their constitution, and a manifest violation of their rights, as free born subjects of England.

The house, at the same time, unanimously resolved, “that it was highly necessary that a remonstrance should be drawn and sent home, setting forth the true state of Pennsylvania, and representing the pernicious consequences to the British interest, and to the inhabitants of the province, if, contrary to their charter and laws, they were to be governed by proprietary instructions." Doctor Franklin was appointed agent to present this remonstrance to the King; and for that purpose, went to England in the summer of 1757. Finding the court, as well as the people in general, ignorant of the true situation of the province, and of the nature of their disputes, (having only heard the story of the proprietors,) he drew up and published, but without his name, “an historical review of the constitution and government of Pennsylvania, from its origin, so far as regards the several points of controversy, which have, from time to time, arisen between the several governors of that province and their several assemblies."

This very able work, comprised in one volume, was published in 1759, and produced a change of sentiment in favor of the provincialists.

The proprietors, sensible of this change, finally proposed to Dr. Franklin, that their estates should not be assessed beyond their proportion. To this he assented, and the business was thus for the present closed. The proprietors, however, were afterwards dissatisfied with this concession, and again claimed to have their estates exempt from taxation; this, with other difficulties, so exasperated the assembly and the people, that in 1764, they agreed upon a petition to the king, praying for a change from a proprietary to a royal government.

Dr. Franklin was appointed agent to obtain this important alteration; and for this purpose, in 1765, went again to England. Other more important disputes, however, between the parent country and all the American colonies and provinces, in consequence of the stamp act, intervened; and ultimately liberated Pennsylvania from a royal, as well as proprietary government.

In the royal governments, the governor and the council were appointed by the crown, and the people elected representatives to serve in the colonial legislatures. The governor held his office by a commission from the king, and was to be governed by such royal instructions, as he from time to time received. The council derived their authority, both executive and legislative, from the same instructions. In their legislative capacity, they constituted the upper house, having a negative on the acts of the representatives; and in their executive capacity, they acted as advisers of the governor. The latter had a negative on the acts of both houses; and the acts themselves, though approved by the governor, were finally subject to the revision of the crown. The judges and most of the other officers were, also, appointed by the king. The judges held their offices during the pleasure of the crown; and the governor, as well as the judges, were at first dependent upon the colonial legislatures for their salaries.

Admiralty courts were, also, established in the colonies, by the crown, with an extent of jurisdiction, beyond similar courts in England.

These courts had cognizance of all breaches of the acts concerning navigation and trade, as well as those, which were in the nature of revenue acts; and proceeded, contrary to the usage in such cases, in England, without the intervention of a jury. This practice prevailed in the colonies, no doubt, from this circumstance, that the acts of trade and navigation, as well as the revenue acts, were extremely unpopular in the colonies; and it was found very difficult to procure convictions, for breaches of them, when the people themselves were judges. The courts of admiralty, were therefore instructed to proceed without a jury. This was a subject of great complaint, on the part of the colonists, and particularly at the commencement of the revolution.* And it is not a little singular, that this practice still continues in the United States, even under the present constitution.

During the existence of the London company, the affairs of Virginia were managed by a governor and council appointed by the

* See Kent's Commentaries.

company, until 1619, when a general assembly was called by the governor, consisting of " two burgesses, chosen from every town, hundred, and plantation, by the inhabitants, to decide conjointly with the governor and council, by the greatest majority of voices, in all matters of concern, relating to the colony." This assembly was held at James Town, and was the first legislative assembly held in America.* In July, 1621, a more permanent and perfect form of government was established by the company. By an ordinance of that date, for the better government of the colony, two supreme councils were constituted, one to consist of a council of state, appointed by the company, to assist the governor; the other of the council of state and two burgesses, chosen out of every town, hundred, and plantation, by the inhabitants. This council was called "the general assembly, wherein all matters were to be decided, determined, and ordered, by the greater part of the voices then present, reserving to the governor, always, a negative voice."

This assembly had power "to make, ordain, and enact such general laws and orders, for the behoof of the colony, and the good government thereof, as, from time to time, should appear necessary and requisite."

In all other things, the assembly was required to follow "the policy of the form of government, laws, customs, and manner of trial, and other administration of justice, used in the realm of England, as near as may be." No law or ordinance, however, made by the general assembly, was to be of force or validity, unless confirmed, in a general quarter court of the company in England, and returned under their seal; and no orders of the court in England, were to bind the colony, before they were ratified, in the same manner, by the general assembly in Virginia.

This form of government was too popular to please the despotic James; and this, among other things, no doubt, produced a determination to deprive the company of their charter.

Some of the most influential members of the company, were, also, among the most popular leaders in the house of commons, and opposed with great boldness the arbitrary measures of the King. Sir Edwin Sandys, one of the company, had been imprisoned, by a royal order, for his conduct in parliament. The members of the company having refused to surrender their charter; a quo warranto was issued in 1624, and judgment rendered against the company; and their rights became vested in the crown. The share, in legislation, acquired by the people of the colony, had reconciled them to the government, of the company; and they were apprehensive, that, by a revocation of the charter, they should lose a right, thus secured. Pending the contest about the charter, in a letter to the privy council they humbly requested "that the governors might not have absolute power, and that they might retain the liberty of their general assemblies, than which," they say, "nothing could more conduce to the public satisfaction and public utility."* The apprehensions of the Virginians were soon realized. After the abolition of the charter, some years elapsed before a regular government was established.

General assemblies were not regularly called by the royal governors; and the people felt the hand of oppression, particularly during the administration of Harvey. It was not until 1639, that the people were again permitted to have a regular share in the government. In that year, Sir William Berkley, had particular instructions to issue writs for electing representatives, who, in conjunction with the governor and council, were to form a general assembly, and to possess supreme legislative authority in the colony.

During the civil wars in England, the colonists of Virginia, under the administration of Berkley, who had become popular, adhered to the royal cause; in consequence of which they became obnoxious to the ruling party in England.

In October, 1650, parliament having obtained the supremacy, declared Virginia in a state of rebellion, and authorised the coun

* Stith, p. 315, and Burke, vol. 1, p. 277.

cil of state to reduce the colony to obedience; and all trade with the same was, also, prohibited. Soon after this, the council sent an armed force, accompanied by commissioners, with instructions, to use force, if necessary, to reduce the colony. The commissioners were authorized, among other things, in case of submission, to give liberty to the inhabitants, " to choose such burgesses as they shall think fit, for the better regulating and governing of affairs there;" provided nothing be done contrary to the government of the commonwealth of England, and the laws there established.* The governor of Virginia prepared to resist this force, but honorable and liberal terms of capitulation were finally offered and accepted, in March, 1651. By these it was agreed among other things, that the inhabitants of the colony, should remain in due obedience and subjection to the commonwealth of England; should enjoy such freedom and privileges as belonged to the free born people of England; and that the former government, by commissions and instruction, be null and void; that the grand assembly should convene and transact the affairs of the colony; but nothing was to be done contrary to the laws of the commonwealth.

That they should have " as free trade as the people of England do enjoy, to all places and with all nations, according to the laws of that commonwealth, and enjoy all privileges, equal with any plantations in America; and likewise be free from all taxes, customs, and impositions whatsoever, and none to be imposed upon them, without the consent of the grand assembly."t

The political state of this colony, from the time of this capitulation, to the restoration of Charles II, has not, until lately, been perfectly understood. The early historians of Virginia, have stated that, during this period, the people of that colony were in entire subjection to the oppressive government of Cromwell; and that the acts of parliament in relation to trade were there rigidly enforced, while they were relaxed, in favor of the New England

* Hazard, vol. 1, p. 557. † Hazard, vol. 1, p. 561, and Burke, vol. 2, p. 88.