England, which included amongst its purposes the founding of a settlement in Canada for the purpose of trading with the natives.

The struggle for supremacy in the eighteenth century was thus being anticipated in the seventeenth.1 In successive expeditions, the capable Kirke reduced Port Royal and the the other French settlements and finally captured Quebec. What had been won by arms was, however, yielded by 1632. diplomacy, and by the treaty of St Germain-en-laye, Canada and Nova Scotia became again French possessions, and Alexander's Colony returned to Scotland. A letter 2 from King Charles to Wake the English Ambassador in Paris, explains his motive in this surrender. He was hard pressed for money, the Queen's dower had never been paid, and to obtain this payment, he was willing to yield Port Royal and Quebec.

Carolana, In 1629 a grant was made to Sir Robert Heath3 of a new etc. Colony to be called Carolana. The intention was that it should be largely recruited from French Hugenots, and yet we are told that it was to be a Church of England Colony. In any case nothing substantial came of the scheme. It did not seem in the power of Charles I. ever to add anything to England's greatness. More successful, however, in its results, was the colonization of what were afterwards known as New Hampshire and Maine. The founders of these Colonies were Mason and the untiring Gorges. Mason, however, died before he could reap the fruits of his labours, and the Colonies planted in New Hampshire were afterwards absorbed by Massachusetts. Maine, on the other hand, April 3. preserved for some years a separate history. In 1639 a

Charter was granted by Charles, constituting Gorges Lord Proprietor. Power of legislation was given to him, to be exercised in conjunction with the freeholders of the Province: the usual provisions being inserted as to the laws of England.

1 See Conquest of Canada, by H. Kirke.
"Brymner's Canadian Archives, 1884.

Sainsbury, Cal. Add. 1574-1674, Oct. 30.
Sainsbury, Cal., April 20, 1630.

Gorges' political rights were subject to the control of the Commissioners for Plantations, but his territorial rights were to be independent. A monopoly of the trade of the Colony was granted him, and, in religion, conformity to the Church of England was to be enforced. A fantastic scheme of Government, wholly unsuited to colonial life, was established by Gorges.

The reign of Charles I. also saw an extension of English West authority in the West Indies. Barbados, which had been Indies. formally claimed as early as 1605, seems to have been actually settled about 1625.1 It formed for a long time the battle ground of rival grants, and illustrated the inconvenience of legal documents drawn up by those who were in ignorance of the geography of the places with which they dealt. The rival claims of Lord Marlborough, Lord Carlisle and Lord Montgomery need not further detain us here. St Kitts had been settled in 1623, but Nevis, Antigua, and Montserrat were colonized between 1628 and 1632. In 1630 a grant was made to the Earl of Warwick, Lord Saye and Seal, John Pym and others as the governor and company of adventurers for the plantation of the island of Providence,2 etc., between 10° and 20° north latitude and 290° and 313° longitude. The Company only lasted for the space of eleven years, but the fulness of the records which have come down to us make it of interest in the history of colonization. Its business appears to have been managed discreetly and well, and the fact, that a company, of which John Pym was a leading member, does not seem ever to have come into collision with the Privy Council, is a further proof of that moderation on which we have previously commented.

It must be confessed, however, that the term moderation Policy of does not apply to the years during which Laud had the con- Laud. trol of affairs. We are not here called upon to appraise either his character or his statesmanship, all that concerns us is his Colonial policy. That policy was one of "thorough"

1 See Lucas, Hist. Geog. of Br. Cols., Vol. II., W. Indies, note at p. 169. 2 Note that this Providence was distinct from the New Providence, one of the Bahamas.

without the force which was behind the "thorough" of Strafford. A moment's reflection will shew how helpless, before the days of standing armies, was the Home Government, if confronted with colonial disaffection. It might have been, from Laud's point of view, a matter for regret that a Colony like New England had been suffered to grow up, but to suppose, considering the distance from England and the character of the colonists, that it could again be reduced to the yoke of the Church of England, was surely the height of folly. In the beginning of 1634, we find a correspondent1 writing to Laud that ten ships are leaving for New England with six score emigrants in each, and that about 600 more intend shortly to go. The writer remarks on the ill effects of suffering such swarms to go out of England. The ships were thereupon detained, but were eventually discharged.2 In the April of the same year, a Special Commission was appointed, consisting of the two Archbishops, the Lord Keeper, the Lord Treasurer, and eight others, with power to make laws and ordinances for the government of the English Colonies. The power was also given to impose penalties and imprisonment for ecclesiastical offences, to remove and appoint magistrates, and finally to revoke Charters unduly obtained. F. Gorges, noting the way of the wind, asks whether it be not more than time that these people should be looked into. "They would be capable," he asserts, "if a drunken governor were to be sent over, of putting him in the stocks and sending him back again." 3 Meanwhile, New England was more and more enjoying the attention of "young men of rare gifts who cannot get any lawful entry, as also professors of good means who labour to keep themselves pure and undefiled." Laud recognised that the moment for action had arrived, and that measures must be taken to prevent the further increase of the obnoxious Colony. Proceedings were in 1635 taken by an action quo warranto in the King's Bench. Judgment was given to seize the franchises of the corporation and to take Matthew Craddock into custody for usurping the GovernSainsbury, Cal. of S. P., Feb. 4. 3 Sainsbury, Cal., Nov. 2, 1634.

2 Feb. 28th, 1634.
Cal., May 8, 1634.

Sir

ment. In the case, however, of certain of the defendants, judgment appears not to have been given till two years later.1

The charge was that the Colony had acted extra vires of the Charter. On strict legal grounds there seems little doubt but that the decision of the judges cancelling the charter was fully justified. Causes, however, were at work which prevented this judgment from having practical results. A proclamation forbade departure from the Kingdom, unless a license had been first obtained from the Commissioners of Plantations, accompanied by a Certificate that the intending emigrant had taken the Oaths of Allegiance and of Conformity to the Church of England. Correspondents from the Colony informed Laud that" the Massachusetts Bay Colony would seem to mean revolt and erection of a new government, but in truth they have long since decreed to spend their blood in maintaining their present way and humour." 2 A proclamation3 was issued appointing Sir F. Gorges Governor of New England. It was at the same time intimated that conformity to the Church of England would be strictly enforced. The outbreak of the Scotch rebellion gave the Home Government other things to think of. After that a temporizing letter had been returned by the Colony to an Order requiring the handing over of their Charter, the Commissioners expressed themselves only anxious to assert their authority, while leaving the liberty of the Colony practically as it was. They explained that the Charter should be replaced by a fresh one, and that the Colonial Government should have all necessary powers pending the grant of the new Instrument.

5

It thus appears that under Charles I. little had been done Results. for Colonial expansion. On the contrary, there was grave risk lest the important New England Colonies would be lost, so that the period of beginnings seems to end in gloom, and yet, to one who looks deeper, much already had been gained.

The English colonizing faculty had been developed, and Englishmen started along a road on which there was to be no going back; a "byt" had been put into the "anchent enymie's mouth." "Colonies," it was already dimly recognised, "are the foundation of great commonwealths; it is the fruit of pride and folly to despise the day of small things."