Your search returned 457 results in 104 document sections:

... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
George Bancroft, History of the Colonization of the United States, Vol. 1, 17th edition., Chapter 5: (search)
ief, a Dutch manof-war entered James River, and landed twenty negroes for sale. Beveney s Virginia, 35. Stith, 182; Chalmers, 49; Burk, i. 211; and Hening, i. 146, all rely on Beverley. This is, indeed, the sad epoch of Chap V.} the introductioions might be conceived, and to discover the means by which good hopes were to be realized. Burk, i. 272, and note. Chalmers, 62. 76. John Harvey and Samuel Matthews, Chap V.} 1623 both distinguished in the annals of Virginia, were of the numbehe kingdom. It is a sure proof of the unpopularity of the corporation, that it met with no support from the commons; Chalmers, 65,66. Burk, i. 291. but Sir Edwin Sandys, more intent on the welfare of Virginia than the existence of the company, w Passages from the Originall to the Dissolution of the Virginia Company; London, 1651, p. 15. See, also, Hazard, l. 191; Chalmers, 62; Proud's Pennsylvania, i. 107 and the patents were cancelled. Thus the company was dissolved. It had fulfilled i
George Bancroft, History of the Colonization of the United States, Vol. 1, 17th edition., Chapter VI (search)
n of 1629 that Harvey arrived in Virginia. Chalmers, 118. Till October, the name of Pott appears t has received the sanction, not of Oldmixon, Chalmers, and Robertson only, but of Marshall and of S. Campbell, 61. But Keith, and Beverly, and Chalmers, and Burk, and Marshall, were ignorant of suc to have effected an essential revolution. Chalmers, 120, 121. I cannot find that his appointmentor the restoration of the ancient patents, Chalmers, 121. Hening, i. 230. the royalist assembly received so much content and satisfaction. Chalmers, 133, 134. Burk, in 74. The Virginians, igation was threatened, were not enforced, Chalmers, 124. they attracted no attention; and Virginosing an exorbitant duty. Stith, 168—170. Chalmers, 50, 52, 57. In the ensuing parliament, 1621rd, i. 556—558, rather than the commentary of Chalmers. If Virginia would but adhere to the commonwehtened by commercial oppression. Beverley, Chalmers, Robertson, Marshall. Even the accurate and [5 more...]<
George Bancroft, History of the Colonization of the United States, Vol. 1, 17th edition., Chapter VII (search)
ver asserted the freedom of the fisheries, Chalmers, 84. 100. 114. 115. 116. 130. which his grant. the great seal, Sir George Calvert died, Chalmers. 201 leaving a name against which the breath rafford had been the friend of the father, Chalmers, 209.—and the remonstrance was in vain; the pes. Hazard, i. 337. Bozman, 381 and 265. Chalmers, 231 Nor was it long before gentlemen of eneral deliberation and of a decisive act. Chalmers, 210 and 232. Bacon, in his Laws at Large, mlimits of his territory. Bozman, 330—344. Chalmers, 212. 232—235. Yet the people of Marylandsetting up of a watermill. Bacon, 1638—9. Chalmers, 213, 214. Griffith, 8. The restoration igion, but to settle the civil government. Chalmers, 236. When the proprietary heard of theseare minute, and, in the main, agree. Compare Chalmers; McMahon, 207; Hazard, i. 621—628, and 629, 6orthies, Ed. 1662. and at twelve thousand. Chalmers, 226. The country was dear to its inhabitants[16 mor
George Bancroft, History of the Colonization of the United States, Vol. 1, 17th edition., Chapter 8: (search)
the emigrants grew weary of their solitude; they lost Popham, their president, the only one Chalmers, 79, writes, They looked at the numerous graves of the dead; drawing on his imagination for embellishments. Compare II. Mass. Hist. Coll. IX. 4. Chalmers, 79, names among those who died, Gilbert, their chief—an error. of the company that died there; the ships which revisited the settlement wr the coast north of the lands granted by the Virginia patent. The expedition was a private Chalmers, 80, erroneously attributes the expedition to the Plymouth company. See Smith, in III. Mass. Connecticut, i. 546—567. Hazard, i. 103—118. Baylies, i. 160—185. Compare Hubbard, c. XXX.; Chalmers, 81—85. which 1620. in American annals, and even in the history of the world, has but one paradiately prompted the house of commons to question the validity of 1621 April 25. the grant; Chalmers, 100—102. Parliamentary Debates, 1620-1, i. 260, 318, 319. and the French nation, whose t
George Bancroft, History of the Colonization of the United States, Vol. 1, 17th edition., Chapter 9: (search)
dment, though it never received the royal assent. The original authorities,—Debates of the Commons, 1620—1, i. 258. 260, 261. 318, 319; Journal of Commons, in Chalmers, 100—102, and 103, 104; Sir F. Gorges' Narration, Morrell, in i. Mass Hist. Coll. i. 125—139; Smith, in III. Mass. Hist. Coll. III. 25; Hazard, i. 151—155. Compare Prince, Morton, Hutchinson, Belknap, and Chalmers. The determined opposition of the house, though it could not move the king to overthrow the corporation, paralyzed its enterprise; many of the patentees abandoned their interest; so that the Plymouth company now did little except issue grants of domains; and the cottages,al, or prove himself so forgetful of honor, as to discontinue the protection of the emigrants who had planted themselves in America on the faith of the crown. Chalmers, 92. Yet immediate attempts were made to effect a Scottish settlement. One ship, despatched for the 1622. purpose, did but come in sight of the shore, a
George Bancroft, History of the Colonization of the United States, Vol. 1, 17th edition., Chapter 10: (search)
believed, would in time be very beneficial to England. Winthrop and Savage, 1. 54—57, and 101—103. Prince, 430,431. Hutch. Coll. 52—54. Hubbard, 150—154. Chalmers, 154,155. Hazard, i. 234, 235. Revenge did not slumber, Winthrop, II. 190,191; or Hazard, i. 242,243. Hubbard, 428—430. because it had been once 1634. ned, or which conceded liberties prejudicial to the royal prerogative Hazard, i. 344—347. Hubbard, 264—268. Hutchinson, i. App. No. iv. Winthrop, i. 143. Chalmers mistakes a year. The news of this commission soon reached Boston; Sept. 18. and it was at the same time rumored that a general governor was on his way. The n said that Hampden and Cromwell were on board this fleet. Bates and Dugdale, in Neal's Puritans, II. 349. C. Mather, b. i. c. v. s. 7. Neal's N. E. i. 168. Chalmers, 160, 161. Robertson, b. x. Hume, c. LIII Belknap, II. 229. Grahame's U. S. i. 299. Lord Nugent, in his Hampden, i. 254, should not have repeated the er
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 3, 15th edition., Colonial history. (search)
y a process of law; but King William, heedless of the remonstrances of the proprietary, who could be convicted of no crime 1691. but his creed, and impatient of judicial forms, by his June 1. own power constituted Maryland a royal government. Chalmers's Opinions, 29. The arbitrary act was sanctioned by a legal opinion 1692 from Lord Holt. In 1692, Sir Lionel Copley arrived with a royal commission, dissolved the convention, assumed the government, and convened an assembly. Its first act recd afterwards attracted the notice of the assemblies of New York. At that period of disorder, the committee of safety reassembled; and Aug. 16. Leisler, an insolent alien, assisted, say the principal men of New York, by those who formerly were Chalmers, 610. thought unfit to be in the meanest offices, was constituted the temporary governor of the province. The appointment was, in its form, open to censure Courtland, the mayor of the city, Bayard, and others of the council, after fruitless o
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 4, 15th edition., The American Revolution. (search)
sumed self-direction. The method adopted in England for superintending American affairs, by means of a Board of Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, who had neither a voice in the deliberation of the cabinet nor access to the king, tended to involve the colonies in everincreasing confusion. The Board framed instructions without power to enforce them, or to propose measures for their efficiency. It took cognizance of all events, and might investigate, give information, or advise; Chalmers's Political Annals of the United Colonies. Book II., chap. III. 236. Opinions of Eminent Lawyers; Preface VIII., IX. but it had no authority to form an ultimate decision on any political question whatever. In those days there were two secretaries of state charged with the management of the foreign relations of Great Britain. The executive power with regard to the colonies was reserved to the Secretary of State, who had the care of what was called the Southern Department, chap. I.} 17
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 4, 15th edition., Chapter 2: (search)
ament of England. That opinion impressed itself early and deeply on the mind of Lord Mansfield, and in October, 1744, when the neglect of Pennsylvania to render aid in the war had engaged the attention of the ministry, Sir Dudley Rider and Lord Mansfield, then William Murray, declared, that a colonial assembly cannot be compelled to do more towards their own defence than they shall see fit, unless by the force of an act of parliament, which alone can prescribe rules of conduct for them. Chalmers' Introduction, Ms. II. 86. Away, then, with all attempts to compel by prerogative, to govern by instructions, to obtain a revenue chap. II.} 1748. by royal requisitions, to fix quotas by a council of crown officers. No power but that of parliament can overrule the colonial assemblies. Such was the doctrine of Murray, who was himself able to defend his system, being unrivalled in debate, except by William Pitt alone. The advice of this illustrious jurist was the more authoritative, be
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 4, 15th edition., Chapter 6: (search)
e king, founded in part on muster-rolls and returns of taxables, included Nova Scotia, and according to the authority of Chalmers in the History of the Revolt, estimated the population of British Continental America, in 1754, at 1,192,896whites, de in 1714, on the accession of George the First, in 1727, on that of George the Second, and in 1754, were, according to Chalmers, White.Black.Total. 1714,375,750,58,850,434,600. 1727,502,000,78,000,580,000. 1754,1,192,896,292,738,1,485,634. s country south of the Potomac, may have had one hundred and seventy-eight thousand. Of the Southern group, Georgia Chalmers' Revolt, II., 803.—the chosen asylum of misfortune–had been languishing under the guardianship of a corporation, whose bIn December, 1751, the trustees unanimously desired to surrender their charter, and, with the approbation of Murray, Chalmers' Opinions of Eminent Lawyers, i., 187, 188. all chap. VI.} 1754. authority for two years emanated from the king alone.
... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11