Browsing named entities in George Bancroft, History of the Colonization of the United States, Vol. 1, 17th edition.. You can also browse the collection for Chalmers or search for Chalmers in all documents.

Your search returned 64 results in 9 document sections:

s own narrative of the voyage is the earliest original account, now extant, of the coast of the United States. He advanced the knowledge of the country; and he gave to France some claim to an extensive territory, on the pretext of discovery. Chalmers's Annals, 512. Harris's Voyages, II. 348,349. The historians of maritime adventure agree, that 1525 Verrazzani again embarked upon an expedition, from which, it is usually added, he never returned. Did he Chap. I.} 1525 Feb. 24. sail onr mistake, i. 178. from St. Mar 23. Malo the next spring after the date of his commission; he arrived at the scene of his former adventures, ascended the St. Lawrence, and, near the site of Quebec, built a fort for the security of his party; Chalmers, 82, places this event in 1545, without reason. but no considerable advances in geographical knowledge appear to have been made. The winter passed in sullenness and gloom. In June of the following year, he and his 1542 ships stole away and re
were called after the rivers of France; and America, for a while, had its Seine, its Loire, and its Garonne. In searching for the Jordan or Combahee, they came upon Port Royal entrance, Laudonniere, in Hakluyt, III. 373. The description is sufficiently minute and accurate; removing all doubt Before the geography of the country was well known, there was room for the error of Charlevoix, Nouv. Fr. i. 25, who places the settlement at the mouth of the Edisto, an error which is followed by Chalmers, 513. It is no reproach to Charlevoix, that his geography of the coast of Florida is confused and inaccurate. Compare Johnson's Life of Greene, i. 477. which seemed the outlet of a magnificent river. The greatest ships of France Chap. II.} 1562. and the argosies of Venice could ride securely in the deep water of the harbor. The site for a first settlement is apt to be injudiciously selected; the local advantages which favor the growth of large cities, are revealed by time. It was per
had the powers of appointment and legislation been given to the people of Virginia. Compare Chalmers, 13—15; Story on the Constitution, i. 22—24. The summer was spent by the patentees in prepa6—92. an exercise of royal legislation which Nov 20. has been pronounced in itself illegal. Chalmers, 15. The superior council in England was permitted to name the colonial council, which was cons, no competent authority existed to check the progress of envy and disorder. Smith, i. 150. Chalmers, 17. The genius of Smith excited jealousy; and hope, the only power which can still the clamorsmercial corporation. As yet not one valuable civil privilege was conceded to the emigrants. Chalmers, 25. Splendid as were the auspices of the new charter, unlimited as were the powers of the yed himself in reviving the courage of the London company. May 17. Commons Journal, II. 481. Chalmers, 34, 35. In May, 1614, a petition for aid was presented to the house of commons, and was receiv<
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
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...]<
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
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
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
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