Page:Economic History of Virginia Vol 1.djvu/418

 Colonies. They prayed that this order should be enforced. The appeal of the Virginian authorities was transmitted by the King to Lord Baltimore, then in England, in order to obtain his reply. This reply was well calculated to produce the effect upon the minds of the King and Council which it was designed to have. Baltimore declared that a partial cessation would not accomplish the object desired, and that its only result would be to cut down the royal customs; that the proceeds from tobacco culture were not so contemptible as represented, a proof of which was to be discovered in the great plenty in which the colonists lived; that the limitation of planting to a certain day would operate to the disadvantage of the people of Maryland, as that province was three degrees further to the north than Virginia, which led to a difference of three weeks in the seasons; that violation of the restriction could only be disclosed to the proper officers by one neighbor informing against the other, thus causing dangerous antagonisms.

Baltimore&#8217;s reply was read to the Privy Council in August, 1664, and on the 16th of the following August, the arguments in support of the side of the Virginians were delivered by the agents of the Colony. After consideration of the questions involved and a consultation with the farmers of the revenue, the Privy Council decided that a cessation, stint, or limitation of planting in Maryland and Virginia would be injurious to the interests of the people there, and destructive to the customs of the King. In order to encourage the production of hemp, pitch, and tar in the two Colonies, as a means of affording to those planters who found tobacco unprofitable, products that could be sold to advantage, the Council, with the