ople were sometimes
seized with a silly craze for "paper money" and "wild-cat
banks"--devices for making money out of nothing--and sometimes the
governors were sensible enough to oppose such delusions but not
altogether sensible in their manner of doing it. Thus in 1740 there was
fierce excitement in Massachusetts over a quarrel between the governor
and the legislature about the famous "silver bank" and "land bank."
These institutions were a public nuisance and deserved to be suppressed,
but the governor was obliged to appeal to parliament in order to
succeed in doing it. This led many people to ask, "What business has a
parliament sitting the other side of the ocean to be making laws for
us?" and the grumbling was loud and bitter enough to show that this was
a very dangerous question to raise.

[Sidenote: Bitter memories; in Virginia.]

It was in the eight colonies which had royal governors that troubles of
a revolutionary character were more likely to arise than in the other
five, but there were special reasons, besides those already mentioned,
why Massachusetts and Virginia should prove more refractory than any of
the others. Both these great commonwealths had bitter memories. Things
had happened in both which might serve as a warning, and which some of
the old men still living in 1750 could distinctly remember. In Virginia
the misgovernment of the royal governor Sir William Berkeley had led in
1675 to the famous rebellion headed by Nathaniel Bacon, and this
rebellion had been suppressed with much harshness. Many leading citizens
had been sent to the gallows and their estates had been confiscated. In
Massachusetts, though there were no such scenes of cruelty to remember,
the grievance was much more deep-seated and enduring.

[Sidenote: And in Massachusetts.]

Massachusetts had not been originally a royal province, with its
governors appointed by the king. At first it had been a republic, such
as Connecticut and Rhode Island now were, with governors chosen by the
people. From its foundation in 1629 down to 1684 the commonwealth of
Massachusetts had managed its own affairs at its own good pleasure.
Practically it had been not only self-governing but almost independent.
That was because affairs in England were in such confusion that until
after 1660 comparatively little attention was paid to what was going on
in America, and the liberties of Massachusetts prospered through the
neglect of what was then called