186 



Beverley, a native also, has run into the other ex- 

 treme, he has cotnj)risccl our history, from the first prO" 

 positions of Sir Walter Raleigh to the year 17G0, in the 

 hundredth part of the space which Stitii employs for 

 the fourth part of the period. 



Sir William Keith has taken it up at its earliest pe- 

 riod, and continued it to the year 1725. He is agreea- 

 ble enough in style, and passes over events of little 

 importance. Of course he is short, and would he pre- 

 ferred by a foreigner. 



During the regal government, some contest arose on 

 the exaction of an illegal fee by governor Dinvviddie, 

 and doubtless there were others on other occasions not 

 at present recollected. It is supposed, tliat these are 

 not sufficiently interesting to a foreigner to merit a de- 

 tail. 



The petition of the council and burgesses of Virginia 

 to the king, their memorial to the lords, and remon- 

 strance to the commons in the year 1764, began the 

 present contest ; and these having proved ineffectual 

 to prevent the passage of the stamp act, the resolutions 

 of the house of burgesses of 1765 were passed, declar- 

 ing the independence of the people of Virginia on the 

 parliament of Great Britain, in matters of taxation. 

 From that time lill the declaration of independence by 

 Congress in 1776, their journals are filled with asser- 

 tions of the public rights. 



The pamphlets published in this state on the contro- 

 verted question, were : 



1766, An Inquiry into the rights of the British Colo- 

 nies, by Richard Bland. 



1769, The Monitor's Letters, by Dr Arthur Lee. 



1774, A summary View of the rights of British Ame- 

 rica.* 



1774, Considerations, &:c. by Robert Carter Nicholas. 



Since the declaration of independence this state has 

 had no controversy with any other, except with that of 

 Pennsylvania, on their common boundary. — Some pa- 



* By the author of these noiee. 



