which new and fertile lands could be obtained without limit. In any other shape, there was no chance of a return, except by the sale of the lands; and by this sale very little could be expected,* and that little could be acquired only with great trouble, and great discontent. The people might very naturally ask, why a company should derive a dividend from the sale of land which properly ought to form a portion of the community's wealth. Complaints, as we have seen, were rife; the colony were glad to see the company dissolved, hoping that the rule of a nation would be less onerous than that of a mercantile corporation:-that a King and a Parliament would not look for a dividend; would see that a tribute was impossible; and be content with the national benefit resulting from having an increasing and thriving body of customers for English productions, for which the colonists were able to pay in produce desired and prized by the people of England. But notwithstanding all the advantages under which the attempt was made, this chartered company failed in every way. It failed first as a mercantile speculation; it failed next as an instrument for the planting of a colony; and lastly, it failed egregiously as a means of governing the rickety thing they had called into life. After such an experience, may we not wonder when we see attempts made to revive this exploded scheme, and descriptions

* Mr. Bancroft, when speaking of the extinct company, says, "that the members were probably willing to escape from a concern which promised no emolument, and threatened an unprofitable strife."-Vol. i. p. 193.

hazarded which assume the plan never to have been before essayed?

But if this instance be not sufficient, we have yet more to learn from the attempts made by our forefathers in schemes and adventures for the planting of colonies.

Under the fostering care of the imperious Strafford, taking its name from the proud and fierce Henrietta Maria, the ruler of her hen-pecked husband, Charles I.

-by the active labours of a papist peer, the colony of Maryland was founded, and in itself and its institutions afforded an example of a happy, free, and tolerant community. Sir George Calvert, member for Yorkshire, and secretary of state, had been early charmed and excited by the stories of American adventure. He longed to be the founder of a state. His power, his wealth, his own exertions were employed to plant a colony on the Avalon, a river in that island of fish and fog-Newfoundland.* He failed, but turned his attention to Virginia; but Virginia hated Popery, and no sooner was Sir George Calvert known to be within her territories, than he was pestered and persecuted by demands to take anti-catholic oaths, and thereby forced to leave this vineyard of the saints this chosen seat of Protestant purity. Virginia, however, having experienced the tender mercies of James I.'s obsequious judges, lost her charter, and with it her rights to the enormous territories which that charter conveyed. Charles conferred, from a portion of

* There are persons who say that neither the fish nor the fog are to be found in Newfoundland, though they abound around it. This may be true-the climate is, nevertheless, bleak and miserable; the soil wretchedly poor.

the recovered domains, the site of a new state upon Sir George Calvert, now created Lord Baltimore. Lord Baltimore, dying soon after, bequeathed his estate in America, and his wish to found a province, to his son. Before his death, however, he was able, as it is said, to write for that province, not yet even begun, a constitution, as a guide for his son, and a rule of government for his future dominions. By this charter, the power of self-government was conferred on the colonists, and perfect liberty of conscience was established, and the colony flourished from the first. The enthusiasm of the historian leads him thus to describe this remarkable event in the history of colonies-an event occurring in the reign of Charles I., under the auspices of Strafford, and by the immediate command of a Roman-catholic peer:

"Calvert deserves to be ranked among the most wise and benevolent law-givers of all ages. He was the first in the history of the Christian world to seek for religious security and peace, by the practice of justice, and not by the exercise of power; to plan the establishment of popular institutions, with the enjoyment of liberty of conscience; to advance the career of civilization, by recognising the rightful equality of all Christian sects. The asylum of papists was the spot where, in a remote corner of the world, on the banks of rivers which as yet had hardly been explored, the mild forbearance of a proprietary adopted religious freedom as the basis of the state."*

"It is a singular fact, that the only proprietary

* Bancroft, vol. i. p. 244.

charters productive of considerable emolument to their owners, were those which conceded popular liberty. Sir George Calvert was a Roman-catholic; yet far from guarding his territory against any but those of his persuasion, as he had taken from himself and his successors all arbitrary power, by establishing the legislative franchises of the people, so he took from them the means of being intolerant in religion, by securing to all present and future liege people of the English king, without distinction of sect or party, free leave to transport themselves and their families to Maryland. Christianity was by the charter made the law of the land, but no preference was given to any sect, and equality in religious rights, not less than in civil freedom, was assured."*

The King renounced by the charter all power of superintendence, expressly covenanting that neither he, nor his heirs, nor his successors, should set an imposition or tax on the people of the colony.

The proprietary, as he was called, had certain powers granted him which were never seriously exercised. The advowson of all the churches was his; so also was the power to create manors and courts baron, and of establishing a sort of feudal aristocracy. But aristocracy was a plant not destined then, or in our time, to flourish in America. The brother of the second Lord Baltimore led the first band of colonists. "No sufferings were endured-no fears of want were excited; the foundation of the colony of Maryland was peacefully and happily

* Bancroft, vol. i. p. 242.

laid. Within six months it had advanced more than Virginia had done in so many years." Lord Baltimore, indeed, liberally aided his new subjects, and in two years expended for them upwards of forty thousand pounds. Everything prospered under the tolerant sway of the papist lord; and, says the New England historian, "Protestants were sheltered against Protestant intolerance."*

The colony had a legislative assembly; the second time it met, which was in 1638, it rejected the code of laws made by the proprietary, asserted their own right to make laws for themselves, and enacted a body of laws. Of this code, however, no record remains, as it was not ratified. Shortly after, a regular system of representation was adopted, the House of Burgesses was separated from the Council, and the new colony advanced cheerfully under the rules of its own government, till English quarrels disturbed their peace, and for awhile overturned their free system, and ousted the proprietary. After a series of troubles, all arising from this cause, the people of the colony took the matter into their own hands, settled their own government, and in the year 1660, declared that the only lawful authority in the colony were the Assembly and the King of England.

The colonies of New England exhibit in a yet stronger light the effect of private interest, and of self-government upon the happiness of a colony. The pilgrim fathers, and all who laboured in the arduous task of establishing a new community in the regions which they

* Bancroft, vol. i. p. 248.

+ I have a shrewd suspicion that this code exhibited symptoms of intolerance, and that Mr. Bancroft was glad not to find it.