Berkeley's revenge.—In June, 1676, Berkeley had tendered his resignation to the king. Charles decided to allow him to retain the title of governor, but to have him return to England, leaving the government to a lieutenant-governor, Colonel Jeffreys being appointed. He was assisted by two commissioners, Berry and Moryson. A general pardon for the rebels was also drawn up. Berry and Moryson arrived in the colony and found the governor intractable. Jeffreys, with about a thousand troops, arrived soon afterward, but instead of asserting his authority, he allowed Berkeley to ignore the pardon proclamation and many were hung. Knowledge of Berkeley's disobedience reached the king, who ordered him to return to England at once, but before the order arrived Berkeley had embarked. He died soon after reaching England, and Lord Culpeper was appointed governor, but he did not reach Virginia until 1680.
Culpeper and Howard.—In the meantime the commissioners investigated the causes of the rebellion, and in July, 1677, Berry and Moryson took their report to England where it was laid before the privy council. Jeffreys, who was left in control, had little authority, and the government again fell into the hands of Berkeley's friends. Culpeper arrived in 1680, but he proved to be a weak individual who spent most of his time in England and did little when in the colony. In 1684 a new governor, Lord Howard of Effingham, proceeded at once to curb the powers of the house of burgesses. The right of appealing cases from the lower courts to the assembly was denied, henceforth the governor and council being the final court of appeal. The right of the king to annul laws passed by the assembly was also asserted in spite of violent opposition. The session of 1685 proved a stormy one. An attempt was made to take the power of taxation away from the assembly. The king, who had taken over the proprietory rights of Arlington and Culpeper, demanded that the quit-rents be paid in specie instead of tobacco. This the burgesses violently opposed, but they finally compromised by agreeing to pay somewhat less than the governor had demanded. A "bill of ports" was introduced which was intended to fix the points at which ships might load and unload. Another violent struggle occurred. Finally, on recommendation of the governor, the king dissolved the assembly. Lord Howard unseated several members and appointed the clerk of the assembly. The governor also collected certain fees, an act which the burgesses claimed was an encroachment upon the power of taxation. The colony was nearing another rebellion. In 1688 the assembly drew up a statement of grievances, which they sent to the king, but by the time it reached England James II had been driven from the throne and Effingham was soon recalled.
DISCONTENT IN MARYLAND
Conditions in Maryland.—Economic conditions in Maryland were similar to those in Virginia, the navigation laws affecting the colony in a similar manner, the price of tobacco falling continually after 1660 for many years. Political discontent also manifested itself, but the religious element played a larger part in Maryland than in Virginia. No widespread rebellion occurred, however, for Baltimore's government was more temperate than that of Berkeley, the settlements were more compact, frontier dangers were less acute, and no popular leader of great ability arose to lead the malcontents.
Charles Calvert's administration.—After the turmoil of the Cromwellian period, the Restoration brought comparative security to the proprietor of Maryland, who succeeded in ingratiating himself with Charles II. In 1675 Charles Calvert succeeded to the proprietorship. Previously for several years he had personally directed the governorship and had worked conscientiously to bring about prosperity in the colony. He was less tactful than his father and was exceedingly strong-willed. He placed his relatives in the important positions, restricted the suffrage, and frequently summoned to the assembly only half of the elected delegates, thus keeping out influential opponents. In 1676, while Baltimore was in England, a few malcontents attempted an uprising, but Notley, the acting governor, overthrew and hanged two of the leaders, nipping the rebellion in the bud. The proprietor and assembly continued to have difficulties, but in the main Baltimore succeeded in maintaining his power. He also had trouble with William Penn over the northern boundary, and with the Lords of Trade over the right of collecting the customs. Baltimore's Catholic leanings naturally made him support James II. When that monarch was driven from the throne, a miniature bloodless revolution occurred in Maryland. An Association for the Defense of the Protestant Religion was formed. In July, 1689, the leaders seized St. Mary's and held a representative assembly. But to their chagrin, William and Mary restored the old colonial system, and Baltimore was soon back in power.
ROYAL INTERFERENCE IN NEW ENGLAND
Massachusetts and the king.—During the Cromwellian period the New England colonies had followed their own devices, but when Charles II came to the throne, they could not expect to pursue their independent course. To forestall trouble, Massachusetts hastened to acknowledge the king's authority, and none too soon, for numerous complaints had been lodged against her. The most forceful of these came from the Quakers. In 1655 Mary Fisher and Ann Austin, two Quaker missionaries, had landed in Barbados, the first of that sect to come to the colonies. The following year they went to Boston from which they were promptly expelled. Rhode Island proved hospitable. Those who had believed in Anne Hutchinson's "covenant of grace" found the Quaker idea of the "inner fight" an acceptable doctrine. From Rhode Island Quakers frequently penetrated the neighboring colonies which took violent means to expel them. The Massachusetts persecution reached its height in 1660 when three Quakers were hanged, one of them being Mary Dyer, a former friend of Anne Hutchinson. This high-handed proceeding reached the ear of the king, who was in no amiable frame of mind toward the Puritan colonists, who were believed to be sheltering two of the regicides. He accordingly ordered the Boston authorities to send Quakers to England for trial, but Massachusetts sent representatives to England, who succeeded in getting the king to grant the colony free hand in dealing with Quakers. Charles also confirmed the Massachusetts charter, but changed the basis of voting from church membership to a property qualification.
The Connecticut charter.—Connecticut fared well with Charles II. When the king's messengers visited the colony in search of the regicides, they were given assistance, while New Haven aided the fugitives in escaping. The results of this were soon apparent. In 1661 when Connecticut sent Governor John Winthrop to England to obtain a charter, he was graciously received and the following year the document was issued. It provided for a popularly elected governor, a deputy-governor, council, and assembly. The boundaries were described as "All that part of our Dominions ... bounded on the East by the Narrogancett River, commonly called Narrogancett Bay..., and on the North by the lyne of the Massachusetts Plantation, and on the South by the Sea, and ... from the said Narrogancett Bay on the East to the South Sea on the West parte, with the Islands thereunto adjoyneinge." The boundaries included a part of the territory of Rhode Island and the whole of New Haven, and entirely ignored the Dutch possessions in the Hudson Valley. New Haven protested violently, but in 1664, when the king granted the lands between the Connecticut and Delaware rivers to the Duke of York, the New Haven towns submitted to Connecticut rather than be annexed to New York.
The Rhode Island charter.—Fearful that Charles II might divide her territory among her neighbors, Rhode Island hastened to proclaim the king and petitioned that she be granted a charter. The Rhode Island representative protested against the inclusion of Narragansett Bay territory in Connecticut and the difficulty was adjusted by fixing the boundary at the Pawtucket River, which was renamed the Narragansett. The form of government was similar to that of Connecticut, but in Rhode Island religious freedom was established.
The royal commissioners.—In 1664, when the English government had determined upon the seizure of New Netherlands, commissioners were sent to America. Respecting New England, their duties were to settle boundary questions, to consider local disputes, and to see how the colonies might be made more profitable. The commissioners visited Boston in July, 1664, where they obtained troops and demanded the repeal of the law which restricted the franchise to church membership. After the conquest of New Netherlands, three of them returned to New England. They were well received in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Plymouth at this time was attempting to obtain a charter, and the commissioners suggested that the colony might have its lands confirmed without cost if it would receive a royal governor, an offer which was declined? In Boston their reception was stormy, the Massachusetts authorities denying that the commission had any right of jurisdiction. Nicolls, the fourth commissioner, soon arrived and the debates continued, but without result. The king rebuked Massachusetts for its lack of respect, but took no immediate steps to coerce the colony.