hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
New England (United States) 260 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 236 0 Browse Search
John Winthrop 190 0 Browse Search
John Smith 182 0 Browse Search
Hazard 160 0 Browse Search
Hening 138 0 Browse Search
Maryland (Maryland, United States) 134 0 Browse Search
France (France) 128 0 Browse Search
Chalmers 128 0 Browse Search
N. Y. Hist 116 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of George Bancroft, History of the Colonization of the United States, Vol. 1, 17th edition.. Search the whole document.

Found 672 total hits in 206 results.

... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ...
Brockenbrough (search for this): chapter 10
rginia, debts had been contracted to be paid in tobacco; and when the article rose in value, in consequence of laws restricting its culture, the legislature of Virginia did not scruple to provide a remedy, by enacting that no man need pay more than two thirds of his debt during the stint; and that all creditors should take forty pounds for a hundred. Hening, i. 225, 226. The artificial increase of the value of tobacco seemed to require a corresponding change in the tariff of debts. Brockenbrough's Virginia, 586. After two years, a commission Hazard, i. 477—480. Rymer XX. 484—486. was issued to Sir 1641. Aug. 9 William Berkeley. Historians, reasoning, from the revolutions which took place in England, that there had been corresponding attempts at oppression and corresponding resistance in Virginia, have delighted to draw a contrast, not only between Harvey and Chap VI.} 1641 the new governor, but between the institutions of Virginia under their respective governments;
John Winthrop (search for this): chapter 10
d Sir Francis 1639. Nov. Wyatt Rymer, XX. 484. Hazard, i. 477. Savage on Winthrop, II. 160, 161. Hening, i. 224, and 4. Campbell, 61. But Keith, and Beverly,re was a party for the parliament, yet the king's authority was maintained. Winthrop, II. 159, 160, and the note of Savage. The sovereignty of Charles had ever beevited from Boston by the Puritan settlements in Virginia, carried letters from Winthrop, written to Berkeley and his council by order of the general court of Massachuionaries were silenced by the government, and ordered to leave the country. Winthrop's Journal, II. 77, 78. 95, 96, and 164, 165. Hubbard's New England, 410 411. st the inaccuracies of Beverley, Oldmixon, and, on this subject, of Burk. See Winthrop's Journal, II. 165. Compare the note of Savage, whose sagacious conjecture isII. Mass. Hist. Coll. IX. 115—117; and the Reports of the exiled Puritans, in Winthrop, II. 165. So little was apprehended, when the English were once on their g
Pott (search for this): chapter 10
Popery led to memorable results. Nor should we, in this connection, forget the hospitable plans of the southern planters; the people of New Plymouth were invited to abandon the cold Chap. VI.} and sterile clime of New England, and plant themselves in the milder regions on the Delaware Bay; Burk, II 32. a plain indication that Puritans were not then molested in Virginia. It was probably in the autumn of 1629 that Harvey arrived in Virginia. Chalmers, 118. Till October, the name of Pott appears as governor; Harvey met his first assembly 1630 Mar 24. of burgesses in the following March. Hening, i. 4, and 147. He had for several years been a member of the council; and as, at a former day, he had been a willing instrument in the hands of the faction to which Virginia ascribed its earliest griefs, and continued to bear a deep-rooted hostility, his appointment could not but be unpopular. The colony had esteemed it a special favor from King 1630 to 1635. James, that, upon th
Lancaster (search for this): chapter 10
he protector. Hening, i. 496, 497; and 500, 501. When the house unanimously voted the governor's answer unsatisfactory, he expressly revoked the order of dissolution, but still referred the decision of the dispute to Cromwell. The members of the assembly, apprehensive of a limitation of colonial liberty by the Chap VI.} 1658. reference of a political question to England, determined on a solemn assertion of their independent powers. A committee was appointed, of which John Carter, of Lancaster, was the chief; and a complete declaration of popular sovereignty was solemnly made. The governor and council had ordered the dissolution of the assembly; the burgesses now decreed the former election of governor and council to be void. Having thus exercised, not merely the right of election, but the more extraordinary right of removal, they reflected Matthews, who by us, they add, shall be invested with all the just rights and privileges belonging to the governor and captain-general of
Richard Bennett (search for this): chapter 10
were the designs of all parties to promote an amicable settlement of the government, that Richard Bennett, himself a commissioner of the Chap VI.} 1652. April 30. parliament, and, moreover, a mercerity of Virginia and its inhabitants. Hening, i. 371. Under the administration of Berkeley, Bennett had been oppressed in Virginia; and now not the slightest effort at revenge was attempted. Langford's Refutation 3. That Bennett was a Roundhead is indisputable. The contemporary authorities are Strong's Babylon's Fall, i. 7, and 10; Langford's Refutation, 3; Hammond's Leah and Rachel, 21. These, taken together, are conclusive. Bennett was of the council in 1646. Hening, i. 322. The act which constituted the government, claimed April. for the assembly the privilege of defininnts for Virginia; not one governor acted under his commission. Hening, i. Preface, 13. When Bennett retired from office, the assembly Chap. VI.} 1655. Mar. 31. itself elected his successor; and
Edward Diggs (search for this): chapter 10
usurpations of authority on the part of the monarch, who had taxed the produce of the colonies without the consent of the people, and without an act of the national legislature; Debates of the Commons in 1620 and 1621, i. 169. and Sandys, and Diggs, and Farrar, the friends of Virginia, procured the substi- April 18. tution of an act for the arbitrary ordinance. Ibid. 269—271, and 296. Chalmers, 51. 70—74. In consequence of the dissensions of the times, the bill, which had passed the horangement. Cromwell never made any appointments for Virginia; not one governor acted under his commission. Hening, i. Preface, 13. When Bennett retired from office, the assembly Chap. VI.} 1655. Mar. 31. itself elected his successor; and Edward Diggs, who had before been chosen of the council, Ibid. 388. November, 1654. and who had given a signal testimony of his fidelity to Virginia, and to the commonwealth of England, Ibid. i. 388. received the suffrages. Ibid. 408. Compare Heni
Story (search for this): chapter 10
is will; and the Virginians would never have made themselves the instruments of their own oppression. The party opposed to Harvey was deficient neither in capacity nor in colonial influence; and while arbitrary power was rapidly advancing to triumph in England, the Virginians, during the whole period, enjoyed the benefit of independent colonial legislation; As an opposite statement has received the sanction, not of Oldmixon, Chalmers, and Robertson only, but of Marshall and of Story (see Story's Commentaries, i. 28, without the slightest effort to convene a colonial assembly), I deem it necessary to state, that many of the statutes of Virginia under Harvey still exist, and that, though many others are lost, the first volume of Hening's Statutes at Large proves, beyond a question, that assemblies were convened, at least, as often as follows:— 1630, March,Hening, i.147—153. 1630, April,ibid.257. 1632, February,ibid.153—177. 1632, Septemberibid.178—202. 1633, February,ibid.20
De Vries (search for this): chapter 10
ee, particularly, Acts 34, 35, 36. 39. 46. 57, 58. 61. Indeed, they seem never to have been questioned. Yet the administration of Harvey was disturbed by 1635 divisions, which grew out of other causes than infringements of the constitution. De Vries, who visited Virginia in 1632—3, had reason to praise the advanced condition of the settlement, the abundance of its products, and the liberality of its governor. De Vries, Korte Historiael ende Journals—a rare work, which Ebeling had never sDe Vries, Korte Historiael ende Journals—a rare work, which Ebeling had never seen. The community would hardly have been much disturbed because fines were exacted with too relentless rigor; Beverley, 48. Bullock, 10. but the whole colony of Virginia was in a state of excitement and alarm in consequence of the dismemberment of its territory by the cession to Lord Baltimore. As in many of the earlier settlements, questions about landtitles were agitated with passion; and there was reason to apprehend the increase of extravagant grants, that would again include the soil <
Bullock (search for this): chapter 10
nd the liberality of its governor. De Vries, Korte Historiael ende Journals—a rare work, which Ebeling had never seen. The community would hardly have been much disturbed because fines were exacted with too relentless rigor; Beverley, 48. Bullock, 10. but the whole colony of Virginia was in a state of excitement and alarm in consequence of the dismemberment of its territory by the cession to Lord Baltimore. As in many of the earlier settlements, questions about landtitles were agitated Hening, i. 223, and 4. Oldmixon, i 240. Oldmixon is unworthy of implicit trust Beverley, 18, is not accurate. Campbell's Virginia, 60—a modest little book. Chalmers, 118, 119, is betrayed into error by following Oldmixon. Burk, II. 41, 42. Bullock's Virginia, 10. Robertson, in his History of Virginia, after the dissolution of the company, furnishes a tissue of inventions. Keith, 143, 144, places in 1639 the occurrences of 1635. His book is superficial. The commissioners appointed b
Stuyvesant (search for this): chapter 10
sh vessels as were bound for a foreign port. Hening, i. 469. Proposals of peace and commerce between New Netherlands and Virginia were discussed without scruple by the respective colonial governments; The statements in this paragraph derive ample confirmation from the very copious Dutch Records at Albany, IV. 91; IX. 57—59; IV. 96. 122. 165. 198; particularly IV. 211, where the rumor of an intended prohibition of Dutch trade in Virginia is alluded to in a letter from the W. I. Co. to Stuyvesant. That was in 1656, precisely at the time referred to in the rambling complaint in Hazard, i. 600, and still more in the very rare little volume by L. G. Public Good without Private Interest, or a Compendious Remonstrance of the Present Sad State and Condition of the English Colonie in Virginea; 1657; p. 13, 14. The prohibition alluded to is not in the Navigation Act of St. John, nor did any such go into effect. See Albany Records, IV. 236. The very rare tract of L. G., I obtained throug
... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ...