joining the tidewater group, and from the ranks of the indented servants. As these men completed their terms of service, they moved to the frontier, to begin life for themselves. In the newer upland communities the farms generally were smaller than those in the tidewater section, and they showed, for a time at least, less evidence of slave labor. Society in the Piedmont was homogeneous and democratic, but with the democracy of the American frontier rather than of the tidewater region.

It was only natural that as this population grew and as new counties were organized, the Piedmonters should demand a share of honors and power in the government. It was equally natural that the tidewater aristocracy-used to its own way by this time-should try to keep its control of affairs. This friction between tidewater and Piedmont furnishes the key to Virginia history from 1660 to the Revolution.

BACON'S REBELLION

The first concrete evidence of the friction in the colony was the contest known as Bacon's Rebellion, in 1676. After the Restoration in England, Governor William Berkeley kept the newly-elected legislature fourteen years. The governor himself was a conservative, the members of the House of Burgesses elected in 1661 were in entire sympathy with him, and the whole government was managed by a small but very influential clique. From this little circle the newer communities near the frontier were excluded, and consequently they were inclined to be critical.

Moreover, economic conditions were bad, and there is nothing which will bring about a disturbance more quickly than a combination of dissatisfaction with the government and hard times. For various reasons the price of tobacco was falling, while the cost of imported goods was rising. And so any ill-feeling against the government was bound to be rendered more intense by this economic pres

sure.

The immediate occasion of the disturbance was the outbreak of Indian warfare. As the westward movement of the white settlers went steadily on, the Indians became more and more alarmed. Year after year they saw new encroachments on their hunting grounds. They could see only one possible way of stopping the advance, and that was the resort to force.

When the attack came, those in danger appealed to the governor

for protection. He ordered out the militia, and then, for some reason known only to himself and to his friends, he revoked the order. Thereupon his numerous opponents in the colony charged that because of his interests in the fur trade, he preferred to let the people suffer rather than drive the Indians beyond the range of settlements. The House of Burgesses proposed to build forts to protect the frontier, but the people objected because of the heavy taxation involved. They wanted one good campaign, to finish the Indians once for all.

When Berkeley refused to move, the discontented elements took matters into their own hands. They began to raise troops, and Nathaniel Bacon, a dissatisfied member of the Council, assumed command. The governor promptly turned Bacon out of the Council, and the war became a three-cornered contest, with Bacon in the middle keeping both other elements turning about him.

By this time the voters were demanding the election of a new House of Burgesses, and incidentally a program of governmental reform. The gathering storm looked ominous to the governor, so he yielded, even to the extent of readmitting Bacon to the Council. With that difficulty cleared up, Bacon marched off against the Indians. No sooner had he gone, however, than Berkeley repudiated his agreements. This time Bacon came back, determined to safeguard his base of operations before attacking the frontier troubles. He captured Jamestown, and burned it. Shortly after that Bacon died, but the uproar cost Berkeley his place. The "old fool," as Charle II genially described him, was called back to England, to explain why he had found it necessary to hang more of his opponents than Charles II "had done for the murder of" his father.

This contest is significant, not on its own account, or for the results obtained, but because it reveals the trend of Virginia history. A group of tidewater planters was still in full control of the government as late as 1760, but the opponents of the system were steadily increasing in strength. Sooner or later they would be able to overthrow the organization.

MARYLAND

While Virginia was developing its system of prosperous tobacco plantations, Maryland, another agricultural colony, was founded, immediately to the north. The promoter of this enterprise was

George Calvert, Lord Baltimore, a government official of no little importance in the days of Charles I. As a secretary of state he had been able to keep in touch with the growing interest of the government in the Virginia colony. His own enthusiasm for colonial projects can be seen in his membership in both the London and the Plymouth Companies. He finally succeeded in securing the promise of a charter from Charles I, but he died before the document was ready. In 1632, his son, Cecil Calvert, received the charter, and prepared to carry out his father's plans.

The territory conveyed included the land between the northern boundary of Virginia and the fortieth parallel of latitude. The land system to be installed therein was distinctly feudal in character. Calvert, as proprietor, was supposed to have rights similar to those of the Bishop of Durham, in England. He was allowed to subinfeudate his land-a right which the king may not have had the authority to confer, because of the old Statute of Quia Emptores, expressly forbidding subinfeudation-and to erect manors, with all the paraphernalia of the middle ages: courts baron, courts leet, view of frank pledge, and all.

The system of government was distinctly more modern than the land system. The proprietor was given authority to make laws, with the advice and consent of the freemen, or their deputies. These laws must not be inconsistent with the laws of England, and the charter expressly provided that no interpretation should be placed upon it which would limit the allegiance to the king. These two limitations would tend to keep both the proprietor and his legislature from getting too far away from English control.

With reference to religion, Calvert, or Lord Baltimore, was given the patronage of all churches, with the express provision that they were to be "dedicated and consecrated according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of our Kingdom of England"; that is, the charter called for the establishment of the English Episcopal Church in the colony. But Baltimore reasoned that the document did not specifically prohibit the introduction of other churches, hence he permitted Catholic priests to set up the Roman Catholic worship.

It seems that the leading motive in George Calvert's mind had been a desire to found a great family estate in Maryland; his son Cecil, however, was interested in providing a place of refuge for the persecuted Catholics in England. When he inherited his father's

title, the two motives were tied up together. But the English laws
against Catholics were very severe at that time, and any open attempt
to found a Catholic colony would have stirred up enough protest to
make necessary the revocation of the charter. Cecil Calvert's policy
was therefore one of toleration. Of his settlers, probably seventy-
five per cent were Protestants, and they could not be offended with
impunity, especially in matters of religion. Cecil Calvert sent his
brother Leonard over as the first governor, and in his instructions
he made his religious plans unmistakably plain. The officials were
to be careful "to preserve unity & peace amongst all the passengers,"
and to permit "no scandall nor offence to be given to any of the
Protestants." Moreover, "all Acts of Romane Catholique Religion"
were "to be done as privately as may be." All the Catholics were
ordered "to be silent upon all occasions of discourse concerning
matters of Religion," and the governor was warned to "treate the
Protestants with as much mildness and favor as Justice will permitt."
Lord Baltimore knew how sensitive people were over Catholicism,
and he was not at all eager to risk the loss of his charter. But the
Jesuits who accompanied the first settlers were not blessed with the
proprietor's sense of caution. They ignored the instructions, cele-
brated mass in public, and went out of their way to assert the suprem-
acy of the Canon Law over acts of the Maryland Assembly, and
over Acts of Parliament as well. When this news came back to Eng-
land, Baltimore saw to it that his original instructions were observed.
When the colonists reached Maryland, their course of action made
it clear that Lord Baltimore had turned to good account the early
misfortunes of Virginia. The site selected for the first settlement-
St. Mary's on the Potomac-was eminently satisfactory, especially
in regard to health. Again, while Jamestown had been settled in
May, Baltimore's first colony was so timed that it would be started
in February (1634), in ample time for spring planting. Special
efforts were made to begin food production without delay, and both
corn and tobacco were planted that first season. In Maryland there
was no fruitless search after gold, and, consequently, no "starving
time."

In spite of this propitious beginning, the colony did not become really prosperous until the eighteenth century. For one thing few settlers went to Maryland. The average Protestant colonist preferred to go to Virginia or Massachusetts, while the Catholics were

1

always looking for better times at home, and so preferred not to emigrate. More specifically, Lord Baltimore's land system was not liberal enough at the start. His feudal arrangements could not compete with the much more liberal systems in both Virginia and Massachusetts. The average frontiersman wanted his own land, without the trappings of feudal tenure.

Eventually Maryland became a prosperous agricultural colony, and the cause of the change for the better is to be found in that allimportant factor in American history: the westward movement. As the back country was settled, the farmers found that they could raise wheat to advantage, and profit. This proved to be a valuable product, considerably more so than tobacco, which they had tried at first. The tobacco market was limited, while the West Indies consumed all the surplus North American wheat they could get, and constantly demanded more.

NEW ENGLAND

While the London Company was working at what seemed to be, for a time, its forlorn hope in Virginia, its associate, the Plymouth Company, turned its attention to the New England Coast. In the summer of 1607 its first colony, Sagadahoc, was started, in what is now the State of Maine, at the mouth of the Kennebec River. If May was a bad time for landing in Virginia, August was infinitely worse for eastern New England. To be sure the months of July and August are the only ones that ordinarily provide warm weather in Maine, but there is not very much opportunity to begin farming at that time. No one who knows the fall months as they are in Maine could be surprised that before winter set in, the colony was deserted. It required definite motives and no little endurance to face the prospect of winter on that desolate coast.

Once the Sagadahoc colony had failed, the Plymouth Company seemed unable to promote settlements, and in 1620 it turned over its rights to its successor, the New England Council. This new organization, under the leadership of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, was given the right to trade, to grant land titles, and to establish and govern colonies in America anywhere between the fortieth and fortyeighth parallels of latitude. But the Council preferred to sublet its rights to others, instead of starting colonies itself. In 1621 it gave the Pilgrims a patent covering their settlement at Plymouth, and in