public treasure, and as "juggling parasites," and declared all who sheltered them to be "traitors to the people."

162. While Bacon was still in full tide of success, a sudden fever carried him off- and the Rebellion collapsed, for want of a leader. Berkeley took a shameful vengeance, until removed by the disgusted King. At the King's command, the next Assembly declared all "Bacon's laws" void; and so the "freehold" franchise was restored, to continue two centuries.1

163. Henceforth all leadership belonged to the small class of great planters. Each man of this class was not merely a country gentleman, supervising the farming of large estates: he was also a merchant, with huge warehouses and with agents in England. He sold in England not only his own tobacco, but also much of that of the small planters about him; and, in return, he imported all manufactured articles used on his plantations and on theirs, except the simple implements turned out by the plantation's own carpenter and blacksmith. was also a lawyer, and a leader in society and in politics. He was usually one of the ruling "Justices" of his county, and one of the vestry of his parish; and, if he did not sit in the governor's Council, he was pretty sure to be a Burgess least to control the election of a Burgess.

or at

164. Much has been said above (§ 155) on the admirable qualities of this ruling class. One darker feature remains to be made plain. These men gave a large part of their time to the public service, and none of their offices had salaries. In time of public peril, too, they were always ready to give fortune and life freely for the public need. But in ordinary times, many of them paid themselves indirectly for their devotion to the public service by what would to-day be called graft. They controlled the political machinery; and they saw nothing wrong in filling their pockets, and their friends' pockets, out of the public resources.

1 In 1736 a "freehold" for voting purposes was defined to be the ownership of 100 acres of wild land, or 50 acres of improved land, or a house and lot in a town, the house to be not less than 24 feet square. Just before the American Revolution, these requirements were cut down one half.

§ 166] THE ARISTOCRACY RE-ESTABLISHED

133

Taxes were paid commonly in tobacco. The "Receiver" was some one of the coterie of great planters. It was easy for him to accept from friends and other influential taxpayers a poorer grade of tobacco than he would take from a smaller planter. All tobacco so received was afterward sold for the treasury. The English government tried earnestly to have the Receiver sell at auction; but he usually managed to sell "by private arrangement - often at a half or a third of the market value-to friends or associates. It was by so holding together and exchanging "favors" that the aristocracy maintained their power.

165. Especially was the public land a source of private riches. Governor and Assembly readily made grants of wild land to almost any applicant; but law required the grantee to establish a certain number of settlers on each grant within ten years -one settler to every hundred acres or the grant had to be declared forfeited. To locate and survey a tract cost somewhat, and to "settle" a large tract was impossible except to the wealthy. And the wealthiest had ways to shift this burden.

In 1688, Colonel William Byrd secured a grant of more than three thousand acres. He failed to "settle" it; but he was the chief officer of the colonial landoffice, and he managed to keep back the declaration of forfeiture until 1701. Then the tract was re-granted at once to his close friend, Nathaniel Harrison, who, after a decent interval, deeded it back to Byrd for another ten years' chance to settle. Another time, Byrd got nearly six thousand acres; and having failed to settle in the ten years, he had it transferred to his son. These grants were the foundation of one of the greatest Virginia family estates.

166. The small farmer in Virginia, after Bacon's failure, had only one political power: once a year or once in two years he could vote for a member of the Assembly. Elections took place at the county courts, and became social gatherings also, with feasting and sports-wrestling, running, shooting at the mark-and sometimes with brutal rough-and-tumble fights. The speechmaking at these gatherings by rival candidates afforded no mean political training; and as large a part of the free White population came out to vote in Virginia as in New England. But the common Virginia farmer voted on a much smaller range of matters, and much less often, than the common

New England farmer. The common Virginian had no voice in the many questions of local government that were discussed and settled in the New England town meeting, nor any part even in choosing local officials—which was so large a part of New England politics.

167. Excursus: The Virginia County and the New England Town. After 1691 (§ 153), the central governments of Massachusetts and Virginia grew more and more alike, but the local governments grew farther and farther apart; and the influence of local government upon society is so great that Virginia as a whole grew more aristocratic, and Massachusetts more democratic.

We have traced the story of the development of the two types of local government; but we ought also to notice that the difference between them was largely based on physical differences between the two colonies (§§ 2, 3). In Virginia the soil, climate, and products made it profitable to cultivate large plantations by cheap labor under overseers. In Massachusetts, with its sterile soil, farming was profitable only when a man tilled his own ground, with at most one or two servants working under his own eyes. In Virginia, therefore, population became scattered, while in New England it remained grouped ir. little farm villages. In Virginia, the people could not easily come together for effective action. The county became the political unit, and control fell naturally to the wealthy planters in small Boards. New England had no counties for some time, and then only for judicial districts. The town remained the political unit; and all the people of the town came together frequently, to take part in matters that concerned their common life. The Virginia type of local government developed the most remarkable group of leaders that the world has ever The New England type trained a whole people to democracy by constant practice at their own doors.1

seen.

1 The Middle colonies, whose story we take up in the next chapter, developed an intermediate type of local government with both towns and counties; and this mixed type became the common one in most of the West at a later day (American History and Government, § 76).

§ 170]

NEW YORK TO 1690

135 EXERCISE.A freeholder came of age in 1661 in Virginia: how old must he have been before he could cast his first vote? (§ 156.) Let members of the class propose lists of questions on this chapter so far, naming the sections" of this book or the "numbers" in the Source Book where answers may be found. Compare § 167 with §§ 2 and 3.

FOR FURTHER READING.-Andrews, Colonial Self-Government, 202231, or Channing, II, 82-91, or Becker, Beginnings, 71-80. Fiske's Old Virginia (II, 1-130, 174-267) gives a delightful but longer treatment. The Source Book contains much material: No. 108, not referred to in notes above, is especially valuable.

IV. NEW COLONIES, 1660-1690

168. New Jersey was part of the territory conquered from the Dutch (§ 145). Soon after 1660, too, the beginnings of settlement were made in the Carolinas. In both districts the settlers waged sturdy constitutional struggles for self-government, ignoring or opposing the proprietary claims. The story cannot be told here. Some features of New York and Pennsylvania history, however, demand attention.

169. While New York was the Dutch New Netherlands, the people had no self-government whatever. The colony was a huge plantation (like early Virginia) under the arbitrary rule of the " Director General " and his Council, appointed in Holland. There were a number of great landlords (patroons) in the colony; and, in local affairs, each patroon had great authority over the villages of settlers on his lands. 170. The only promising movement for self-government under Dutch rule came from English immigrants. Four English towns had been established on Long Island while it was claimed by

THE "HALF MOON" in which Henry Hudson sailed up the river named for him, laying the basis for the Dutch claim. From an old Dutch drawing.

Connecticut. These afterwards passed under the rule of New Netherlands. In 1653 a meeting of representatives from various parts of the colony was held, to demand from Director Stuyvesant a measure of self-government. This meeting was inspired by the English towns, and it was dominated by their delegates. The "remonstrance" to Stuyvesant was drawn in the English language; the signatures are largely English names; and the document contains the democratic English phrases of that day. Stuyvesant, in explaining the matter to the authorities in Holland, wrote: "It ought to be remembered that the Englishmen, who are the authors and leaders in these

WILLIAM PENN AT 22 (before his conversion). From the painting by Sir Peter Lely, now in the gallery of the Pennsylvania Historical Society.

innovations, enjoy more privileges than the Exemptions of New Netherlands grant to any Hollander."

171. Before true repre- . sentative government grew out of this agitation, came the English conquest of New Amsterdam in 1664. King Charles gave the conquered province to his brother James, Duke of York, for whom it was renamed. The population was mainly non-English; and, as a conquered people, it had no constitutional claim to political rights. Accordingly, the charter to James said nothing of

any share by the people in the government.

In spite of this, the governor, Nichols, found himself obliged to satisfy the Long Island towns by promising them privileges "equal to those in the New England colonies," and it soon