Charles and the bishops on one side, and the people on the other, aided emigration under the auspices of this company, many gentlemen of rank and fortune selling their possessions and becoming members. The final result was a bold step that meant much for that present and had a deep impression upon the events of the future. The company determined to move itself bodily across the ocean, carry the charter along, and manage its American affairs in the land in which they were located. In the spring of 1630 nearly a thousand persons left England for the shores of Massachusetts bay. Boston was founded and other settlements sprung up about it. As new towns were created, a representation from each was decided upon to administer the general affairs for them all, and as a result the general court assembled in Boston, and made laws and settled such disputes as might arise. Within the next ten years twenty thousand persons crossed the Atlantic and made their home in New England.

Thus the future great nation was unconsciously but surely building. itself in different directions, each colony being prepared by its experiences and trials to depend upon itself and to seek a needed alliance with its neighbors. The stirring events that followed through the next century can only be briefly touched upon in this connection. The New England colonies from Maine to Rhode Island came into existence one by one, New Amsterdam became New York and belonged to England rather than Holland. William Penn and the Quakers, also moved by intolerant persecutions at home, made their memorable settlement in Pennsylvania; Virginia grew rapidly; Lord Baltimore planted his colony in Maryland; the French and Indian wars caused all to make a common cause against the common enemy, and the French power in America disappeared; the thirteen colonies became distinct parts of the grand nation that time and mutual need was evolving slowly but with the certainty of fate.

The plan of self-government, it may be remarked in passing, was not anexperiment left for the untried experience of 1776, but had found its beginning on American shores in 1620. As it proved its results by the experience of New England, those to the south and west were not unmindful spectators, but learned much that was of use in after days.

In the compact of the Mayflower, the Puritans simply transferred to political affairs the democratic method that held in their church-they simply chose their governor by general voice, as they had already selected the pastor of their church. "For eighteen years all laws were enacted in a general assembly of all the colonists. The governor, chosen annually, was but president of a council in which he had a double vote. It consisted first of one, then of five, and finally of seven members called assistants." While the colony of Massachusetts bay was organized under a charter from the king, in its real manage ment, it was of the same nature as that of Plymouth. In 1630, when the charter and government were transferred from England to Massachusetts as above related, John Winthrop was chosen governor, and the first general court, or legislative assembly, was held at Boston on the nineteenth of October of the same year. From that time onward to 1686 the people of New England governed themselves under their system of general election, all power being in the people, and their form of government purely republican-the only restriction imposed in the matter of franchise being that all citizens must be members of some church within the limits of the colony. It was in 1634 that the expansion of their limits and the increase of their numbers made it inconvenient for each to exercise his political rights in person, and so the system of representation was adopted.

As the other New England colonies were created, they formed themselves upon the Massachusetts model. When the Connecticut settlements formulated their constitution in 1639, there was nothing in it to show that a mother country was in existence. When Rhode Island was chartered by parliament in 1644 and organized its government three years later, it adopted a democracy similar to that to the north, except that, out of the Puritan persecution of Roger Williams, there had grown a clause that there should be no restriction because of religion, and that "all men might walk as their consciences persuaded them, without molestation, everyone in the name of his God." While New Hampshire and Maine were proprietary governments, under royal grants, they soon fell under the influence of their neighbors, and in 1641 New Hampshire openly denied the rights of

the proprietor, and placed itself under the protection of Massachu

setts.

All these advance movements toward a political independence of England, a material independence having already been achieved, were unmistakable, although little thought of future trouble seemed to have been held on the English side of the sea. A still bolder step was taken in 1643, when, as a measure of protection against the Indians and other threatened dangers, the colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Haven and Plymouth united themselves into a Confederacy under the title of the United Colonies of New England. Rhode Island was not a party to this compact, as she refused all intercourse with Plymouth, while New Hampshire was at that time a part of the Massachusetts colony. The governing body of this Confederacy consisted of an annual assembly, composed of two deputies from each colony, which had charge of all matters relating to the common interests, while local affairs were controlled by local governments as before.

In speaking at length of these great events so briefly described, the historian, Charles Morris, declares that we see in them "a remarkable progress towards a Federal republic of the same type as that now existing in the United States of America, and constituting a noble school for the teaching of those principles of self-government which have become so deeply instilled into the minds of the American people. It may seem strange that England so quietly permitted this colonial republic to be formed, but the governing powers of England had work enough for themselves at home. Originally the colonies were too insignificant for their acts to call for much attention, and when the home government did show some disposition to interfere with them, the colonists, with much shrewdness and show of respect, yet with great tenacity, held on to the rights they had acquired, and baffled by a policy of delay and negation every effort to interfere with their privileges. Ere long the English royalists became engaged with a death struggle with democracy at home, during which they had little leisure to attend to affairs abroad; and the subsequent overthrow of the government and the establish

In the compact of the Mayflower, the Puritans simply transferred to political affairs the democratic method that held in their church—they simply chose their governor by general voice, as they had already selected the pastor of their church. "For eighteen years all laws were enacted in a general assembly of all the colonists. The governor, chosen annually, was but president of a council in which he had a double vote. It consisted first of one, then of five, and finally of seven members called assistants." While the colony of Massachusetts bay was organized under a charter from the king, in its real manage. ment, it was of the same nature as that of Plymouth. In 1630, when the charter and government were transferred from England to Massachusetts as above related, John Winthrop was chosen governor, and the first general court, or legislative assembly, was held at Boston on the nineteenth of October of the same year. From that time onward to 1686 the people of New England governed themselves under their system of general election, all power being in the people, and their form of government purely republican-the only restriction imposed in the matter of franchise being that all citizens must be members of some church within the limits of the colony. It was in 1634 that the expansion of their limits and the increase of their numbers made it inconvenient for each to exercise his political rights in person, and so the system of representation was adopted.

As the other New England colonies were created, they formed themselves upon the Massachusetts model. When the Connecticut settlements formulated their constitution in 1639, there was nothing in it to show that a mother country was in existence. When Rhode Island was chartered by parliament in 1644 and organized its government three years later, it adopted a democracy similar to that to the north, except that, out of the Puritan persecution of Roger Williams, there had grown a clause that there should be no restriction because of religion, and that "all men might walk as their consciences persuaded them, without molestation, everyone in the name of his God." While New Hampshire and Maine were proprietary governments, under royal grants, they soon fell under the influence of their neighbors, and in 1641 New Hampshire openly denied the rights of

the proprietor, and placed itself under the protection of Massachu

setts.

All these advance movements toward a political independence of England, a material independence having already been achieved, were unmistakable, although little thought of future trouble seemed to have been held on the English side of the sea. A still bolder step was taken in 1643, when, as a measure of protection against the Indians and other threatened dangers, the colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Haven and Plymouth united themselves into a Confederacy under the title of the United Colonies of New England. Rhode Island was not a party to this compact, as she refused all intercourse with Plymouth, while New Hampshire was at that time a part of the Massachusetts colony. The governing body of this Confederacy consisted of an annual assembly, composed of two deputies from each colony, which had charge of all matters relating to the common interests, while local affairs were controlled by local governments as before.

In speaking at length of these great events so briefly described, the historian, Charles Morris, declares that we see in them "a remarkable progress towards a Federal republic of the same type as that now existing in the United States of America, and constituting a noble school for the teaching of those principles of self-government which have become so deeply instilled into the minds of the American people. It may seem strange that England so quietly permitted this colonial republic to be formed, but the governing powers of England had work enough for themselves at home. Originally the colonies were too insignificant for their acts to call for much attention, and when the home government did show some disposition to interfere with them, the colonists, with much shrewdness and show of respect, yet with great tenacity, held on to the rights they had acquired, and baffled by a policy of delay and negation every effort to interfere with their privileges. Ere long the English royalists became engaged with a death struggle with democracy at home, during which they had little leisure to attend to affairs abroad; and the subsequent overthrow of the government and the establish