Early on in the history of founding English (later British) colonies in the Americas one of the first was the Virginia Company of London which was a private joint stock company granted a royal charter to create a settlement and given the power to govern themselves which they in turn granted in turn to their colony. In 1624 though the Virginia Company went bankrupt so was taken over by the government becoming a royal colony, but most importantly the grant of self-government wasn't revoked. According to one of the books there was a fair bit of discussion over the matter of what to do since this was the first real case of the government having a far off colony to administer. Just because the company had allowed the local residents a popular assembly in no way meant that the Crown had to let it continue. It didn't help matters that James I inconveniently decided to up and die in 1625 with leading to Charles I taking over halfway through. It was described as
So suppose that for some reason when the colony is taken over by the Crown that the grant of self-government is revoked. With no precedence future colonies are founded without it and privately chartered ones whilst having a certain amount of internal freedom likewise. What is this likely to do to the development of the early British colonies? Could it perhaps put off the American revolution for a bit longer since they would effectively be starting from further back as it were, speed something like it up as you don't have the pressure valve of the local assemblies to keep things calm, or something completely different?
The matter was debated at some length, but the course of events that followed is far from clear. Either from apathy, indecision, or deliberate purpose, or perhaps with the intention of meeting the strongly expressed wishes of the colony - for it is well known that the government of Charles I was favourably disposed toward the king's dominion of Virginia - the system of popular representation was allowed to continue, and the principle was firmly established - a principle of far-reaching importance in British colonisation - that a royal colony should be self-governing, and should have a governor and council appointed in England and a popular assembly chosen by the electors - freemen or freeholders - in America. Though self-government was in no sense democratic government, and though popular interest in law-making was never very keen during colonial times, nevertheless the very presence of a popular assembly in a royal British colony in America was a factor of tremendous consequence in the development of American political ideas.
So suppose that for some reason when the colony is taken over by the Crown that the grant of self-government is revoked. With no precedence future colonies are founded without it and privately chartered ones whilst having a certain amount of internal freedom likewise. What is this likely to do to the development of the early British colonies? Could it perhaps put off the American revolution for a bit longer since they would effectively be starting from further back as it were, speed something like it up as you don't have the pressure valve of the local assemblies to keep things calm, or something completely different?