticut,
91; and the Jerseys, 92, 118-
120; and tne Indians, 92;
administration, ^3; on rep-
resentation, 93; m England,
94 » 951 governor of New
England, 266; in Massachu-
setts, 268; task, 269; crushes
Connecticut and lUiode Isl-
and, 270, 2ji\ captain-
general, 272; m New York,
272; autocracy, 274; charge
against, 275; overthrown,
277.

Arlington, earl of, grant of
Virginia, 214.

Ashley, Lord, in colonial cotm-
cil> 23, 24, 26; and Carolina

grant, 132, 138; and Funda-
mental Constitution, 139-
143; Bahama grant, 145;
colonial enterprise, 145.
Assembly. See Representation.

Bacon's rebellion, causes, 215;
relation, 216; Bacon as
leader, 217; controversy
with Berkeley, 217; Bacon
pardoned, 217; reforming as-
sembly, 218; second expedi-
tion, 218; Berkeley's mght,
219; formal rebellion, 219;
supporters, 220; calls as-
sembly, 220; siege of James-
town, 221; death of Bacon,
221; collapse, 221; execu-
tions, 222; mvestigation, 222;
Berkeley condemned, 224;
effects 225.

Bahamas, grant (1670), 145.

Baltimore, Cecilius, Lord, pro-
prietary of Maryland, 232;
and Ftotestants, 233; and
conmiissioners, 233; insists
on title, 234; proposed oath,
234; and Cromwell, 235. 236,
238; appoints Pendall gov-
ernor, 238; agreement with
Puritans, 2^9; sticcess, 240;
quarrel witn Virginia, 241;
conciliates Charles II., 241;
enforces navigation acts, 244;
death, 244.

Baltimore, Charles, Lord, and
Penn, 170, 174, 187, 194,

355

356

COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

247, 250; governor of Mary-
land, 244; becomes proprie-
tary, 244; character, 244;
political ring, 245; goes to
England, 246; quarrel with
revenue officers, 248; loses
ground, 248; opposition to,
280; loses provinces, 281,
282; Payne aifair, 282

Barbadoes, parliamentary fleet,
4; discontent, 131; settlers
for Carolina, 134-138, 146;
charter, 135; trade, 316.

Barclay, David, and Jersey,

125.

Barclay, Robert, and Jersey,
125-127, 264.

Bellomont, Lord, and New
Jersey trade, 326.

Bennett, governor of Virginia,
205; commissioner, 236; re-
port, 237; adjustment, 239.

Berkeley, John, Lord, con-
spiracy against New Nether-
land, 77, 78; grant of New
Jersey, 80, 101-104, 113;
career, 102; concessions, 104;
sells his grant, 114; proprie-
tary of Carolina, 133.

Berkeley, Sir William, and the
parliamentary commission,
202; elected governor, 206,
207; royal instructions, 207;
autocratic power, 208; in-
difference to Indian war, 216;
outlaws Bacon, 217; pardons
Bacon, 217; reform assem-
bly, 218; again outlaws
Bacon, 219; flight, 219; re-
venge, 221; hangs Drum-
mond, 222; recalled 222;
flouts commissioners, 222;
disgrace, 224; death, 224;
state, 304; on education, 310.

Bermudas, navigation act, 39;
charter 39.

Bibliographies, of period 1652-
1689, 337-354. .

Bishop, proposed colomal, 307.

Boston, Episcopal church, 267,
30^; Andros in, 269, 274;
rising, 277; appearance, 297.

Boundaries, New En^^and-New
Netherland, 42; Massachu-
setts, Rhode Island, and
Connecticut, 45, 65-67; Con-
necticut-New Haven, 52;
Connecticut charter, 55;
York's grant, 80 ; New York-
Connecticut, 81, 98; New
York-Pennsylvania, 98, ijo-
171; East and West New
Jersey, 116, 117; Carolina,

'33» '3^1 Pennsylvania -
Maryland, 170-173, 180. 187.
247, 250, 353; Maryland-

Dielaware. 174; general
(1689), 288.

Bradstreet, Simon, and Dutch
war, 43; president, 277.

Branford, migration, 61.

Brockholls, as governor of New
York, 94.

Burlington, settled, 120; pot-
tery, 123; seat of govern-
ment, 124; trade, J23.

Byllynge, Edward, buys West
New Jersey, 114; and Fen-
wick, lie; fails, 116; grant
from York, 122; death, 123.

Calvert, Philip, in Maryland,
241 ; proclaims amnesty, 242.
Canoncnet, Chief, 255.
Canonicus, Chief, 2J3.
Cardross, Lord, settlement, 151,

154.
Carolina, Scott on, 105; Heath's

grant, 130, 134; Spanish
claim, 130; Tavemers ex-
pedition, 130; origin of grant,
132; charters, 133, 138;
counter claims, 134; govern-
ment, 135-137. 146, 147.
151; Ftmdamental Consti-
tution, 139-142, 153, 156,
157; Ashley's promotion ,145;
social conditions, 288-313!

INDEX

357

bibliography, 353. See also
North Carolina, South, South
Carolina.

Carr, Robert, commissioner, 69,
70, 79; and Fort Amstel, 81.

Carteret, ^r George, conspiracy
against New Netherland, 77,
78; New Jersey grant, 80,
101-104, 1 13 1 career, 102;
Concessions, 104; trustees,
125; proprietary of Carolina,

133. 146.
Carteret, James, in New Jersey,

III.

Carteret, Peter, governor of
North Carolina, 159.

Carteret, Philip, governor of
New Jersey, and New York
customs duties, 94, no; and
the settlers, 107, 109; Wood-
bridge charter, 108; returns,
113; and Andros, 119; resigns,
125; governor of Maryland,
241.

Cart Wright f George, commis-
sioner, 69, 70, 79; captures
Fort Orange, 81.

Catholics, in Maryland, 233,
235. 236, 246, 305; rumored
plots, 230, 274-276.

Cnarles I., trade council, 4.

Charles II., fiscal and colonial
policy, 14-17; and proprie-
tary colonies, 38; and Mas-
sachusetts, 47, 48, 71, 72;
proclaimed, 51. 65, 233; com-
missioners to New England,
69; on Bacon's rebellion,
221-224; annuls Maryland
charter, 233; favors Kirke,
26J.

Charles Town (Carolina) settled,
142; political conditions, 143;
new settlers, 145, 146; new
site, 149; appearance, 301;
trade, 316.

Charters, Massachusetts con-
firmed, 48; annulled, 264:
new, 279; Connecticut, 53-

jS, 68, 69, 270, 278; Rhode
Island, 66-69, 270, 278; New
Amsterdam, 76; New York
City (1665), 84; 068O, 98;
Carolina, 133; Barbadoes
(1652), 1^5; Pennsylvania,
171 » 1751 Virginia proposed,
214, 226; and navigation
acts, 258; Massachusetts an-
nulled, 264; Maryland lost,
282. See also Constitutions.

Chicheley, Sir Henry, in Vir-
ginia, 216, 222, 224.

Cmistina, Fort, 4.

Church, Benjamin, King Phil-
ip's war, 255.

Church of England, toleration
ordered in Massachtisetts, 48;
in Virginia, 207, 304; in New
England, 267, 306; estab-
lished, J04; in Maryland, 305;
in middle colonies, 306; pro-
I)osed bishopric, 307.

Cities in 1689, 297.

City government. New Amster-
dam, 76; New York, 84, 98;
Philaaelphia, a 00.

Clarendon, earl of, navigation
act, 11; trade, 14-16; in
colonial coimcil, 23; and
Massachusetts, 71, 72; fall,
72; proprietary, 133.

Clarke, John, colonial agent,
36; faction, 62; and patent,
64; efforts for charter, 66;
and Connecticut boimdary,
66, 67.

Coddington, William, settles
Newport, 62; faction, 62;
rule and fall, 63-65.

Colleton, James, governor of
South Carolina, 155-157.

Colleton, Sir John, in Bar-
badoes, 132; and grant of
Carolina, 1^2.

Colleton, Sir Peter, concessions,
135; proprietary, 146.

Colleton, Thomas, expedition,
146.

35«

COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

Colonial system. See Naviga-
tion acts.

Colonies, distribution (1650),
3; early English administra-
tion, 4; parliamentary con-
trol, 4, c, 10; conditions of
control (1650- 1689), 6-10;
self - government, 9 ; trade
policy, IX, 74; interest of
Charles II., 16, 17; cotmcils
and committees, 32-26;
Lords of Trade, 26, 28-30;
assents, 36; English review
of legislation, 37; plan for
consolidation, 37-39; ig-
norance of James II., 97, 100;
Ashley'senterprise, 145 ; bibli-
ograpny on navigation acts,
340; on social life, 340-343*.
on economic conditions, 343 ;
on individual colonies, 344-
354. See also Economic con-
ditions. Manufactures, Navi-
gation acts, Social life, Trade,
and colonies and sections by
name.

Colve, and the Long Island
towns, 89; as governor, 90.

Commission, royal (1664), 69-

7i» 79-

Commonwealth. See Parlia-
ment.

Concessions. See Constitutions.

Congregationalism, in New Eng-
land, ^08; in New Jersey, 309.

Connecticut, admiralty court,
35; crowds out Dutch, 48,
76; annexes Long Island
towns, 49, 89; growth, 49;
franchise limited, 49, 55;
character, 49, 55; insecurity
of title, 50; and the Warwick
patent, 50, 5^; and the
regicides, 51; New Haven
boundary, j2 ; petition to the
Icing, 52; charter, 52-55, 68
charter boundaries, 55, 59
absorbs New Haven, 59-61
Rhode Island botmdary, 66

and ^le royal commission,
70; New York boundary, 81,
98; and York's daim, 91;
Randolph and charter, 265,
268, 270; charter withdrawn,
271; annexed to New Eng-
land, 271; resumes govern-
ment. 278; population (1689),

288; schools, 310; biblic^-

. , 34"?. See c'
England.

«^phy. 345-

also New

Constitutions, New York(i683) ,
96-98; New Jersey (1665),
104; West New Jersey
(1677), 121; Carolina (1665),
135-137; Fimdamental, 139-
142, 153. 156, 157; Pennsyl-
vania (1682), 183, 191 ; (168O .
193. See also Charters.

Coode, John, risings, 249, 280.

Cooper. See Ashley.

Com, Indian, food, 294; in
Virginia, 316.

Cotton, export, 18; manufact-
ure, 317.

Council, in South Carolina,
147; in Pennsylvania, 184,
193, 106; in Maryland, 241.

Cotmcil tor Foreign Plantations
(1660), members, 23; duties
and activities, 24; consoli-
dated (1672), 24; duties, 25;
weakness, 25; joint control,
25; abolished, 26; opposes
proprietaries, 38; and Mas-
sachusetts, 47; plan against
New Netherland, 77.

Council for Trade (1660), 23;
consolidated, 24, 25.

Coimty government in Virginia,
210.

Courts, colonial admiralty, 31,
35, 266; appeal to king, 176;
county, in Virginia, 210, 211.

Coxe, Daniel, interest in New
Jersey, 123, 124.

Cromwell, Oliver, commercial
ambition, 1 1 ; navigation
act, 11-13; and Massadm-

INDEX

359

setts, 47; project to trans-
port colonists, 57; and Vir-
ginia, 203-206; and Mary-
land, 235, 236; and Balti-
more, 239, 240.

Culpeper, Lord, and Virginia,
214, 226, 227.

Ctistoms, export, 20, 160, 211;
control, 31; fanning, 31;
of&cials, 33-35; New York-
New Jersey controversy, 94,
09, 119, 127, 325-327; in
Virginia, 227; in Maryland,
248.

Davenant, governor of Mary-
land, 233.

Davenport, John, and Con-
necticut, 59, 6i.

Delaware, Penn acqtiires, 173;
Maryland claims, iy4; an-
nexed to Pennsylvania, 186;
desires separation, 1 99 ; trade,
320; bibliography, 350.

Digges, Edward, colonial rev-
enue ofl&cial, 32; proposed
as governor, 205.

Disease in the colonies, 293.

Dongan, Thomas, as governor
of I^ew York, 95, 98; and the
Indians, 99.

Downing, Sir George, and navi-
gation act, 14, 17; hostilitv
to Dutch, 77; at Harvard,
312.

Drummond, William, in Ba-
con's rebellion, 220, 222.

Dudley, Joseph, president, 266.

Duke*8 Laws, 8 j ; popular sanc-
tion, 85; trouble over, 86-89.

Dyer, Mary, hanged, 46.

East New Jersey, and New
York customs duties, 94,
119, 127, J25-327; quinti-
partite deed, 117; botmdary,
117; jurisdiction over, 119;
concessions, 125; Quakers
control, 125; new code, 126;

Lawrie governor, 126; pro-
motion, 126; agrictdtural,
127; annexed to New York,
127; restored, 127; royal
provinces, 127; weakness,
127; grant asked (1682),
264; population (1689), 288;
trade, 322-327 ; bibliography,
348. See also New Jersey.

Eastchurch, governor of North
Carolina, 159.

Easthampton, and Connecticut,
49, 88, 89, 91.

Economic conditions, in gen-
eral, 314-336; southern prod-
ucts, 314-319; middle prod-
ucts, 3 1 9-3 2 1 ; ship - build-
ing, 321, 331, 332; middle
commerce, 3 2 2 — 3 24 ; New
Jersey products, 324; New
Jersey commerce, 324-327;
New York products, 327;
New York commerce, 328;
New England products, 329;
fisheries, 330; New England
commerce, 333; manufact-
ures, 334-336; bibliography,
343. .

Education, schools, 191, 310;
colleges, 311.

Elizabeth, settled, 106; Car-
teret in, 107; trade, 324.

England, colonial policy, 6-10;
Dutch war (1652), 12; (1673),
89; Dutch, 77-79; bibUog-
raphy on colonial policy,
339; on navigation acts,
339; on administrative or-
gans, 340. See also sovereigns
oy name.

Pendall, Josias, governor of
Maryland, 238; opposes Bal-
timore, 241; resigns, 241; de-
notmced, 242; renews agita-
tion, 24^.

Fen wick, John, interest in West
New Jersey, 11 4-1 16; settle-
ment, 118; and Andros, zig;

36o

COLOXL\L SELP.450VERXMEXT

feCs, 122; m the iwfmbly.
Ftther. yUtrf, dii'*txi feom Sfas^

Vf^A, m crArxatt, 29)— 397; is

flotsth, 315,
Fcflc, Gcr>rge, in America, 114.

164, i6jc.
rntnct, Enjfiah war (1689),

H
H

3**-

mA. Ji^

Free Society oC Traders, 181.

rtmdsanenUl G>fisti tution , 1 39-

« »4», i$3' '5^* «57

For tra/le« Coxe promctes, 1 23 ;

colonial, 319, 320,

Pumtture, colonial, 302.

Oermamtowk settled, 189.

G^/r^es, Ferdinando. ;^ant and
MaiMachtuetts, 45, 72, 261.

G<^vemment, Pcnn on, 182,
183. .S>e a/50 Colonies, and
c^ilonics by name.

Govemr/fs, commissions, 29;
Tt\Atum to navigation acts,
30; and admiralty, 31; cus-
Ujms officers, 31; elective,
in West New Jersey, 123;
in Pennsylvania, 184, 193,
198, 199; salary in Virginia,
227; quarrels in Maryland,

245-
Greenwich, Connecticut claims,

Guilford, controversy, 59.

Habeas corpus claimed, 276.

Hartford, appearance, 298.

I larvard College, 311,312.

Heath. Robert, grant, 130, 134.

Holland, settlements, 4; con-
quers Swedish colony, 4;
controls carrying- trade, 10;
and the navigation act, 11-
13; English war (1652), 12,
43; (^673), 89; English com-

HiinflnnT Trff, 46.

fjooGKATios procacted. 24.
ImprisoozDeot for debu 122.
Independeoce, spirit in
i cimsetts (i664>. 2cS.
Indians, attach co !(ew Hai^ea

58: and XiooQs. S3: mad.

bcngan, 99; and Chariescon.

143; war in Somh Carctina.

150; Soath Caroiina trade.

152; Peon's dealings. 17S,

181, 188; Mrjxnia war (1675 r.

215—218; \imnia treaty.

225; King PhiHp's War. 253

-256; poor servants, 291;

bibliography. 344.
: Ipswich protest, 268. 276.
Iron, manuiactore, 317.

'Jamaica, Long Island, pro-
test. 87. 93.

James I., trade council. 4.

James II., and colonial con-
solidation, 39, 97; and Xew
York charter, 96^8; igno-
rance, 97, 100; upholds How-
ard, 230; Maryland loyalty.
250; appoints Andros, 266;
loses tnrone, 273; promises
Massachusetts charter, 278.
See also York.

Jamestown, Bacon and, 217.
220, 221.

Jeffreys, Herbert, governor of
Virginia, 223; commissioner,
223-225; death. 226.

Jury trial in West New Jersey,
121.

Keith, George, schism, 200.
Kent Island, renewed dispute,
240.

•*:

■ rf ^

*INDEX

361

King Philip's War, Andres's
interest, 92; occasion, 253;
fighting, 2^4; ravages. 254;
death of Philip, 255; results.

255-

Land grants, in Carolinas,
139, 154; in Pennsylvania,
178; in Maryland and Vir-
ginia, 243. . ^^

Lawrie, Gawen, interest in New

Jersey, 116, 126.

Lawyers, discouraged, 313.

Legislation, English review of
colonial, 37, 176; in Penn-
sylvania, 186; in New York
(1691), 287. See also Con-
stitutions.

Leisler rebellion, caus^, 283,
284; Leisler's leadership, 284;
his rule. 284, 285; action of
Lords of Trade. 285; Leisler
overthrown and hanged, 286;
no treason. 286; resiuts, 287.

Literature, colonial. 312.

Lloyd, Thomas, opposes Black-
well, ip8; governor of Penn-
sylvania, 199.

Local government. See City,
County, Town.

Locke, John, in trade council,
24; Fundamental Constitu-
tion, 139-142.

Long Island, Connecticut towns,
49 f 55. 88, 89; complaints
against Dutch, 77; granted
to York, 80, 82; and Duke's
Laws, 85 - 88 ; submits to
Andros, 91; trade, 328; bib-
liography, 348.

Lords of Trade, organization
(1675), 26; colonial control,
28-30; information. 29; re-
cords, 29; governors* com-
missions, 29; execution of
navigation acts, 30; igno-
rance, 30; on colonial con-
solidation, 38, 39, 97, 264.
265; last meeting. 40; suc-

cessor. 40; on Delaware, 174.
195; censures Berkeley. 224;
and Maryland. 248; and Mas-
sachusetts, 252, 259, 263;
and Baltimore, 281 ; and Leis-
ler, 285; and East New
Jersey. 326.
Lovelace, Francis, and the
Long Island towns, 87-89.

Maine, Massachusetts claims,
45. 72. 261; grant to York,
80; authorities, 345.

Manufactures, colonial raw ma-
terial, 18; colonial market,
19; Burlineton pottery, 123;
in Pennsylvania, ipi, 322;
in Virginia, J17; ships, 321;
in New England. 322, 333-

336.

Markham, William, m Penn-
sylvania, 179, 180.

Maryland, parliamentary com-
mission, 45, 233. 235. 239;
admiralty court, 36; and the
navigation acts, 39, 244;
persecutes Quakers, 163;
Dotmdary disputes. 1 71-175,
180, 187, 247, 353; tobacco
culture, 228, 243; charter an-
nulled (1645), 232; early
conditions, 232; hostility
of Commonwealth, 233 ; Prot-
estant settlements, 233;
charter annulled by Charles
II., 233; oath of fidelity,
234; breach with Puritans,
235; Protectorate proclaim-
ed, 235; Puritans rise, 236;
rival governors, 236; Crom-
well's rebuke, 236; battle on
Severn, 237 ; Puritan suprem-
acy, 238; Fendall's gov-
ernment, 238; investigation,
239; Baltimore successful,
239, 240; Kent Island, 240;
struggle over council, 241;
Charles II. acknowledges
Baltimore, 242; economic

362

COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

conditions, 242 ; Charles Cal-
vert governor. 244; squab-
bles, 245; ring. 245; Notley
governor, 246; ' sedition
(1677), 246; difficulty with
royal officers. 248; pro-
poised quo warranto, 248;
Fendall's sedition, 249; loyal-
ty to James IL, 250; political
conditions, 250; excitement
(1688), 27p; revolution, 279-
281; Baltimore ousted, 281
282; royal province, 282
population (1689), 288
social conditions. 288-313
towns, 300; churches, 305
products, 314; exports, 318
Dibliography, 352. See also
Middle colonies.
Massachusetts, admiralty court,
j5. 266; control over her
laws, 37; illegal trade. 39,
253. 259; quo warranto
a^^ainst, 39, 262: and the
New England Confederation.
43. 45; pre-eminence, 44; as-
sumes sovereign powers, 44;
self-content, 45; aids La
Tour, 45; boundary disputes,
45; annexes New Hamp-
shire and Maine. 45, 72;
religious persecutions, 46;
and Cromwell, 47; and
Charles II., 47, 48, 71, 72;
charter confirmed. 48 ; tolera-
tion ordered. 48; and Con-
necticut's river tolls. 50;
and the regicides, 51; and
the royal commission, 70, 71 ;
sense of security (1668), 72;
charges against, 252, 257;
Randolph in. 256, 266; oath
question, 258; spirit of inde-

fendence, 258; and acts of
arliament, 258; a.2:ents de-
layed, 259; Randolph's com-
plaints. 260-262; New Hamp-
shire separated, 261; Maine
separated, 26 1 ; report against,

262; scire facias iasoed, 364;
charter annulled, 264; in
dominion o€ New En^iEuid,
265; Dudley's prcsideiK7,
266; towns protest, a68;
Andros's activity, 269; An-
dros's government, 374—276;
no assembly, 276; revohitiQn,
277; charter promised, 378;
cnarter granted, 279; poptua-
tion (1689), 288; social life,
288-313; schools, 310; Har-
vard College, 311, 312; man-
ufactures, 3J3; bibliography,
344. See also New Englana.

Massasoit, Chief, 253.

Mathews, governor of \^rginia,
205, 206; commissioner to
Maryland, 239.

Mavenck, Samuel, commission-
er, 69, 70. 79.

Mercantile system. 6-10; ap-
plication. 336. See a^o
Navigation acts.

Middle colonies, races. 289;
servants, 292; food, 296;
towns, 297-300; transporta-
tion, 301; ceremonial, 302;
churches, 306; sects, 309;
education , 310; products,
319-321; trade, 320-329.
See also colonies by name.

Miller, collector, 33; as gov-
ernor of North Carolina, 159.

Moore, Nicholas, political com-
ment, 192; impeached, 197.

Nantucket, grant to York, 80.

Narragansetts in King Philip's
War, 254, 255.

Naturalization in Pennsylvania,
186.

Naval officer, colonial, 32, 262.

Navigation acts, beginning. 5;
(i6ci), 11; enforcement, 13;
(1600) causes, 13-17; ship-
ping clause, 17; enumer-
ated commodities, 18 — 21,
30; reshipment in England,

INDEX

363

19; execution and evasion,
20. 36-32, 38. 155. 158. 176,
244, 253. 259-262, 266; juris-
diction over, 35; (1651) in
Virginia, 20^; effect on ship-
pwig. 331; bibliography, 339,
340.
New Amsterdam, charter, 76;
surrender, 81; bibliography,

347-
New Castle, named, 83; Penn

acquires, 173; annexed to

Pennsylvania, 186.

New England, population
(i 650) , 3 ; preparation against
New Netherland, 13, 43; vio-
lation of navigation acts,
30; collectors of customs, 34;
reason for union (1686), 39;
unity, 41 ; and the crown, 41 ;
self-government, 42; royal
commission, 69, 70; settlers
in New Jersey, 107-109;
trade, 131, 158, 159, 253,
331 ; King Phihp's War, 253-
256; Randolph in, 260; do-
minion, 265; Andros govern-
or, 266; no assembly, 266;
attack on charters, 267 ; con-
solidated, 269; larger union
proposed, 271; Andros cap-
tain-general, 272; races, 289;
slaves, 290; servants, 291;
food, 206; buildings, 297;
social life, 302; Episcopacy,
306; Congregationalism, 309;
literature, 312; shipping, 318;
ship-building, 321, 331-332;
products, 329; fisheries, 330;
trade, 331; ports, 332; manu-
factures, 333-336. See also
colonies by name.

New England Confederation,
Dutch treaty, 42 ; war threats,
42, 43; and Massachusetts,
43 » 45; decline, 43; end, 44;
on Quakers, 46, 162; on Con-
necticut and New Haven, 60 ;
and Rhode Island, 62.

New Hampshire, Massachusetts
claims, 45, 257; royal prov-
ince, 261; population (1680),
288; bibliography, 345. See
also New England.

New Haven, Delaware trade,
4, 42, 57; agent to Parlia-
ment, 50; and the regicides,
51; proclaims Charles II.,
51; discontent, 52, 58; Con-
necticut botmdary, 52; trade
ventures, 57; migration con-
sidered, 57; Gruiflord, 59-61;
absorbed by Connecticut, 60;
settlers in New Jersey, 61,
106-108.

New Jersey, New England
settlers, 61, 107-109; grant,
loi; Concessions, 104; early
settlers, 105; NicoUs's settle-
ments, 106, hi; Carteret
governor, 107 ; first assembly,
109 ; Carteret and the settlers,
I go; quit rents, no, 114; re-
bellion, hi; peace, iii; un-
der the Dutch, 1 1 1 ; regrant,
113; divided, 114, 117; social
conditions, 288-313; towns,
298, 299; trade, 322-324;
bibliography, 348. See also
East New 'jersey, Middle
colonies. West New Jer-
sey.

New Netherland, extent, 4;
and the Swedes, 4; evades
navigation acts, 12, 13;
Cromwell's expedition, 13,
43; New England boun-
dary, 42; New England war
threats, 42, 43; Connecti-
cut encroaches, 48, 49, 76;
and Coddington, 64; im-
portance of situation, 7^;
weakness, 75; Stuy-vesant s
^®» 75» 7^1 complaints of
English settlers, 76; English
conspiracy against, 77, 78;
territory granted to York,
78; capture, 79-81; trade.

364

COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

3 J 7 ; bibliomphy , 347 . See
also New York.

New York, admiralty court,
ps; granted to York. 78;
boundaries, 80 -8a, 98;
powers of proprietary, 8a;
organization under Nioolls,
83, 84; Duke's Laws, 84-86;
protest of Long Island towns,
86-89 ;recaptmed by Dutch,
89, 90; restored to England,
90; Andros governor, 90;
checks to development, 91,
100; York's policy, 9a, 93;
Andros's admmistration, 93;
representation, 93-96, 08;
trade controversy with New
Jersey. 94. 99, 119, ia7, 335-
3a7 ; disafifection, 95 ; charter,
96-98; royal province, 97;
Dongan's rule. 98; annexed
to New England, 372;
Nicholson's aaministration,
283; rumors (1689), 283;
revolt, 283; Leisler's^^rebel-
lion, 284-286 ; Sloughter, gov-
ernor, 2^6 ^ reorganization,
287 ; population (1689), 288;
social conditions, 288-313;
towns, 298; schools, 310;
trade. 327; fisheries, 330:
export, 3^0; bibliography,
J 4 7 . See also Middle colonies,
New Netherland.

New York City, charter (1665),
84; (1683), 98; appearance,
298.

Newark settled, 61, 108.

Newport, settled, 62; and Cod-
dington, 62-64.

Nicholson, Francis, in Virginia,
231; in New York, 372,283;
leaves, 284.

NicoUs, Richard, commissioner,
69 » 70 » 79 1 governor of York's
grant, 79; captures New
Amsterdam, 80; Connecticut
boimdary, 81; as governor,
83; laws, 84; and Long Isl-

• and towns, 85, 86; 00 Penn-
sylvania region, 167.

Noell, Martin, plan for ^^'^J***^^!
council, 22, 23.

North Carolina, Virginia settle-
ment, X31; New En^and
traders, 131 ; Drummond gov-
ernor, 138; first assembly,
139; complaints, 139; towns
encouraged, 139; Stephens

governor, 158; Quakers in,
ic8, 164; agricultural, 158;
illicit tiade, 158, 159; and

the proprietaries, 158; Car-
teret governor, 159; East-
church and Bliller, 159; re-
volt, 159; Sothell's rule, 160;
causes of discontent, 160,
161; Ludwell, governor, 161;
bibliography, 353. See also
South Carolma.

Oath, prescribed by Baltimore,
234; Massachusetts, 258.

Orange, Fort, captur»l, 81;
called Albany, 83.

Parliament, acts in the colo-
nies, 37, 258; and colonial
government, 4, 10, 202, 233,
235; annuls Maryland char-
ter, 23^; supremacy, 273.

Penn, William, interest in New
Jersey, 115, 122, 125, 187;
draughts West New Jersey
Concessions, 122; training,
165; royal debt, 166; interest
in government, 167; knowl-
edge of Pennsylvama region,
167; motive, 168; grant, 168-
177; and Baltimore, 170, 187,
194, 247, 250; desires ports,
172; acquires Delaware, 173;
powers, 175-177; prospectus,
177; Conditions ana Con-
cessions, 178; and Indians,
178, 181, 188; instruc-
tions, 179 -181; on prin-
ciples of government, 179,

INDEX

365

182, 183; on town site and
plan, 180; on trade, 181, 320-
322; frame of government,

183, 191-193; in Penn-
sylvania, 185-189, 194, 200;
return to England, 194, 247;
influence at cottrt, 194; no
quo warranto against, 10^;
difficulties, 195; loses nis
colony, 106, 200; and the
colony's oisputes, 197-109;
restored, 200; bibliograpny,

349. 353-
Pennsylvania, admiralty cottrt,

35 ; agent and review of laws,
37, 176; New York boun-
daiy, 98, 171; grant, 168;
Maryland boimdary, 170-
173, 180, 187, 247, 250;
named, 175; land grants, 178;
instructions to Markhami,
179; existing settlements
(1680), 179, 180; trading
company, 181; government,
183, 191-193, 198, 199; first
assembly, 186; lower coim-
ties annexed, 186; Great
Law, 186; development, 189-
191, 200; race elements, 180,
289, 319; counties, 190; trade
and manufactures, loi, 201,
320-322; bicameral legislat-
ure, 193; loyalty to Penn ,194;
exempted from Andros's rule,
19 c; Penn loses, 196, 200;

Sofitical disputes, 196-199;
Delaware desires separation,
199; Quaker schism, 200;
restored to Penn, 200; pop-
ulation (1689), 288; social
conditions, 288-313; towns,
299; schools, 310; products,
^20; customs duties, 325;
bibliography, 349. See also
Middle colonies, Penn.

Perth Amboy, trade, 127, 325.

Philadelphia, site ana plan,
180; Penn at, 187, 188; in
1685, 190; trade, 191, 322,

323; growth, 200; incorpo-
rated, 200; appearance, 299.

Philip, Chief, 253.

Pirates in Cairohnas, 156, 160.

Plymouth, admiral t)r court, 35;
and royal commission, jo;
yields to Andros, 270; ship-
ping. 332; bibliography, 344.
See also New En&rland.

Population, colonial f 1650), 3;
1689), 288; Rhode Island
1660), 61; South Carolina
i6;r2, 1685), 148; Pennsyl-
vania (1685), 189.

Port Royal, Scotch settlement,
149, 151, 154.

Portsmouth, union, 62.

Povey, Thomas, receiver-gen-
eral, 16; plan for colonial
coimcil, 22, 23.

Presbyterianism, in New Eng-
land, 308 ; in middle colonies,
309; in south, 309.

Proprietary colonies, attitude
of Charles II., 38; objections
to (1682), 264. See also
colonies by name.

Puritans, driven from Virginia,
202; in Maryland, 233-241,
280, 281. See also other
colonies by name.

Quakers, persecuted, 46, 162-
164; refuge in America, 114,
162, 163; interest in New
Jersey, 114-116, 125; scat-
tered communities, 164; de-
sire a settlement, 164, 165;
schism in Pennsylvania, 200 ;
in New England, 308; in
middle colonies, 309; in
south, 309; trade in New
York, 328; bibliography,

349-
Quit-rents, in Jerseys, no, 114,

122; in south, 24^.
Quo warranto t against Massa-
chusetts, 39, 263; avoided,
263.

366

COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

Racb elements in Pennsylvania
i8o; in 1689, 289.

Rimaolph, Edward, collector
and searcher, 34, a 60; on
Massachusetts, 46, 256; com-
plaints, 257, 262; budget,
a6i; urges quo warranto,
262; serves it, 263; attacks
Connecticut and Khode Isl-
and, 265, 267; arrested, 277.

Redemptioners. See Servants.

Religion, propagation, 24; per-
secution 46, 162; toleration,
48, 85; liberty, 104, 106, 121,
186; conditions in Virginia,
202, 207, 230; estabhshed
church, 207; Maryland con-
ditions, 233, 23s, 236, 239,
246. See also sects byname.

Representation, equal town, in
Connecticut, J5; "nine men."
75; in New York, 93-96, 98,
287; in New Jersey, 109; in
West New Jersey , 121, 122 ;in
Carolina, 139, 143, 144. 147'.
in Pennsylvania, 184, 193;
control by Virginia bur-
gesses, 205-207; close cor-
poration in Virginia, 208,
210; reformation m Virginia,
218; Puritan, in Maryland,
238; controversy with Balti-
more, 241, 242; quarrels,
245, 247; restriction, 246;
none in dominion of New Eng-
land, 266; protest of towns,
268; lost in Massachusetts,
276; lost in Maryland, 282.

Revenue, and colonial policy,
14-17, 32-35; Massachusetts
undermines royal, 259. See
also Customs.

Revolution of 1688, in England,
273; causes, 274, 276; rising
in Boston, 277; in Connecti-
cut 'and Rhode Island, 278;
in Maryland, 279-281; in
New York, 283; Leisler's
government, 284-286.

Rhode Island, admiralty court,
35 ; population (z66o), 61;
(1689), 288; struggle for
existence, 61; loose union,
62; factions, 62; and the
New England Confederation,
62, 63; Coddington's rule,
^3*65; patent renewed, 64;
continued separation, 65; re-
union, 65; proclaims Charles
II., 65; Connecticut boun-
dary, 66; charter, 66-68;
subordination of executive,
68; and royal commission,
70; and Qoiakers, 163; at-
tacked by Randolph, 26 c;
writs against, 268; Andres s
aggression, 270 ; added to New
England, 271; resumes char-
ter, 278; trade, 33^; bib-
liography, 346. See cusoHew
England.

Royal commission (1664), 69—
7i» 79.

Saco, part of Massachusetts, 45.
Scots in South Carolina, 149,

153-

Self-government, policy of co-
lonial, 9; in New England.
42; instinct, 97; disfavored
by James II., 267. See also
Colonies, Constitutions, Re-
presentation, and colonies by
name.

Servants, white, in 1689, 291;
indented, 291; conditions,
292; future, 29^; authorities,
343. See also Slavery.

Shaftesbury. See Ashley.

Shipping, South Carolina, 3x6;
Maryland, 718; building, 321,
331-333; New York, 328.

Shrewsbury settled, 106.

Slave-trade, New England, 290.

Slavery, Mennonite protest,
189; in Maryland, 343;
colonial in 1689, 390; num-
bers, 290; bibliography, 343.

INDEX

367

Sloughter, governor of New
York, 286, 287.

Social conditions, in Maryland,
243; general (165 2-1 689),
288-313; population, 288;
races, 289; slaves, 290; white
servants, 291; food, 293;
southern condition, 293-296;
houses, 297; towns, 297-301;
transportation, 301; furni-
ture, 302; ceremonial, 302;
chtux:hes, J04-3 1 1 ; education,
3 1 0-3 1 2 ; literatxu-e, 312; pro-
fessions, 313; bibliography,

340-343.
Sothell, Seth, Carolinas, 156,

157. i^o-
Sources on period 1652-1689,

338-354.
South, topography of coast,

129; races, 289; slaves, 290;
servants, 291; disease, 293;
food, 293-296; planters, ^00;
towns, 301; transportation,
301; churches, 304-308;
Episcopal jurisdiction, 307;
sects, 309; schools, 310;
products, 314-319; trade,
314-319, 332; manufactures,
317. See also colonies by
name.
South Carolina, Barbadian
settlers, 134-138, 146; settle-
ment of Charles Town, 142;
earlv politics, 143; first as-
sembly, 147; towns encour-
aged, 147; unprofitable, 147;
proprietary debts, 147, 148;
Yeamans and West, 147, 148;
growth , 148-150; French
Protestants, 148; Scots, 149,
154; Indian war, 150; and
Spanish, 151; friction with
proprietaries, 152-155; trade
monopoly, 152; illicit trade,
1 5 J ; Colleton governor, 155;
political dead-lock, 156; pi-
rates, 156; Sothell's rule, 156,
157; Ludwell, governor.

1 57 1 population (1689), 288;
products, 315; trade, 316;
bibUography, 354. See also
Carolina, South.

Southampton, attempted \mion
with Connecticut, 49, 88, 89,
91.

Southold, Connecticut claims,
55. 59; discontent with New
Haven, 58; attempted union
with Connecticut, 88, 89, 91.

Spain, claim to Carolina, 130;
attacks on Carolina, 151.

Stamford, Connecticut claims,
55, 59; discontent, 58.

Stewart's Town, South Caro-
lina, destroyed, 151.

Stone, governor of Maryland,
234; proclamation, 235; ri-
valry with Fuller, 237; war
with Puritans, 237; defeat,
238.

Stuyvesant, Peter, and the
Indian massacres, 42; as
director-general, 75, 76; and
the English resiaents, 76;
Connecticut's encroachments,
76; surrender, 81; and trade,

327-

Suffrage, qualification in Con-
necticut, 49, 55; in New
York, 85, 287; in Virginia,
208, 217. See also Repre-
sentation.

Sweden, settlements, 179, 319;
Dutch conquest, 4.

Taxation, protest of Long Isl-
and towns, 86-89; burden in
Virginia, 209, 210, 216; pro-
test in Massachusetts, 276.
See also Customs, Revenue.

Tobacco, export, 18; instability
and overproduction, 2 1 1-2 1 3 ,
227; limiting planting, 207,
228; plant - cutters, 228;
in Maryland, 243; impor-
tance, 312.

Towns, equal representation

368

COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

in Connecticut, 55; tinder
Duke's Laws» 85; encourage-
ment, 139, 147, ao7, 209;
bibliography, 345. See also
colonies by name.
Trade, New Haven, Delaware,
4. 42. 57; early coun-
cils, 4; parliamentary con-
trol, 5, 239; mercantile
system, 6-10; Dutch control
of carrying, 10; effect of
restoration, 13; interest of
Charles II., 14-17; English
monopoly, 18; restrictions on
intercolonial, 20, 30, 158, 160;
council (1660), 23; activities
of Lords of Trade, 27; ad-
miralty courts, 31, 35; colo-
nial revenue officers, 32-35;
New Haven interests, 57;
Dutch-Enelish rivalry, 77-
r9; New York, 99, 327; New
fersey, 123, 324; Indian, in

._ _J3, 324, ,_

mtn Carolina, 152; North
Carolina, 158, 159; Penn's
plans, 181; Pennsylvania,
191, ^201; Virginia, 203;
tobacco, 211-213, 316; fees
of vessels, 227; mfluence on
colonial government, 2 40; dis-
turbed by King Philip's War,
255; coasting, 301; West
Indian, 316; rJew England,
318, 330-335; ^^irs, 319, 320;
exports, 322. See also Cus-
toms, Navigation acts.
Treaties, Hartford (1650), 42;
Westminster (1674), 90; Iro-
quois (1684), 99; Penn's
(1683), 189.

Union, royal plans, 37-39» 97.
264, 265; dominion of New
England, 265; completed,
270, 271; larger plan, 271.
See also New England Con-
federation.

Upland, Dutch settlement, 179,
180; named Chester, 186.

Vans, Sir Harrt, and Will-
iams, 64.

Virginia, parliamentary control,
4, 202, 233 ; revenue auditor,
^2; admiralty court, 35;
loyalty, 202; and the first
navigation act, 203; imd
Cromwell, 203-206; burgesses
control, 205 - 207, elected
governors, 205-207; dissatis-
&ction, 205 ; Restoration,
207 ; encouragement of towns,
207, 209; control by Berke-
ley^ 208; freehold fran-
chise, 208; governmental
abuses, 208--211; forts, 209;
taxation, 209, 210; local
abuses, 210; instability of
tobacco, 21 1-2 13; other pro-
ducts encotu^ged, 213; Dutch
attack, 213; granted to
Arlington and Ciilpeper, 214;
efforts for a charter, 214,
226; Indian war (1675), 21 q;
plots, 215; Bacon's rebel-
lion, 217-222; Chicheley's
administration, 222, 226,
228; English forces, 223;
investigation, 223; report
against Berkeley, 224; effect
of rebellion, 225; Teffrejrs
governor, 225; Culpeper's
rule, 226, 220; tobacco riots,
228; Howara governor, 229;
rumors (1688), 230; William
and Mary proclaimed, 230;
back settlements, 231; Nich-
olson, governor, 231; food
exports to New England,
255; poptilation (1689), 288;
social conditions, 288-
331; schools, 310; prod-
ucts, 314; tobacco exports,
316; manufactures, 317; bib-
liography, 351. See also
South.

War, England-Holland (1652),
12; (1673), 89. 213; King

INDEX

369

Philip's, 253-256; France-

England (1689), 283.
Warwick patent, Connecticut
^purchases, 50.
Wentworth, Hugh, governor

of South Carolina, 145.
Werden, Sir John, York's agent,

170.
West, Joseph, governor of

South Carolina, 144, 147, 148,

152. 154.
West Indies, trade, 322-333;

bibHography, 354. .

West New Jersey, conditions,
113; Quakers buy, 114-116;
York's attitude, 116, 122;
auintipartite deed, 117; boun-
aary, 117; Andros's claim,
118, 119; Fenwick's settle-
ment, 118; other settlements,
120; concessions, 121; quit-
rents, 122; Jennings, govern-
or, 122; elective governor,
123; promotion by Coxe,
123; quo warranto, 124; under
Andros, 124; sold, 124;
command of militia, 125;
royal province, 125; weak-
ness, 127; poptdation (1689),
288 ; trade, 322; bibliography,
348. See also Middle colo-
nies, New Jersey.

Wheat, food, 319; export, 327.

William III., proclaimed in
America, 230, 278, 280, 285;
Massachusetts charter, 279;
and Maryland, 282 ; and New
York, 286; annuls New York
statute, 287.

WiUiams, Roger, driven from
Massachusetts, 46; gets re-
newal of patent, 6^, presi-
dent, 65 ; bibliography. 347.

Winthrop, John (2d), colomal
agent, 36; and the regicides,
5 1 ; sent to England, 53 ; char-
acter, 53 ; obtains charter, 53 ;
auestion of bribery, ^4; and
le charter boundaries, 59;
and Rhode Island, 66.

Wool, manufactures, 317, 333.

Ybamans, Sir John, settle-
ijaent, 136, 138; governor of
South Carolina, 142, 147, 148.

York, duke of, conspiracy
against New Netherland, 78;
grant, 78; grants New Jer-
sey, 80, loi ; extent of grant,
80; powers as proprietary,
82; policy, 84, 92-96; and
the Jerseys, 11 7-1 20, 122,
126; and Penn's grant, 170,
173. See also James II.

York, Maine, Massachusetts re-
annexes, 72.

BND OP VOL. V.

VOU ▼. — 14

OCNCRAL BOOKBINDING CO.

p.":t o:

OVAUTY CONTROL MARK

'•*.'?

U-^--

V..

DATE DUE

STANFORD UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA

94305

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Colonial self-government, 1652-1689"

See other formats