UNITED STATES (HISTORY). 



727 



without families, ninety young girls were sent over 

 by the company in 1620, and sold to the young 

 planters, at the rate of 100 150 pounds of tobacco. 

 In 1621, the company passed an ordinance vesting 

 the government of the colony in a governor, 

 council and general assembly, the latter chosen by 

 the inhabitants, with power to enact laws. In 

 1622, 347 men, women and children were mas- 

 sacred by the Indians ; a general Indian war fol- 

 lowed, and the settlements were reduced from 

 eighty to eight. In 1624, the company was dis- 

 solved by the crown, and the colony taken into the 

 hands of the king. Such are a few incidents from 

 the humble annals of the first colonists, presenting 

 a picture of suffering too often renewed in other 

 parts of the country The Plymouth company, to 

 which was granted the exclusive right to trade and 

 settle in North Virginia, did nothing effectual to- 

 wards the colonization of their jurisdiction. But, 

 in 1620, a number of Puritans (Brownists), who 

 had set sail for Virginia, were landed, either by ac- 

 cident or treachery, within the limits of the Ply- 

 mouth company. Ten years afterwards, they 

 obtained from the company a grant of the land to 

 which they had previously no title but occupancy; 

 but they were never incorporated as a body poli- 

 tic by royal charter, and they therefore remained a 

 mere voluntary association, yielding obedience to 

 laws and magistrates formed and chosen by them- 

 selves, until their union with Massachusetts, in 

 1692.* But the germ of the New England colonies 

 was the Massachusetts colony, settled, in 1628, by 

 a company incorporated that year by royal charter, 

 the land having been previously purchased from the 

 Plymouth company. The government of the co- 

 lony was transferred to Massachusetts, in 1630, by 

 vote of the company ; and, a few years later, the 

 freemen adopted the plan of acting by delegates or 

 representatives : courts were also established, and 

 the charter of a trading company was thus tacitly 

 converted into the constitution of a commonwealth. 

 The Massachusetts colonists were Puritans, and 

 were rendered not less obnoxious to the court party 

 at home by their religious principles, than by this 

 unwarranted assumption of political power. This, 

 with other circumstances, led the Plymouth com- 

 pany to resign their charter to the king (1635), and 

 Massachusetts, like Virginia, was thus taken into 

 the royal hands. Such, however, was the disturbed 

 state of England at the time, that these remote and 

 insignificant colonies attracted little attention, and 

 were therefore left to grow up in habits of self- 

 government, with little restraint, while their num- 

 bers and wealth were increased by successive emi- 

 grations of the parties worsted in the civil strife at 

 home. The persecuted Puritans fled to New Eng- 

 land; the oppressed Catholics to Maryland; the 

 defeated cavaliers or royalists to Virginia. Such 

 were some of the events of the earliest periods of 

 colonial history. 



It would lead us beyond our limits to attempt 

 even a sketch of the annals of the colonies. We 

 must satisfy ourselves with a hasty view of the 



* As this instance of the fnnnation of a society which actu- 

 ally exercised the power of life and death is, perhaps, uni|iie 

 in history, wo have thought it worth while to give the docu- 

 ment itself. " In the name of (lod w<! who-e names are un- 

 derwritten, do, solemnly and mutually, in the presence, of God 

 and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into 

 a civil body politic, by virtue hereof to eiiiict. constitute ami 

 frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts constitutions 

 and offices, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for 

 the general {food of the colony, unto which we promise all due 

 subjection and obedience." 



forms of government which prevailed in them, and 

 which served as the elements of the political system 

 established rather than introduced by the revolu- 

 tion. Of these forms of government there were 

 three the royal, the charter, and the proprietary 

 governments. 



1. The charter governments were confined to 

 New England. The people of these colonies, by 

 the express words of their charters, were entitled 

 to the privileges of natural born subjects, and in- 

 vested with the powers of government, legislative, 

 executive and judicial. They chose their own 

 governors, elected legislative assemblies, and estab- 

 lished courts of justice, and in many points even 

 exceeded the powers conferred by the charters. 

 The only limitation to their legislative power was, 

 that their laws should not be contrary to those of 

 England. The crown claimed, indeed, the right of 

 revoking these charters ; but the colonists main- 

 tained that they were solemn compacts, irrevocable 

 unless for cause. The charters were sometimes 

 declared forfeited, or forcibly taken away (particu- 

 larly towards the close of Charles II. 's reign, when 

 the corporations in England shared the same fate) ; 

 and the disputes to which this question gave rise, 

 between the mother country and the charter colo- 

 nies, were one of the causes of the revolution. 



2. The royal governments were those of Vir- 

 ginia, New York, and, at a later period, the Caro- 

 linas (1728) and the Jerseys (1702). In these 

 colonies, the governor and council were appointed 

 by the crown, and the colonists chose representa- 

 tives to the colonial assemblies. The governors 

 were commissioned by the crown, and acted in 

 obedience to instructions received from the same. 

 They had a negative on the proceedings of the 

 legislatures, which were composed of the councils 

 and the popular assemblies : the judges and most of 

 the officers were also appointed by the king, al- 

 though, in many cases, paid by the colony. The 

 sources of discontent in these colonies were the 

 arbitrary acts of the governors, and the royal 

 claim to an absolute veto on the acts of the as- 

 semblies, which would have virtually abolished 

 the right of the people to participate in the govern- 

 ment. 



3. The proprietary governments were those of 

 Maryland, Pennsylvania, and at first the Carolinas 

 and the Jerseys: the two former remained such 

 till the revolution. These colonies were in the 

 hands of proprietors or individuals, to whom grants 

 of land had been made by the crown, with author- 

 ity to establish civil governments, and make laws, 

 under certain restrictions in favour of the crown. 

 The history of the proprietary governments is little 

 more than that of a perpetual quarrel between the 

 people and the proprietors, chiefly owing to the 

 manner in which the latter exercised the preroga- 

 tive of repealing or negativing the acts of the co- 

 lonial assemblies; for, even in these colonies, re- 

 presentative bodies, partly elected by the freemen, 

 and partly summoned by the proprietors, were soon 

 introduced. In 1719, the people of Carolina had 

 become so exasperated against the proprietors, that 

 they took the government into their own hands, 

 and elected a governor and council, and assembly, 

 which published a declaration of independence, set- 

 ting forth the causes of their renunciation of the 

 former government, and signed by all the members 

 of the new one. The oldest laws of the Virginia 

 assembly (1624) comprise a declaration defining the 

 power of the governor and the assembly, and assert 



