all public acts, for fear of being quite lost and forgotten in the coalition.

In like manner New Plymouth joined itself to Massachusetts, except only Rhode Island, which, though of small extent, got itself erected into a separate government by a charter from king Charles II., soon after the restoration, and continues so to this day.

These governments all continued in possession of their respective rights and privileges till the year 1683, when that of Massachusetts was made void in England by a quo warranto. In consequence of which the king was pleased to name sir Edmund Andros his first governor of that colony. This gentleman, it seems, ruled them with a rod of iron till the revolution, when they laid unhallowed hands upon him, and sent him prisoner to England.

This undutiful proceeding met with an easy forgiveness at that happy juncture. King William and his royal consort were not only pleased to overlook this indignity offered to their governor, but being made sensible how unfairly their charter had been taken away, most graciously granted them a new one. By this some new franchises were given them, as an equivalent for those of coining money and electing a governor, which were taken away. However, the other colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island had the luck to remain in possession of their original charters, which to this day have never been called in question.

The next country dismembered from Virginia was New Scotland, claimed by the crown of England in virtue of the first discovery by Sebastian Cabot. By colour of this title, king James I. granted it to sir William Alexander by patent, dated September the 10th, 1621. But this patentee never sending any colony thither, and the French believing it very convenient for them, obtained a surrender of it from their good friend and ally, king Charles II., by the treaty

of Breda. And, to show their gratitude, they stirred up the Indians soon after to annoy their neighbours of New England. Murders happened continually to his majesty's subjects by their means, till sir William Phipps took their town of Port Royal, in the year 1690. But as the English are better at taking than keeping strong places, the French retook it soon, and remained master of it till 1710, when general Nicholson wrested it, once more, out of their hands. Afterwards the queen of Great Britain's right to it was recognized and confirmed by the treaty of Utrecht.

Another limb lopped off from Virginia was New York, which the Dutch seized very unfairly, on pretence of having purchased it from captain Hudson, the first discoverer. Nor was their way of taking possession of it a whit more justifiable than their pretended title. Their West India. company tampered with some worthy English skippers (who had contracted with a swarm of English dissenters to transport them to Hudson river) by no means to land them there, but to carry them some leagues more northerly. This Dutch finesse took exactly, and gave the company time soon after to seize Hudson river for themselves. But sir Samuel Argall, then governor of Virginia, understanding how the king's subjects had been abused by these republicans, marched thither with a good force, and obliged them to renounce all pretensions to that country. The worst of it was, the knight depended on their parole to ship themselves for Brazil, but took no measures to make this slippery people as good as their word. No sooner was the good governor retired, but the honest Dutch began to build forts and strengthen themselves in their ill-gotten possessions; nor did any of the king's liege people take the trouble to drive these intruders thence. The civil war in England, and the confusions it brought forth, allowed no leisure for such distant considerations. Though it is

strange that the protector, who neglected no occasion to mortify the Dutch, did not afterwards call them to account for this breach of faith. However, after the restoration, the king sent a squadron of his ships of war, under the command of sir Robert Carr, and reduced that province to his obedience. Some time after, his majesty was pleased to grant that country to his royal highness, the duke of York, by letters patent, dated March the 12th, 1664. But to show the modesty of the Dutch to the life, though they had no shadow of right to New York, yet they demanded Surinam, a more valuable country, as an equivalent for it, and our able ministers at that time had the generosity to give it them.

But what wounded Virginia deepest was the cutting off Maryland from it, by charter from king Charles I. to sir George Calvert, afterwards lord Baltimore, bearing date the 20th of June, 1632. The truth of it is, it begat much speculation in those days, how it came about that a good protestant king should bestow so bountiful a grant upon a zealous Roman catholic. But it is probable it was one fatal instance amongst many other of his majesty's complaisance to the queen. However that happened, it is certain this province afterwards proved a commodious retreat for persons of that communion. The memory of the gunpowder treason-plot was still fresh in every body's mind, and made England too hot for papists to live in, without danger of being burnt with the pope, every 5th of November; for which reason legions of them transplanted themselves to Maryland in order to be safe, as well from the insolence of the populace as the rigour of the government. Not only the gunpowder treason, but every other plot, both pretended and real, that has been trumped up in England ever since, has helped to people his lordship's property. But what has proved most serviceable to it was the grand re

bellion against king Charles I., when every thing that bore the least tokens of popery was sure to be demolished, and every man that professed it was in jeopardy of suffering the same kind of martyrdom the Romish priests do in Sweden.

Soon after the reduction of New York, the duke was pleased to grant out of it all that tract of land included between Hudson and Delaware rivers, to the lord Berkley and sir George Carteret, by deed dated June the 24th, 1664. And when these grantees came to make partition of this territory, his lordship's moiety was called West Jersey, and that to sir George, East Jersey. But before the date of this grant, the Swedes began to gain footing in part of that country; though, after they saw the fate of New York, they were glad to submit to the king of England, on the easy terms of remaining in their possessions, and rendering a moderate quit-rent. Their posterity continue there to this day, and think their lot cast in a much fairer land than Dalicarlia.

The proprietors of New Jersey, finding more trouble than profit in their new dominions, made over their right to several other persons, who obtained a fresh grant from his royal highness, dated March the 14th, 1682. Several of the grantees, being quakers and anabaptists, failed not to encourage many of their own persuasion to remove to this peaceful region. Amongst them were a swarm of Scots quakers, who were not tolerated to exercise the gifts of the spirit in their own country. Besides the hopes of being safe from persecution in this retreat, the new proprietors inveigled many over by this temptiug account of the country that it was a place free from those three great scourges of mankind, priests, lawyers, and physicians. Nor did they tell them a word of a lie, for the people were yet too poor to maintain these learned gentlemen, who,

every where, love to be well paid for what they do; and, like the Jews, cannot breathe in a climate where nothing is to be gotten.

The Jerseys continued under the government of these proprietors till the year 1702, when they made a formal surrender of the dominion to the queen, reserving however the property of the soil to themselves. So soon as the bounds of New Jersey came to be distinctly laid off, it appeared there was still a narrow slip of land, lying betwixt that colony and Maryland. Of this, William Penn, a man of much worldly wisdom, and some eminence among the quakers, got early notice, and, by the credit he had with. the duke of York, obtained a patent for it, dated March the 4th, 1680.

It was a little surprising to some people how a quaker should be so much in the good graces of a popish prince; though, after all, it may be pretty well accounted for. This ingenious person had not been bred a quaker; but, in his early days, had been a man of pleasure about the town. He had a beautiful form and very taking address, which made him successful with the ladies, and particularly with a mistress of the duke of Monmouth. By this gentlewoman he had a daughter, who had beauty enough to raise her to be a dutchess, and continued to be a toast full 30 years. But this amour had like to have brought our fine gentleman in danger of a duel, had he not discreetly sheltered himself under this peaceable persuasion. Besides, his father having been a flag-officer in the navy, while the duke of York was lord high admiral, might recommend the son to his favour. This piece of secret history I thought proper to mention, to wipe off the suspicion of his having been popishly inclined.

This gentleman's first grant confined him within pretty narrow bounds, giving him only that portion of land which