bstitute a new charter drawn
up in 1623 providing for the King to resume control of the colony by
establishing a royal Council in England and a Governor and Council in
Virginia. Consequently the Privy Council obtained a writ of _quo
warranto_ which terminated with a decision by the court of King's Bench
in May, 1624, annulling the charter of the company.

With the advent of royal control there was a significant continuity in
practice in the colony, and the political framework was little changed.
The Governor and Council were then appointed by the King, but the House
of Burgesses continued without major revision. In order to assure
continued respect for public authority, a royal commission was
dispatched to Governor Wyatt and an eleven-man Council empowering them
to act "as fully and ampley as anie Governor and Councell resident there
at anie tyme within the space of five yeares now last past." A similar
commission was issued to Sir George Yeardley in 1626, and for the next
sixteen years royal instructions to the Governors reflected a striking
resemblance.

A similar continuity was evident in economic affairs as revealed in land
policy. The London Company as a corporate body in charge of the colony
terminated in 1624 after eighteen years, and the following year after
the death of King James I the colony of Virginia by proclamation was
made a part of the royal demesne. The landholder in Virginia became then
in effect a freehold tenant of the King. The rights and property of the
company were taken over by the crown, but recognition was made of the
private property right of the planter and of individual claims of those
who had invested in the company. Even land rights to planters and
adventurers that had not been taken up were recognized, but few
proceeded to effect settlement or to exercise the right of taking up 100
acres per share of stock.

The land rights of the private joint-stock associations also continued
to be recognized, but there was less enthusiasm on the part of
individual adventurers to promote the projects started some years
earlier. This development was indicative of the major change in the
economic life of the colony that resulted in the decline, if not
disappearance, of absentee ownership. As previously noted, Berkeley
Hundred had suffered the loss of many of its settlers in the massacre of
1622; and upon expiration of term of service of the few remaining
servants, only the land and a few cattle were l