The original was first published in London in 1754, and was engraved by Jefferys, and reissued in his _General Topog. of N. America_, etc., 1768, no. 29. It was reproduced on the same scale in Philadelphia, in 1854. In 1857, through the instrumentality of George M. Dallas, then minister to England, a large oil-painting, measuring eight feet long and twenty inches high, was received by the Philadelphia library; and attached to it was an inscription, _The southeast prospect of the City of Philadelphia, by Peter Cooper, painter_, followed by a key to the public and private buildings. Confidence in its literal fidelity is somewhat shaken by the undue profusion of a sort of cupola given to buildings here and there,—one even surmounting the Quaker meeting-house. Antiquaries are agreed that it must have been painted about 1720. Among the private houses prominent in the picture are that of Edward Shippen, at that time occupied by Sir William Keith, then governor of the province, and that of Jonathan Dickinson. (Cf. _Hist. Mag._, i. 137.) It has been reëngraved on a small scale in Scharf and Westcott’s _Hist. of Philadelphia_, vol. i., where will also be found (p. 187) a view of the old court-house, from an ancient drawing (1710). Cf. view of 1744 in _Ibid._, p. 207. CHAPTER IV. MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA. BY JUSTIN WINSOR, _The Editor_. MARYLAND began its career as a crown province with conditions similar to those which had regulated its growth under the Proprietary. There was nothing within its limits worthy the name of a town, though there were certain places where the courts met. The people were planters, large and small. They, with their servants, were settled, each with land enough about him, along the extensive tide-water front of the Chesapeake and its estuaries. Each plantation had a wharf or landing of its own, and no commercial centre was necessary to ship or receive merchandise. The Indians were friendly, and no sense of mutual protection, such as prevailed farther north, compelled the settlers to form communities. They raised tobacco,—too much of it,—and saw hardly enough of one another to foster a stable, political union. Local disturbances were accordingly not very promptly suppressed. Because one was independent in his living, he came to have too little sympathy with the independence of the mass.