In the middle of the seventeenth century, when the monarchical principle was overthrown in England in the person of Charles the First, one might be led to suppose, for a moment, that the colonies would take advantage of this to free themselves entirely from its control. {21} In point of fact, some of them, Massachusetts especially, settled by stern Puritans, showed themselves disposed, if not to break every tie which bound them to the mother country, at least to govern themselves, alone, and by their own laws. But the Long Parliament, by force of the colonial principle, and in virtue of the rights of the crown which it inherited, maintained, with moderation, the supremacy of Great Britain. Cromwell, succeeding to the power of the Long Parliament, exercised it in a more striking manner, and, by a judicious and resolute principle of protection, prevented or repressed, in the colonies, both royalist and Puritan, every faint aspiration for independence. This was to him an easy task. The colonies, at this period, were feeble and divided. Virginia, in 1640, did not contain more than three or four thousand inhabitants, and in 1660 hardly thirty thousand. [Footnote 2] [Footnote 2: Marshall's _Life of Washington_, edition of 1805, Vol. I. p. 76. Bancroft's _History of the United States_, Vol. I. pp. 210, 232, 265.] {22} Maryland had at most only twelve thousand. In these two provinces the royalist party had the ascendency, and greeted with joy the Restoration. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, the general feeling was republican; the fugitive regicides, Goffe and Whalley, found there favor and protection; and when the local government were compelled to proclaim Charles the Second as king, they forbade, at the same time, all tumultuous assemblies, all kinds of merry-making, and even the drinking of the King's health. There was, at that time, neither the moral unity, nor the physical strength, necessary to the foundation of a state. After 1688, when England was finally in possession of a free government, the colonies felt but slightly its advantages. The charters, which Charles the Second and James the Second had either taken away or impaired, were but imperfectly and partially restored to them. The same confusion prevailed, the same struggles arose between the different powers. The greater part of the governors, coming from Europe, temporarily invested with the prerogatives and pretensions of royalty, displayed them with more arrogance than power, in an administration, generally speaking, inconsistent, irritating, seldom successful, frequently marked by grasping selfishness, and a postponement of the interests of the public to petty personal quarrels. {23}