extensive, though as far as phraseology goes, less complete than those granted to the commission of 1634. The commissioners were to have "power and authority to provide for, order, and dispose all things which they shall from time to time find most fit and advantageous to the well governing, securing, and strengthening, and preserving" of "all those islands and other plantations, inhabited, planted, or belonging to any of his Majesty's the King of England's subjects." They were authorized to call to their assistance any inhabitants of the plantations or owners of land in America who might be within twenty miles of their place of meeting; to make use of all records, books, and papers which concerned any of the colonies; to appoint governors and officers for governing the plantations; to remove any of the officials so appointed and to put others in their places; and, when they deemed fit, to assign as much of their authority and power to such persons as they should deem suitable for better governing and preserving of the plantations from open violence and private disturbance and destruction.

In the exercise of these powers the commissioners never embraced the full opportunity offered to them by their charter. They did appoint one governor, Sir Thomas Warner, governor of the Caribbee Islands. They granted to the inhabitants of Providence, Portsmouth, and Newport a patent of incorporation and conferred upon the patentees authority "to rule themselves by such form of civil government as by voluntary consent of all or the greater part of them they should find most suitable to their estate or condition.33 They also endeavored to make a grant of the Narragansett country to Massachusetts, at the special request of Massachusetts' agents in 1643, but failed, partly because they had no certain authority to grant land and partly because the only clause of their commission which seemed to give such authority required the consent of a majority, and the agents could obtain but nine signatures to the grant. Even these activities on the part of the board lasted but little over a year, and after 1644 the commissioners played a more or less passive role. They continued to sit but their only recorded interest in colonial affairs concerned New England. From 1645 to 1648 they became involved in the controversy over the Narragansett country, and in the attempt of Massachusetts to thwart her enemies, the Gortonists and the Presbyterians.34 Whether the commission continued to sit after the execution of the King is uncertain; there are no further references to its existence. That many of its members remained influential in colonial affairs is evident from the fact that at least seven of the commissioners became members of the Council of State, appointed February 13, 1649: Philip, Earl of Pembroke (died 1650); Sir Arthur Haslerigg, Sir Harry Vane, the younger; Oliver Cromwell, Dennis Bond, Miles Corbet, and Cornelius Holland. Haslerigg was a conspicuous leader in colonial as well as other matters during the entire period of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate; Vane became president of the new board of trade created in August, 1650, was at the head of the Committee of the Admiralty, which often had colonial matters referred to it, and served frequently on plantation committees from 1649 to 1659; while Bond, Corbet, and Holland, though never very active, were members of one general and a few special committees that concerned themselves with trade and plantations. Thus the spirit of the Independent wing of the old commission continued to influence the policy of the government in the early years of the Commonwealth period. The Council of State, appointed by act of the Rump Parliament, was given full authority to provide for England's trade at home and abroad and to regulate the affairs of the plantations. Though its membership underwent yearly changes and its composition and members were altered many times before 1660, its policy and machinery of control remained constant except as far as they were affected by the greater power which the Council gained in the face of the growing weakness of Parliament.

(1) Privy Council Register, James I, Vol. V, p. 173; repeated p. 618.

(2) P.C.R., Charles I. Vol. V, p. 106.

(3) P.C.R., Charles I, Vol. IX, p. 291.

(4) Cal. State Papers, Colonial, 1574–1660, p. 170, § 78.

(5) Rymer, Fœdera XVII. pp. 410–414.

(6) Public Record Office, Chancery, Crown Dockets, 4, p. 280, June 26, 1622.

(7) P.C.R., James I, Vol. VI, pp. 333, 365–368, July, 1624.

(8) Analytical Index to the Series of Records known as Remembrancia preserved among the Archives of the City of London, 1579–1644, p. 526.

(9) Cal. State Papers, Domestic, 1625–1649, pp. 4, 84.

(10) Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1625–1649, pp. 225, 522, §§ 19, 20, p. 495.

(11) P.C.R., Charles I, Vol. II, Pt. I, p. 68.

(12) P.C.R., Charles I, Vols. V, p. 10; VI, p. 7; X., p. 3; XII, p. 1; XV, p. 1.

(public@vhost@g@gutenberg@html@files@33313@[email protected]#noteref-13-1" class="pginternal"