Culpeper's return to England, Chicheley, as deputy governor, summoned the assembly, which sought to quiet popular agitation by passing a law limiting the number of ports where merchandise could be landed and tobacco shipped. The measure proved of no avail, and in the attempts made to enforce it many vessels sailed away without a cargo, and the situation became worse rather than better.1

Another assembly was called in the spring of 1682, and Chicheley wrote without effect to Baltimore, hoping that the two colonies might agree on a limitation of tobacco-planting for a year.' Then numbers of the people, disappointed that no limitinglaw had been passed, took the matter into their own hands. Beginning in Gloucester County, bands of men advanced from plantation to plantation cutting down the tobacco plants and destroying "in an hour's time as much tobacco as twenty men could bring to perfection in a summer." The rioting spread into New Kent and Middlesex counties, and for a time the militia was unable to control it. The plant - cutters at first acted openly during the day, but afterwards did their work at night, and were aided not only by the servants, but by the planters themselves. When the men were arrested the women took up the work, and com

' Hening, Statutes, 471-478, 561; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, 424.

'Bruce, Econ. Hist. of Virginia, I., 405, n.; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, § 232.

mitted serious damage before they were checked.1 These ravages went on until August, 1682, when, after large amounts of tobacco had been destroyed, the energy of the rioters flagged and the movement came to an end.

In November, 1682, at the express command of the king, Culpeper came back; and though he had been unwilling to return to the colony, he showed himself on the whole a prudent and energetic governor. After the arrest of several of the tobaccocutters, the colony became peaceful, the price of tobacco rose, fears of the Indians decreased; and though rumors of pirates were frequent, no serious trouble appears to have been caused by them at this time. Still, Culpeper could not long maintain an energetic rule, and could not forget his own doctrine that no colonial governorship was worth while in which there was no profit. Therefore, in 1684 he returned to England and was immediately deprived of his governorship for having left the colony without permission. Even after his return he petitioned the treasury to aid him in suing the colony for money that he claimed as his own."

2

The people, still poor and in many ways thriftless, seemed to have exhausted their energies in the late troubles. Nevertheless, the next governor, Lord Howard of Effingham, got into constant

1 Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681–1685, §§ 494, 495, 524. 'Treasury, In Letters, Indexes, Reference-Book, III., 314–316, in Public Record Office.

difficulties with the deputies, who refused to pass measures recommended by the governor until some grievances should be redressed.' A prolonged deadlock ensued. In truth, Lord Howard was not fit for his place: he badgered and bullied the assembly, and, when it opposed him, complained to the king of its "peevish obstinacy." James II. upheld his servant, approved of his actions, and reproved the burgesses, whom he charged with holding irregular and tumultuous meetings.

The colony seemed on the eve of another revolt, and when the news came of the revolution in England, in the winter of 1688-1689, rumors of all kinds spread among the people. Roman Catholics were believed to be concerting with the Indians to murder the Protestants; and people in various parts of the colony took up arms to protect themselves. Men feared that French war-ships were about to attack the province, and in Virginia, as in Maryland at this same time, it was believed that there was neither king nor government in England. Finally, in April, 1689, fears were quieted by orders received from England to proclaim the new sovereigns; and with "unfeigned joy and exultation" William and Mary were declared sovereigns of England and her dominions.

Virginia suffered during the years that followed Bacon's rebellion from the character of the men

'Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, Present State of Virginia,

137-142.

whom the Stuart kings selected to rule over her. The colony was kept in a constant state of agitation, for the people were prone to tumult and the assembly to opposition; and the governors did little to quiet the discontent. The settlers were pushing into the back countries, establishing homes on the upper waters of the Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and other rivers, where they were suffering dangers from the Indians incident to frontier and wilderness life, and complaints of Indian raids from the northwest were frequent. Great distances made government throughout the colony difficult; councillors lived widely scattered, on the eastern shore, in lowland necks, and in the up-country; wind and weather made rapid movement impossible; and, in winter, days and even weeks passed before all the members of the council could be assembled. With the burgesses the difficulties were even greater. Nevertheless, the colony prospered, and when Nicholson came in 1691 as lieutenant-governor under Lord Howard, a new and more peaceful era began.

CHAPTER XV

DEVELOPMENT OF MARYLAND

(1649-1686)

ARYLAND reproduced more than Virginia

M the religious and political conditions that pre

vailed in the mother-country. The proprietary, Lord Baltimore, possessed powers that were little less than royal; and the people, sharing in legislation, yet prevented from controlling the government, because of the prerogatives vested in the proprietary by the charter, were divided into religious as well as political factions, that were more uncompromising in their hostility for each other than were any of the parties that upheld or opposed the policy of Berkeley. The first sixty years in the history of the colony were contemporary with the era of revolution in England, and there is scarcely a phase of the home conflict, from 1640 to 1688, that does not find its counterpart in the struggle in Maryland.

The revolutionary changes in England during these years often placed Baltimore in the awkward position of standing between two fires. His charter, granted by Charles I. in 1632, was annulled in 1645