The Colonization Of North America Part 15

Council for Foreign Plantations.--The work of enforcing the laws devolved upon the crown and privy council. The acc.u.mulation of business and the specialized knowledge required in colonial matters made it desirable to have a body created which might handle the business in a more efficient manner. Accordingly in December, 1660, a Council for Foreign Plantations was commissioned. Members of the council were to inform themselves regarding the colonies, were to introduce a more uniform system of government, and were to see that the navigation acts were enforced.

Council of Trade.--From the English standpoint the colonies were mainly commercial enterprises. To foster commerce a Council of Trade was created. The work of the two bodies was to sift the ma.s.s of business so that matters of first importance only might come before the privy council. Lack of authority interfered with the interest of the members of the minor councils; the sessions became less and less frequent, and by 1665 both had ceased.

Council for Trade and Plantations.--Supervision of the colonies again devolved upon a committee of the privy council. In 1667 Clarendon fell and the small group known as the Cabal came into power. The following year the privy council was reorganized, four standing committees being const.i.tuted, one of which had charge of trade and plantations. The need of experts, however, continued to be felt, and in 1668 a new Council of Trade was appointed. In 1670 the Council for Plantations was also revived, and in 1672 the two councils were consolidated as the Council for Trade and Plantations. The council prepared preliminary drafts of instructions to governors, examined colonial legislation, and investigated questions which arose.

Lords of Trade.--Executive powers remained in the privy council, and this necessarily curbed the Council for Trade and Plantations, which was purely an advisory body. In 1674 the latter council was abolished, and the following year the king again committed its work to the Committee for Trade and Plantations of the privy council. This committee, known henceforth as the Lords of Trade, was a permanent body with its own clerks. William Blathwayt soon became the secretary and for twenty years he held the position. The efficiency of the body and the development of the colonial policy was due more to him than to any other person. The Lords of Trade prepared the instructions to governors, supervised the development of the colonies, examined colonial questions, and enforced the navigation laws.

The Admiralty.--After the Restoration the Duke of York was appointed Lord High Admiral of England and in 1662 his powers were extended to the colonies. Cases concerning vessels seized for violating some of the clauses of the commercial laws were tried in admiralty courts which were established in the crown colonies, deputies were appointed by the admiral to attend to the business, and s.h.i.+ps were stationed in the colonies to seize illegal traders.

Governors and customs officials.--In the colony the chief executive officer was the governor. He was expected to enforce the trade laws, but outside of the crown colonies there was great, laxity in this regard.

The work of enforcing the navigation laws was usually entrusted by the governor to a clerk called the naval officer but at a later period these officials were appointed by the crown. The right of collection of the English customs was leased to certain individuals who were known as farmers of the customs. They frequently complained that the governors were remiss in enforcing the navigation laws. Accordingly, the farmers of the customs were allowed to send, at their own expense, officers who would attend to the collection of duties. The farming system was soon abandoned and commissioners of customs were appointed, who sent out collectors, usually one to each colony. To examine the collector's accounts and act as a check upon him, officials called comptrollers were placed in most of the colonies, and in 1683 a superintendent for all the colonies, called the surveyor-general of the customs, was appointed. The activities of these officials led to considerable friction with colonial governors and proprietors, who resented the interference of the customs officials.

MISRULE AND REBELLION IN VIRGINIA

Effect of the trade laws.--In 1660 Sir William Berkeley began his second administration, which proved to be as unsuccessful as his first administration had been successful. Economic distress and arbitrary misrule beset Virginia for sixteen years, culminating in a popular outbreak known as Bacon's rebellion. The navigation acts fell heavily upon the tobacco planters, who were deprived of the Dutch trade. The population at the same time rapidly increased. In 1671 the inhabitants numbered about forty thousand, and nearly doubled in the next decade.

The increasing population meant an increasing acreage of tobacco. The price of tobacco fell, while freight rates increased and imported goods went up in price. To alleviate the situation the a.s.sembly pa.s.sed several acts to encourage new industries, but the planters held to their one great staple. Several attempts were made to limit the production of tobacco, a policy in which the Virginians asked the people of Maryland and the Albemarle district to the south to cooperate, but the efforts failed. The act of 1673 worked an added injury, for it deprived the planters of the New England market.

Wars and other misfortunes.--The wars with Holland increased the economic distress. In 1667 a Dutch fleet entered the James River, captured an English frigate, and destroyed several trading vessels. Soon afterward a hurricane destroyed hundreds of houses and ruined the crops.

In the winter of 1672-1673 a disease carried off fifty thousand cattle, more than half of all the stock in Virginia. A second Dutch raid in 1673 destroyed a large part of the tobacco fleet.

Governmental abuses.--Berkeley was a firm believer in the divine right of kings, and looked with disfavor upon any interference from the people. To him it seemed fitting that, as the king's representative, he should control every branch of governmental activity. His council was entirely subservient and he gained control of the house of burgesses by controlling the county elections through dishonest officials. In 1670 the a.s.sembly limited the franchise to freeholders; thus depriving the poor of voting. In the counties the justices of the peace were appointed by the governor. They exercised judicial, executive, and legislative functions. The county courts settled the more important suits and the individual justices determined minor cases. The courts also levied the direct taxes, which were very heavy. In addition, the local church divisions were governed by vestries which were selected by the governor.

These bodies levied the taxes to pay the church expenses. The whole machinery of government was thus controlled by the governor. The form of taxation aggravated the situation. Instead of a property tax, which would throw the burden upon the great landholders, the poll-tax was the usual method of raising money, the poor man thus having to pay as much as the wealthy. There was also much bad judgment displayed in the use of public funds. In a period of low prices and overproduction, the heavy expenditures proved a serious burden, and discontent gradually developed into rebellion.

Proprietary grants.--The action of the English government also alarmed the colonists. In 1660 an attempt was made to renew the old Virginia Company. Berkeley visited England to prevent it and his mission proved successful. In 1649 the king had granted the region between the Potomac and the Rappahannock rivers to several of his supporters, and after the Restoration they leased their rights to Sir Humphrey Hooke and two others. In 1669 the grant was renewed. The Virginia a.s.sembly immediately sent agents to England to obtain the annulment of the patent or to allow the colony to purchase the tract. Before a settlement was made the king in 1673 granted the whole of Virginia to the Earl of Arlington and Lord Culpeper with full proprietory rights for thirty-one years. The a.s.sembly was greatly alarmed and directed its agents to seek the annulment of this patent also. The matter was finally settled by an arrangement with the proprietors by which they agreed to relinquish the patent provided the colony paid them the quit-rents and a.s.sured them the escheated property. The agents then asked the government that they be a.s.sured that no portion of the colony would be granted in future to any proprietors and that taxation would not be imposed without the consent of the house of burgesses. Before a settlement was reached Bacon's rebellion occurred.

Indian war.--The spark that kindled the rebellion was an Indian war. The Senecas, pressing upon the Susquehannas, forced them into Maryland and Virginia, where they committed depredations in the summer of 1675. The settlers retaliated by killing several Indians. The Susquehannas joined with the native tribes and harried the frontiers. Berkeley sent Colonel John Was.h.i.+ngton in command of several hundred men to join the Marylanders against an Indian fort on the Potomac, but after several weeks of fighting the red men escaped. This was followed by renewed depredations. Early in 1676 the governor prepared a second expedition but suddenly abandoned the project. In March the a.s.sembly met and decided to wage a defensive war. Forts were to be built upon the upper waters of the rivers and heavy taxes were demanded to pay for them.

Bacon's rebellion.--The people were greatly incensed at the policy, and demanded that the a.s.sembly be dissolved and a free election held. The frontiersmen also demanded that they be allowed to go against the Indians. Both of these demands the governor stubbornly refused. A rebellion immediately broke out in Charles City County, and Nathaniel Bacon, of Henrico, a member of Berkeley's council, was induced to lead it. The governor was asked to grant Bacon a commission to proceed against the Indians. Without waiting for the governor's decision, Bacon led his men against the Pamunkeys. Bacon's act angered Berkeley, who refused the commission and ordered Bacon and his men to lay down their arms. This they refused to do and retired beyond the frontier, where they destroyed an Indian stronghold on an island in the Roanoke River.

Berkeley issued a proclamation declaring Bacon's acts disloyal and rebellious. To obtain popular support he dismantled the forts, dissolved the a.s.sembly, and called an election.

Bacon was elected in Henrico County and an armed guard accompanied him to the capital. Berkeley's troops fired upon Bacon's sloop, but that night Bacon entered the town to consult with friends. He was discovered, and eventually captured and brought before the governor, who, in view of the popular clamor, became lenient, granting him a pardon and promising him a commission as general. As the commission was not forthcoming, Bacon collected several hundred men and marched upon Jamestown, which he entered without opposition, and forced Berkeley to sign the commission and to write a letter to the king justifying Bacon's acts. The a.s.sembly now pa.s.sed several bills which struck at the governor's power, and repealed the act which restricted the franchise to freeholders.

The burgesses had just completed their work when news came that the Indians were again on the warpath, and Bacon hastened with his volunteers to the frontier. No sooner was he gone than the governor began to enlist troops to proceed against the popular leader. Hearing of this Bacon returned and Berkeley fled to the eastern sh.o.r.e of Chesapeake Bay. Bacon was now in full control of the larger part of the colony. To justify his acts he took the oath of allegiance, imposed it upon his followers, and called an election. He then organized two expeditions, one against the governor, the other against the Indians. An English s.h.i.+p was seized and two hundred men were sent to capture Berkeley, but the governor's followers surprised the crew and captured the leaders.

Berkeley then returned to Jamestown. While these events were occurring, Bacon marched against the Indians and captured a stronghold of the Pamunkeys. He then captured Jamestown and burned it, soon afterward retiring into Gloucester County, where he was taken sick and died. In a few months the people wearied of anarchy, many of the leaders surrendered, and Berkeley was again in control.

Berkeley's revenge.--In June, 1676, Berkeley had tendered his resignation to the king. Charles decided to allow him to retain the t.i.tle of governor, but to have him return to England, leaving the government to a lieutenant-governor, Colonel Jeffreys being appointed.

He was a.s.sisted by two commissioners, Berry and Moryson. A general pardon for the rebels was also drawn up. Berry and Moryson arrived in the colony and found the governor intractable. Jeffreys, with about a thousand troops, arrived soon afterward, but instead of a.s.serting his authority, he allowed Berkeley to ignore the pardon proclamation and many were hung. Knowledge of Berkeley's disobedience reached the king, who ordered him to return to England at once, but before the order arrived Berkeley had embarked. He died soon after reaching England, and Lord Culpeper was appointed governor, but he did not reach Virginia until 1680.

Culpeper and Howard.--In the meantime the commissioners investigated the causes of the rebellion, and in July, 1677, Berry and Moryson took their report to England where it was laid before the privy council. Jeffreys, who was left in control, had little authority, and the government again fell into the hands of Berkeley's friends. Culpeper arrived in 1680, but he proved to be a weak individual who spent most of his time in England and did little when in the colony. In 1684 a new governor, Lord Howard of Effingham, proceeded at once to curb the powers of the house of burgesses. The right of appealing cases from the lower courts to the a.s.sembly was denied, henceforth the governor and council being the final court of appeal. The right of the king to annul laws pa.s.sed by the a.s.sembly was also a.s.serted in spite of violent opposition. The session of 1685 proved a stormy one. An attempt was made to take the power of taxation away from the a.s.sembly. The king, who had taken over the proprietory rights of Arlington and Culpeper, demanded that the quit-rents be paid in specie instead of tobacco. This the burgesses violently opposed, but they finally compromised by agreeing to pay somewhat less than the governor had demanded. A "bill of ports" was introduced which was intended to fix the points at which s.h.i.+ps might load and unload. Another violent struggle occurred. Finally, on recommendation of the governor, the king dissolved the a.s.sembly. Lord Howard unseated several members and appointed the clerk of the a.s.sembly.

The governor also collected certain fees, an act which the burgesses claimed was an encroachment upon the power of taxation. The colony was nearing another rebellion. In 1688 the a.s.sembly drew up a statement of grievances, which they sent to the king, but by the time it reached England James II had been driven from the throne and Effingham was soon recalled.

DISCONTENT IN MARYLAND

Conditions in Maryland.--Economic conditions in Maryland were similar to those in Virginia, the navigation laws affecting the colony in a similar manner, the price of tobacco falling continually after 1660 for many years. Political discontent also manifested itself, but the religious element played a larger part in Maryland than in Virginia. No widespread rebellion occurred, however, for Baltimore's government was more temperate than that of Berkeley, the settlements were more compact, frontier dangers were less acute, and no popular leader of great ability arose to lead the malcontents.

Charles Calvert's administration.--After the turmoil of the Cromwellian period, the Restoration brought comparative security to the proprietor of Maryland, who succeeded in ingratiating himself with Charles II. In 1675 Charles Calvert succeeded to the proprietors.h.i.+p. Previously for several years he had personally directed the governors.h.i.+p and had worked conscientiously to bring about prosperity in the colony. He was less tactful than his father and was exceedingly strong-willed. He placed his relatives in the important positions, restricted the suffrage, and frequently summoned to the a.s.sembly only half of the elected delegates, thus keeping out influential opponents. In 1676, while Baltimore was in England, a few malcontents attempted an uprising, but Notley, the acting governor, overthrew and hanged two of the leaders, nipping the rebellion in the bud. The proprietor and a.s.sembly continued to have difficulties, but in the main Baltimore succeeded in maintaining his power. He also had trouble with William Penn over the northern boundary, and with the Lords of Trade over the right of collecting the customs. Baltimore's Catholic leanings naturally made him support James II. When that monarch was driven from the throne, a miniature bloodless revolution occurred in Maryland. An a.s.sociation for the Defense of the Protestant Religion was formed. In July, 1689, the leaders seized St. Mary's and held a representative a.s.sembly. But to their chagrin, William and Mary restored the old colonial system, and Baltimore was soon back in power.

ROYAL INTERFERENCE IN NEW ENGLAND

Ma.s.sachusetts and the king.--During the Cromwellian period the New England colonies had followed their own devices, but when Charles II came to the throne, they could not expect to pursue their independent course. To forestall trouble, Ma.s.sachusetts hastened to acknowledge the king's authority, and none too soon, for numerous complaints had been lodged against her. The most forceful of these came from the Quakers. In 1655 Mary Fisher and Ann Austin, two Quaker missionaries, had landed in Barbados, the first of that sect to come to the colonies. The following year they went to Boston from which they were promptly expelled. Rhode Island proved hospitable. Those who had believed in Anne Hutchinson's "covenant of grace" found the Quaker idea of the "inner fight" an acceptable doctrine. From Rhode Island Quakers frequently penetrated the neighboring colonies which took violent means to expel them. The Ma.s.sachusetts persecution reached its height in 1660 when three Quakers were hanged, one of them being Mary Dyer, a former friend of Anne Hutchinson. This high-handed proceeding reached the ear of the king, who was in no amiable frame of mind toward the Puritan colonists, who were believed to be sheltering two of the regicides. He accordingly ordered the Boston authorities to send Quakers to England for trial, but Ma.s.sachusetts sent representatives to England, who succeeded in getting the king to grant the colony free hand in dealing with Quakers. Charles also confirmed the Ma.s.sachusetts charter, but changed the basis of voting from church members.h.i.+p to a property qualification.

The Connecticut charter.--Connecticut fared well with Charles II. When the king's messengers visited the colony in search of the regicides, they were given a.s.sistance, while New Haven aided the fugitives in escaping. The results of this were soon apparent. In 1661 when Connecticut sent Governor John Winthrop to England to obtain a charter, he was graciously received and the following year the doc.u.ment was issued. It provided for a popularly elected governor, a deputy-governor, council, and a.s.sembly. The boundaries were described as "All that part of our Dominions ... bounded on the East by the Narrogancett River, commonly called Narrogancett Bay..., and on the North by the lyne of the Ma.s.sachusetts Plantation, and on the South by the Sea, and ... from the said Narrogancett Bay on the East to the South Sea on the West parte, with the Islands thereunto adjoyneinge." The boundaries included a part of the territory of Rhode Island and the whole of New Haven, and entirely ignored the Dutch possessions in the Hudson Valley. New Haven protested violently, but in 1664, when the king granted the lands between the Connecticut and Delaware rivers to the Duke of York, the New Haven towns submitted to Connecticut rather than be annexed to New York.

The Rhode Island charter.--Fearful that Charles II might divide her territory among her neighbors, Rhode Island hastened to proclaim the king and pet.i.tioned that she be granted a charter. The Rhode Island representative protested against the inclusion of Narragansett Bay territory in Connecticut and the difficulty was adjusted by fixing the boundary at the Pawtucket River, which was renamed the Narragansett. The form of government was similar to that of Connecticut, but in Rhode Island religious freedom was established.

The royal commissioners.--In 1664, when the English government had determined upon the seizure of New Netherlands, commissioners were sent to America. Respecting New England, their duties were to settle boundary questions, to consider local disputes, and to see how the colonies might be made more profitable. The commissioners visited Boston in July, 1664, where they obtained troops and demanded the repeal of the law which restricted the franchise to church members.h.i.+p. After the conquest of New Netherlands, three of them returned to New England. They were well received in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Plymouth at this time was attempting to obtain a charter, and the commissioners suggested that the colony might have its lands confirmed without cost if it would receive a royal governor, an offer which was declined? In Boston their reception was stormy, the Ma.s.sachusetts authorities denying that the commission had any right of jurisdiction. Nicolls, the fourth commissioner, soon arrived and the debates continued, but without result. The king rebuked Ma.s.sachusetts for its lack of respect, but took no immediate steps to coerce the colony.

The frontier on the eve of King Philip's War.--In 1675 the Pen.o.bscot marked the most northern settlement. Along the coasts and in the lower valleys of the short New England streams settlements had been planted.

Eastern Ma.s.sachusetts and Plymouth contained numerous towns. In Rhode Island the island was fairly well-settled, but with the exception of Providence and Warwick, the mainland had attracted few. Other settlements were located near the mouth of the Thames, and in the valley of the Connecticut as far up as Northfield. The coast lands of western Connecticut had also been occupied. The total population of New England did not exceed fifty thousand. The lands beyond the fringe of settlement were occupied by powerful Indian tribes, which could muster about thirty-five hundred fighting men.

Causes of the war.--The encroachment of the frontiers on the Indian hunting ground was the primary cause of the war, but other events were contributory. By 1660 the fur trade had declined, fish and lumber having become the important exports. This trade brought in silver, and wampum ceased to be the medium of exchange. With the pa.s.sing of furs and wampum, the Indian became less and less useful to the white man, who looked upon him with contempt. The christianizing of the Cape Cod Indians by the Reverend John Eliot and other missionaries was viewed sullenly by the Wampanoags, who saw in it an attempt to weaken their power. Ma.s.sasoit, Sachem of the Wampanoags, died in 1662, leaving two sons, called by the whites Alexander and Philip. The sudden death of Alexander gave rise to a belief among the Indians that he had been poisoned.

The war.--In the summer of 1675, outbreaks occurred in Rhode Island, and a settler was killed. An expedition was immediately sent against the Wampanoags, but Philip succeeded in escaping with his followers. The Nipmucks attacked Deerfield, Northfield. Springfield, and Hatfield, spreading terror in the Connecticut Valley. Believing that the Narragansetts were about to enter the war, Ma.s.sachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut joined forces, and in December attacked their stronghold.

After a b.l.o.o.d.y battle they captured it and dispersed the tribe. The survivors joined the other hostiles and harried the frontiers as far north as the Maine settlements. In April, 1676, Chief Canonchet, of the Narragansetts, was captured and shot, and the following month the Indians were decisively defeated near the falls of the Connecticut.

After that the Indian confederation broke up and effective resistance came to an end in August with the death of Philip. The power of the tribes was broken and the way cleared for the advancement of the frontier.

Complaints against Ma.s.sachusetts.--The independent course which Ma.s.sachusetts had followed in her dealings with the home government had irritated Charles and the privy council, but the fall of Clarendon and the Dutch war of 1673 had kept the king from taking action against the headstrong colony. Complaints continued to be made. The heirs of Mason and Gorges claimed that Ma.s.sachusetts had usurped their rights; London merchants complained that the colony was evading the navigation acts by carrying tobacco and sugar directly to Europe from other colonies; lack of respect for the king's authority, the exercising of powers not warranted by her charter, and numerous other complaints were lodged against her.

Edward Randolph.--In 1676 the king sent Edward Randolph to Ma.s.sachusetts with an order that the colony send agents to England within six months to answer the Mason and Gorges claims an order which was tardily fulfilled. He was also empowered to collect information which might be useful to the Lords of Trade. Randolph was not well received, being looked upon as an agent of the Mason and Gorges heirs. When he complained to Governor Leverett of the violation of the navigation laws, the governor boldly a.s.serted that parliament had no power to legislate for Ma.s.sachusetts, and denied that appeals might be made to the king.

Randolph returned to England convinced that a change of government was necessary.

In 1678 Randolph was appointed collector of the customs, but he did not arrive in Boston until the following year. In the meantime the Ma.s.sachusetts t.i.tle to New Hamps.h.i.+re had been examined. Randolph bore a letter from the king which commanded the colony to give up its jurisdiction over both New Hamps.h.i.+re and Maine. The former command Ma.s.sachusetts immediately obeyed, but the latter was ignored as the agents of Ma.s.sachusetts had recently purchased the Gorges t.i.tle.

Annulment of the charter.--As collector of the customs Randolph's course was beset with difficulties, and his reports were filled with complaints of frequent violations of the navigation acts. In 1681 he returned to England and advised that the charter of Ma.s.sachusetts be abrogated and that all the New England colonies be united under one administrative head. Randolph soon returned to the colony, but the friction continued and his complaints became more and more violent. The king and the Lords of Trade finally wearied of the strong-willed colony, legal action was taken, and in 1684 the charter was annulled.

Temporary government.--The annulment of the charter did not bring about an insurrection in Ma.s.sachusetts, for the colonial leaders realized that the protection of the mother country was necessary to preserve them from being conquered by the French. While the Lords of Trade were considering a form of government, a temporary plan was put in operation. Joseph Dudley was made president, Randolph secretary, and a council was appointed, but no provision was made for a legislative a.s.sembly. To enforce the laws of trade, in 1686 an admiralty court was established.

Affairs in New Hamps.h.i.+re.--Since New Hamps.h.i.+re was separated from Ma.s.sachusetts, affairs in the northern colony had been going badly. A president and council had been established, but when Randolph attempted to enforce the trade laws, he had met with difficulties. The colonists also objected to paying quit-rents to the Mason heirs. In 1682 Edward Cranfield was appointed governor and was soon at loggerheads with the people over the Mason right, and in 1685 he left the colony in disgust.

Dominion of New England.--The Lords of Trade for some time had been considering the advisability of consolidating the New England colonies in order to cut down expense, to make the enforcement of the navigation acts more effective, and to bring the colonies into a closer dependence on the crown. When James became king, the plan was put into operation.

In the new form of government the central figure was a governor-general who was to be a.s.sisted by a council, but no provision was made for a popular a.s.sembly.

Edmund Andros.--Andros, the former governor of New York, was appointed governor-general and arrived at Boston in December. 1686. In a businesslike manner he organized his government. Boston was made the seat of power. Andros acted as commander of the army and Vice-admiral, and exercised the pardoning power. With the advice and consent of the council he made laws, levied taxes, and administered justice. He also made land grants and collected quit-rents. He demanded that Plymouth, Rhode Island, and Connecticut surrender their charters. Plymouth and Rhode Island complied and their representatives were admitted to the council, but Connecticut temporized. Finally Andros visited the obdurate colony, dissolved the government, and admitted representatives to his council. The charter, however, according to Connecticut tradition, was hidden in an oak tree and never left the colony. In 1688 the Lords of Trade determined to bring all the territory from the St. Croix and the St. Lawrence to the Delaware under the supervision of Andros.

Overthrow of Andros.--The system aroused the anger of the colonists, who looked upon the governor-general as a tyrant. Mutterings of discontent grew louder and louder, and when news reached Ma.s.sachusetts that James II had fled from England, the people of Boston rose in revolt, seized the fortifications and royal frigate, and imprisoned Andros and Randolph. A council was established, a convention was summoned, and the old charter government was reestablished. Connecticut and Rhode Island also restored the charter governments.

READINGS

COLONIAL POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Andrews, C.M., _Colonial Self-Government_, 1-40; Beer, G.L., _The Old Colonial System_, I, 1-315; "The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies," in Columbia University, _Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law_, III, Pt. 2, pp. 29-54; Channing, Edward, _History of the United States_, II, 1-13; Egerton, H.E., _A Short History of British Colonial Policy_, 66-80; MacDonald, William, _Select Charters_, 106-115, 119-120, 133-136; Osgood, H.L., _The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century_, III, 143-241.

VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND