certain other perfons, to fuperintend the colonies, to erect courts, civil and ecclefiaftical, to remove governors for caufes which to them fhould feem meet, to inquire into the conduct of all officers, to punish offences with fine and imprisonment, to make and repeal laws and revoke charters. This extraordinary commiffion excited great alarm in the infant colonies, but the inhabitants determined to refift the execution of it; and on receiving intelligence that a governor, appointed by the commiffioners, would proceed to America, the government of Massachusetts haftened the fortifications in Boston harbor.-It does not appear that any attempt was made to enforce this com miffion.

3. Colonies under Charles the firft, and the Commonwealth. During the reign of Charles the firft, the colonies were frequently alarmed with the report of fome act of the Eng-lish government, to abridge their freedom. Their enemies reprefented the people as aiming at an entire independence, and a plan was devised and nearly matured, to deprive the colonies of their charters, and place over them a general governor. Probably the difputes and civil war in England, were among the caufes which fruftrated that plan. After king Charles was beheaded, and the government of England affumed the fhape of a commonwealth, the colonies were relieved from their apprehenfions, and the Protector, Cromwell, appeared to favor the views and interefts of the fettlers in America. Under his administration however, the parliament paffed an act for encouraging the commerce of England, which was the ground work of the famous Navigation Act in 1660, which reftrained the trade of the colonies, and was the means of drying up the fources of their profperity.

4. State of the Colonies under Charles the fecond. Upon the restoration of the monarchy in England, the colonies fubmitted, and fent addreffes, congratulating the king on his acceffion to the throne. Connecticut and Rhode-Ifland obtained charters with ample privileges, and fo well pleafed was the king with the refpectful manner in which they

treated him, that he wrote letters giving most flattering afsurances that he would protect the colonies, in all their ehartered rights. He also appointed commiffioners to examin the state of the colonies, and decide controverfies between them. The king required that the laws derogatory to the crown fhould be repealed; that free liberty fhould be given to use the common prayer, and the fervice of the Church of England: that all perfons of honest lives, should be admitted to the facrament, and their children to baptifm; and that magiftrates fhould be chofen and freemen admitted, without regard to opinions and profeffions of religion. The king required alfo that every perfon in the plantations should take the oath of allegiance to his majefty. These requifitions gave the colonies fome alarm, and indicated that the king was apprehensive the people intended to become independent. The union of the four colonies was regarded by the crown with an eye of jealoufy, but the people affured the king's agents, that it was not intended for the purpose of cafting off a dependence on England.

5. Oppofition to the Navigation Aa. No meafure of the English court or parliament, excited more difcontent, or was refifted with more firmnefs, by the first fettlers, than the law for regulating the trade of England and the colonies, first enacted by the parliament, in 1651, during the adminiftration of Cromwell, and in 1660, re-enacted by the king and parliament, with confiderable additions. By this act, all trade with England and the colonies was restricted to English fhips, the master of which and threefourths at least of the feamen, were to be English; and the colonies were prohibited from shipping many of their most valuable articles to any ports, but to England, where they were to be landed, before they could be fent to market in any other country. This regulation threw the advantages of the colonial trade into the hands of the Englifh; but deprived the colonies of their beft markets.The colonies oppofed the execution of it many years; at length, in 1680, governor Leet of Connecticut fubmit

But Maffachusetts was

ted, and took the oath required. more obstinate, and her oppofition was one of the reafons for vacating her charter. She finally fubmitted to the regulations, by paffing a law requiring them to be observed, but denied the right of parliament to bind the colonies to obferve them.

6. Agency of Randolph. The king, determined to enforce the Navigation Act, fent over Edward Randolph, with powers to inspect the conduct of the colonies, to make feizures for breaches of the act, and in fhort, to be a common informer. This man made it his bufinefs to collect charges against the colonies, and return to England to excite the jealousy of the English government. In this manner, the way was prepared for annulling the charters of the colonies, and the appointment of Sir Edmond Androfs, as governor general over New-England and NewYork. This was the confequence of a determination in the king and miniftry to check and fubdue the growing spirit of independence in the colonies; but Androfs overacted his part; and his tyrannical proceedings only ferved to alienate the people's affections from the parent state, and prepare the way for that independence which the king

dreaded.

7. Colonies under King William and Queen Ann. The colonies under Charles and James, had been despoiled of their charters, and fuffered the tyranny of Androfs with a fpirit of juft indignation. King William was more favorable to the colonies; Connecticut refumed her old charter, and Maffachusetts obtained a new one, in which the king retained the power of appointing the governor, and the governor was vefted with the power of negativing the choice of councillors, made by the house of reprefentatives. It was fuppofed that this power in the king would fecure a predominant influence to the crown over the legislature and colony. But it had the contrary effect, and created a fruitful fource of animofity between the two branches of the legislature, which ended only with the revolution.The governor and council were the advocates for the ex

tenfion of royal prerogative: the house of reprefentatives was confided in, as the guardian of the rights of the people. In Queen Anne's reign a new attempt was made to abolish the colony charters, and place the appointment of a general governor in the crown, but it was frustrated.

8. Controverfies in the Colony of New-York. The gov ernment of New-York, like that of Massachusetts, was what was called a royal government; the king appointed the governor, who had the power of approving the fpeaker of the houfe of reprefentatives. But in this kind of government the affembly was bound to provide the governor with his falary. This was an unceafing fource of difcord. When a good understanding did not fubfift between the governor and the affembly, which often happened, the affembly would withhold a grant of the governor's falary, to compel him to give his affent to fome favorite bill of their's-the governor, on the other hand, if he wished to obtain a large grant, or to carry fome favorite point, would withhold his affent to their favorite bills, until they had complied with his wishes.

9. Controverfies in Pennsylvania. By the charter of Pennfylvania, the proprietary and his heirs and affigns, were governors of the province; the council and affembly were to be chofen by the freemen. But in fales of land, the proprietary not only took purchase-money, but referved an annual quit-rent, with the pretext of furnishing the means of fupporting the government with dignity. The proprietary himself feldom refided in America, but delegated a fubftitute to act in the capacity of prefident or governor, who had a treble vote in enacting laws. In a few years controverfies arofe between the governor and the affembly; and the governor prevailed on certain members to withdraw from the house, to prevent the paffing of laws disagreeable to him. This the affembly voted to be treachery. In fhort, that province was diftracted by dif putes between the governor and affembly, refpecting fupplies of money, falaries, quit-rents, paper currency, and other matters, from the first fettlement to the revolution.

A hiftory of these diffentions, written by Dr. Franklin, forms a large volume.

10. Controverfies in Carolina. By the original constitution of Carolina, the governor and principal civil officers. were appointed or approved by the proprietors, in the Palatine's court in England. As early as the year 1687, a controverfy arofe between governor Colleton and the house of affembly, refpecting the tenure of lands and the payment of quit-rents. The governor demanded the rent, although not one acre of land in a thousand was cultiva ted-the payment proved burdenfome-and the people declined it. Hence arofe a contention, which did not end, till the affembly renounced the authority of the gov ernor, and held affemblies in oppofition to him. This ferment fubfided, in a degree under the governors Ludwell and Archdale. But the intereft of the proprietors, who urged for rents, and attempted to reftrain the authority of the people, by repealing all laws that enlarged the powers of the affembly, or abridged their own, was fo repugnant to the wifhes and demands of the colony, that it was impoffible to preferve harmony, and in 1719. the people revolted.

11. Diffolution of the Proprietor's Charter. The people gave notice to governor Johnfon of their intention to throw off the yoke of the proprietors, elected deputies to the affembly, which was held in oppofition to the govern or's authority; and notwithstanding his popularity and remonftrances, the affembly openly declared their intention to renounce the authority of the proprietors, and submit to the crown. The governor attempted to diffolve the affembly, but they ordered the proclamation to be torn from the marshal's hand. They proceeded to elect James Moore their governor, and he was proclaimed with' applauses. An account of these proceedings being tranf mitted to England, the Carolinians had a hearing before the council of regents, (the king being in Hanover) who decided that the proprietors had done acts that amounted to a forfeiture of their charter, which was accordingly