DISSATISFACTION IN NEW NETHERLAND

north and east.

Swedish

75

The Delaware Bay, as well as the Connecticut river, were both within the charter limits of New Netherland, though neither was settled by an agricultural colony. To the former came in 1638 fifty Swedish settlers under Peter The Minuit, formerly governor of New Amsterdam, planting Settlements. near the site of Wilmington the town of Christina. At that time Sweden was a leading factor in the Thirty Years' War, and her colony was not disturbed. But the war ended in 1648, and the Dutch within a few years made plans to seize the intruding settlements. In 1655 Governor Stuyvesant went against them with a largely superior force and easily compelled their submission. Sweden was in no position to retake what was lost, and the incipient colonial establishment came to an end.

With the English on the Connecticut Stuyvesant had less success. The Dutch trading fort at Hartford, Fort Good Hope, was completely isolated by planting the English settlements on the Dutch ex

cluded from

river; but it remained undisturbed, flying the Dutch flag and taking what share it could of the Indian trade Connecticut. until 1654. In that year, war between Holland and England being in progress, the colonists seized Fort Good Hope, and with that Dutch possessions in New England passed out of existence. Governor Stuyvesant's patriotism suffered a severe shock in this calamity. For several years the English settlements had been moving westward along the shores of Long Island Sound as far as Greenwich and throughout the eastern half of Long Island,-additional evidence of the humiliation of Dutch power. Into The English the New Netherland settlements themselves English- on Long men penetrated and became a large part of the element Island. in opposition to Stuyvesant's despotic rule.

British Plan
to Seize

New
Netherland.

The situation in the colony invited an attempt at conquest by the English, and the Connecticut colonies were anxious to have it made by the New England Confederacy; but Massachusetts held back. Then appeal was made to England, and in 1654 the government was induced to undertake an expedition, but peace with Holland was made before it could arrive. Now followed ten years of quiet, during which New Netherland continued to offend against the British navigation laws. The English had never given up their claim to the whole coast and the Dutch colony was within the formal bounds of both New England and Virginia. Why should it continue to defy British power? The answer came in 1664 when the king, Charles II, granted it to his brother, the Duke of York, together with jurisdiction over New England itself.

The Duke acted vigorously. Colonel Richard Nicolls was appointed his deputy-governor, and August 18, 1664, arrived before New Amsterdam with three vessels of war and an adequate body of soldiers. He

was joined by men from Connecticut, and word came that Massachusetts would also send aid. At the same time the Englishmen on Long Island were arming, and throughout the Dutch villages themselves was apparent a determination to help the English in wiping out the rule of the Dutch West India Company. Stuyvesant was in a rage. He ordered all the citizens to work on the fortifications, and was determined to fight to the last. But the burgomasters of the town realized the impossibility of defense, and when Nicolls by letter offered the Dutch all the liberties of Englishmen, with intercourse with Holland, they asked to see the letter. Stuyvesant tore it into bits and said he would rather "be carried out dead" than yield to the men around him. He ordered the guns of the fort to open fire, but he was led away from the ramparts before they could be discharged, and August 29 the town was surrendered. A short time later the forts on the Delaware capitulated, and the English flag floated from Florida to Maine.

EARLY RELATIONS OF THE COLONIES WITH ENGLAND

The Colonies depend on the King.

By an old principle of English law all land in the kingdom not otherwise granted belonged to the crown. Under it the king created fiefs at will and gave the grantees authority to establish local governments. When the American continent was added to the English domain it fell under this rule. Its lands became king's lands, and were subject to his disposal. It was, therefore, the crown and not parliament which created the American colonies and gave them their forms of government. Having created the colonies, the crown, acting through the Privy Council, provided the rules under which they continued to exist, and supervised them in such ways as were compatible with the charters. Matters of trade, however, were ever near to the British heart and were jealously maintained by parliament, so that in regard to colonial trade parliament was supreme. In most other things the colonies must look to the crown.

The king contributed little to the support of the colonies. Virginia was planted by a company of private individuals, actuated partly by philanthropic and partly by commercial purposes. But he gives Maryland was the enterprise of the Calverts, who wished Little Aid. to found a home for Catholics and incidentally to establish a great and permanent landed estate. New England was settled by groups of Puritans who wished to have happy and prosperous homes in which they might worship in their own faith. To each enterprise the king gave his sanction and his blessing, but nothing more. American colonization in its earliest days was not an enterprise of the crown.

When the colonies were safely established and it was seen that

BRITISH COLONIAL SUPERVISION

77

Colonies to under Royal

be brought

Oversight.

another England was growing up beyond the sea, the king began to take a larger interest in them. Virginia fell into his hands when the charter was annulled in 1624, not so much because James I had a definite desire to direct the colony as because he hated the liberal government established by the company. His successor, Charles I, came to see that some kind of colonial supervision ought to be provided, and appointed a commission, with Laud at its head, to make laws for all the colonies, regulate their religion, appoint their judges, and remove their governors when advisable. In the turbulent times then existing the commission did nothing. In 1643 the Long Parliament took up the subject and appointed the Earl of Warwick governor over all the colonies. He was to be assisted Inoperative by seventeen commissioners with wide governing powers. CommisMuch occupied with other things Warwick seems sions. to have done little in regard to colonial affairs, which after the restoration were placed in the hands of a Council for Foreign Plantations, an advisory body reporting to the Privy Council. It showed little capacity, and in 1675 was superseded by a standing committee of the council, known as the Lords of Trade, which proved far more industrious. Most of the colonies, it must be remembered, existed under charters, which might be forfeited if certain conditions were violated. It was the duty of Lords of Trade to inform themselves of colonial affairs and report to the king a violation of a charter. Over a royal colony the Lords had a larger jurisdiction. They prepared, or saw, the instructions to a royal governor, passed on the laws of an assembly in a royal province, advised the king whether or not such laws should be allowed, and had a large influence in the appointment of officials. Over the colonies generally they had a broad supervision, informing themselves about the conditions of trade, making suggestions for the better execution of the navigation acts, interfering in disputes between colonies, and, in short, seeking to evolve a system of colonial administration which should embody the best results for both the colonies and the British nation. In 1696 the Lords of Trade were reorganized into the Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, a board independent of the Privy Council. As the English cabinet developed, the functions of commissioners decreased. Finally in 1768 a colonial secretary of state became the head of colonial affairs.

The Lords

of Trade.

The Puritan revolution in England, by overthrowing Laud's power, probably saved the colonies from an attempt to The bring them under an active dependence on the crown. Colonies It left New England undisturbed, and dealt gently with and the Virginia, where Charles II had been proclaimed king, and Puritan with Maryland, whose Catholic proprietor was after a while confirmed in his rights. The parliamentary party, in fact,

Revolution.

was too busy with its troubles in England to interfere with government in the colonies. But it adopted the navigation ordinances of 1651, which had, if enforced, a decided influence on their commerce.

Navigation Ordinance of 1651.

In a struggle against a king who laid taxes arbitrarily the English merchants took a leading part, and they had a corresponding influence in the revolutionary government. It was to please them that parliament undertook to make the colonial trade. inure to the benefit of English traders. Sporadic laws of the same import had existed for years; but the recent wide growth of the colonies gave them a new significance, and a new law was made. It provided: (1) that no goods produced in Asia, Africa, or America, including the colonies, should be brought into any British port in any but English owned and manned ships; (2) that no European goods should be taken to England or the British possessions in any but English ships or in the ships of the country in which the goods were produced; (3) the coasting trade in British dominions should be limited to British ships; and (4) no salted fish, oil, or whale products should be brought into the British dominions that were not taken in English ships-nor should they be exported in any but English ships. The plain purport of this law was to limit the English and colonial trade to English channels for the profit of English merchants. The restriction, however, was not enforced. Foreign vessels could not be excluded from colonial ports without efficient police service, and so lax was the execution of the law that we may wonder if it was intended to apply to the colonies.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The most commendable general authorities are: Channing, History of the United States, vol. I (1905), new and reliable; Osgood, The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, 3 vols. (1904-1907); Avery, History of the United States and Its People, 7 vols. (1904), valuable for its maps; Tyler, England in America (1904); Doyle, English Colonies in America, 5 vols. (1882-1907); Palfrey, History of New England during the Stuart Dynasty, 3 vols. (1858-1864); Chalmers, Political Annals of the American Colonies (1780), an old work based on original sources, but still useful; Fiske, Beginnings of New England (1889); Ibid., The Dutch and Quaker Colonies, 2 vols. (1899); Hildreth, History of the United States, 6 vols. (1840-1852); Bancroft, History of the United States, 10 vols. (1834-1874); Lodge, Short History of the English Colonies (1902), a useful manual; and The Cambridge Modern History, vol. VII (1903).

The important general collections of sources are the British government's Calendars of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, 1574-1701, 14 vols. (1860-1910), and Force, Tracts, 4 vols. (1836-1846). On New England, see: Records of Plymouth, 12 vols. (1855-1859); Records of Massachusett Bay, 5 vols. (1853-1854): Collections (1792) and Proceedings (1791-) of the Massachusetts Historical Society and the Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society (1849); Records of the Colony of Rhode Island, 10 vols. (1856-1865); Colonial Records of New Haven, 15 vols. (1850-1890); Collections and Reports of the Connecticut Historical Society; Records of the Colony of New Haven, 2 vols. (1857-1858); Documentary History of the State of New York, 4 vols. (1849-1851); Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York, 14 vols., and index (1853

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

79

1861); Records of New Amsterdam, 7 vols. (1897); and the Collections, 1st series, 5 vols., and Publication Fund Series (37 vols.) of the New York Historical Society. See also Poore, Federal and State Charters, 2 vols. (1877), and MacDonald, Select Charters (1899).

Contemporary narratives are: Bradford, Plimouth Plantation, begun in 1630, discovered in England in 1855, best edition by W. C. Ford, 2 vols. (1912); Mourt's Relation, by Bradford and Winslow, sent back to England in the "Mayflower"; Winslow, Hypocrisy Unmasked; and Winthrop, History of New England. The history of separate colonies is given in Belknap, History of New Hampshire, 3 vols. (1784-1792); Hutchinson, The Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 3 vols. (17641828); Barry, History of Massachusetts, 3 vols. (1855-1857); Goodwin, The Pilgrim Republic (1888); Richman, Rhode Island, its Making and Meaning, 2 vols. (1902); Arnold, History of Rhode Island, 2 vols. (ed. 1894); Trumbull, History of Connecticut, 2 vols, (ed. 1898); Atwater, History of New Haven (ed. 1901); O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, 2 vols. (ed. 1855); and Brodhead, History of the State of New York, 2 vols. (1872).

For Independent Reading

Fiske, Beginnings of New England (1889); Ibid., Dutch and Quaker Colonies, 2 vols. (1899); Adams, Massachusetts, its Historians and History (1893); Straus, Roger Williams, the Pioneer of Religious Liberty (1894); Goodwin, The Pilgrim Republic (1888); Twichell, John Winthrop (1891); and Eggleston, The Beginners of a Nation (1897).