← catalogue

Virginia under the Stuarts 1607-1688

by Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker · English · Gutenberg #30284 · 629,152 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Virginia under the Stuarts 1607-1688
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Virginia under the Stuarts 1607-1688

Author: Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker


        
Release date: October 19, 2009 [eBook #30284]
                Most recently updated: October 24, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30284

Credits: Produced by Mark C. Orton and the Online Distributed
        Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK VIRGINIA UNDER THE STUARTS 1607-1688 ***

Virginia Under the Stuarts

1607-1688




Virginia Under the Stuarts

1607-1688


By

THOMAS J. WERTENBAKER


_New York_
RUSSELL & RUSSELL
1959


COPYRIGHT 1914 BY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
COPYRIGHT 1958, 1959 BY THOMAS J. WERTENBAKER

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER 39-11229


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA




_Dedicated

to my mother_




PREFACE


It was in May, 1910, that the author came to Princeton for an interview
with President Woodrow Wilson concerning an appointment as Instructor in
the Department of History, Politics, and Economics. He was elated when
President Wilson engaged him, though not happy over the $1,000 salary.
Yet with this sum to fall back on he borrowed $200, and took a trip to
England.

In London he went treasure hunting, the treasure of old documents
relating to the history of colonial Virginia. He sought out the British
Public Record Office, off Chauncery Lane, and was soon immersed in the
mass of letters, official reports, journal of the Assembly, and other
papers.

The author was prepared to find valuable historical materials in London,
for he had spent the summer of 1908 studying the William Noel Sainsbury
and the McDonald abstracts and transcripts of the documents in the
Record Office deposited in the Virginia State Library. But he was
staggered at the extent of the manuscript collection on Virginia history
alone. Among the scores of volumes are thirty-two devoted to the
correspondence of the Board of Trade, seventeen to the correspondence of
the Secretary of State, twenty-two to entry books, letters, commissions,
warrants, etc.

When the summer waned he left for America taking with him many pages of
closely written notes. But what he had learned served to whet his
appetite for more, so that in 1912 and again in 1914 he was back, going
over volume after volume, searching eagerly for fear some important
point would escape him. The mass of abstracts and notes which he
accumulated formed the basis of this volume.

In fact, any political history of Virginia in the colonial period must
be based on the documents in the Public Record Office, since most of
the copies left in Virginia have been lost or destroyed. Today, however,
colonial historians no longer have to visit London to consult them,
since transcripts have been made and deposited in the Library of
Congress.

In recent years the American Council of Learned Societies has made
available other collections of manuscripts which have thrown new light
on early Virginia history. The most important of these are the Coventry
Papers at Longleat, the residence of the Marquess of Bath. Many of the
letters deal with Bacon's Rebellion, and include the correspondence
between Berkeley and Bacon, accounts of the Indian war, complaints of
the misgovernment of Berkeley, the account of the evacuation of
Jamestown written by Berkeley, accounts of Bacon's death and the
collapse of the rebellion.

This new material adds new weight to the conclusions reached in this
book--that the causes of Bacon's Rebellion were deep-seated, that it
grew out of the discontent caused by the Navigation Acts, the heavy
taxes, the corrupting of the Assembly by Berkeley, and the misuse of the
courts. It in no way shakes the conviction expressed by Thomas Mathews,
who himself was involved in the rebellion, that the Indian war was the
excuse for it rather than the cause.

Yet certain recent historians have contended that this violent uprising
was not a protest against injustice and misgovernment. One has gone so
far as to call it merely a quarrel between a rash young man and an old
fool. We could with equal justice call the American Revolution just a
quarrel between George Washington and George III. Mathews tells us that
it was the general opinion in Virginia at the time that it was not Bacon
who was chiefly responsible for the uprising, but Thomas Lawrence. Bacon
"was too young, too much a stranger there, and of a disposition too
precipitate to manage things to that length they were carried," he
pointed out, "had not thoughtful Mr. Lawrence been at the bottom."

But neither Lawrence's hatred of Berkeley, nor Bacon's rashness, nor
Berkeley's folly, nor the Indian war suffice to explain the rebellion.
When the news of the uprising reached Charles II, he thought it past
belief that "so considerable body of men, without the least grievance
or oppression, should rise up in arms and overthrow the government." He
was quite right. Had there been no grievances and oppression there would
have been no uprising.

That Bacon's Rebellion is explained in part by poverty and suffering is
clear. Philip Ludwell said that the rebel army was composed of men
"whose condition ... was such that a change could not make worse." The
men who fought so valiantly against the Indians and Berkeley's forces,
braved the King's anger, faced death on the gallows were called in
contempt "the bases of the people," "the rabble," the "scum of the
people," "idle and poor people," "rag, tag, and bobtail." The Council
reported that there were "hardly two amongst them" who owned estates, or
were persons of reputation. Berkeley complained that his was a miserable
task to govern a people "where six parts of seven at least are poor,
indebted, discontented, and armed."

So when Bacon sent out his agents to every part of Virginia to denounce
the governor for not permitting an election for a new Assembly, accusing
him of misgovernment, and complaining of the heavy and unequal taxes,
they "infested the whole country." Berkeley stated that the contaigion
spread "like a train of powder." Never before was there "so great a
madness as this base people are generally seized with." When, in panic,
he dissolved the Long Assembly and called for a new election, all except
eight of those chosen were pro-Bacon men.

One cannot but ask why. Surely the voters would not have sided with this
young man who had been in Virginia but a few months had he not taken the
lead in protesting against the many wrongs to which they had been
subjected. And had those who rushed to arms, risking their property, if
not their necks, done so merely because of a quarrel between Bacon and
Berkeley, they would have been more than base, they would have been
fools.

What these wrongs were Bacon and his followers tell us in what they
called the Declaration of the People. Berkeley and his favorites they
denounced "for having upon specious pretences of public works raised
great unjust taxes upon the commonalty for the advancement of private
favorites and other sinister ends...; for having abused and rendered
contemptible the magistrates of justice, by advancing to places of
judicature scandalous and ignorant favorites...."

In a burning manifesto, denouncing the injustice and corruption of the
ruling group, Bacon said: "We appeal to the country itself what and of
what nature their oppressions have been, and by what cabal and mystery
the design of many of those whom we call great men have been transacted
and carried on.... See what sponges have sucked up the public wealth and
whether it hath not been privately contrived away by unworthy favorites,
by vile juggling parasites, whose tottering fortunes have been repaired
and supported by the charge." The constant breach of laws, unjust
prosecutions, excuses, and evasions, proved that the men in power were
conducting public affairs "as if it were but to play a booty, game, or
divide a spoil."

In view of these statements recent attempts to prove that Bacon was no
true patriot and not interested in righting the people's wrongs seem
strange indeed. It is hardly credible that he was merely pretending when
he wrote these fiery words, that he posed as the champion of the people
to further his personal ambitions, that he trumped up charges against
Berkeley because of the disagreement over the Indian war.

But, it has been said, Bacon showed no interest in the passage of the
reform laws enacted by the Assembly of June 1676, refused to have them
read before his army, and complained that the Burgesses had not lived up
to his expectations. Had he been really interested in reform, would he
not have gloried in these laws and have praised the Assembly for passing
them?

Any such conclusion falls flat when we consider the conditions under
which this session was held. The Burgesses had hardly taken their seats
when Bacon, who had been elected as one of the members to represent
Henrico County, was captured. Though Berkeley pardoned him and restored
him to his seat in the Council, he was a virtual prisoner during the
first few days of the session. So he looked on with growing resentment
as the governor overawed the Burgesses and reform measures were set
aside.

Then, suddenly, the entire situation changed. Bacon got permission to
return to Henrico because his wife was ill. Once there he placed himself
at the head of his army of enraged frontiersmen and marched rapidly on
Jamestown. When this news reached the little capital, the governor, his
Council, and the Burgesses were panic stricken. Since resistance was
useless, every thought was of appeasement. A series of reform laws,
which struck at the very roots of Berkeley's system of rule through
placemen, was introduced in the Assembly, rushed through, and signed by
the governor.

Not knowing what had happened during his absence, on his arrival Bacon
mounted the steps to the Long Room of the State House where the Assembly
met, to urge them to right the people's wrongs. Thomas Mathews, who was
present, says that "he pressed hard, nigh an hour's harangue on
preserving our lives from the Indians, inspecting the revenues, the
exorbitant taxes, and redressing the grievances and calamities of that
deplorable country." It was only when he had finished that someone spoke
up to tell him that "they had already redressed their grievances." To
contend that Bacon was not interested in laws which he himself had so
passionately urged and which had obviously been passed to conciliate him
and his followers is merely to attempt to disprove the obvious.

Philip A. Bruce, in a statement published in 1893, in the _Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography_, points out that Bacon's Rebellion
"preceded the American Revolution by a century, an event which it
resembled in its spirit, if not in its causes and results. Bacon is
known in history as the Rebel, but the fuller information which we have
now as to the motives of his conduct shows that he can with more justice
be described as Bacon the Patriot. He headed a powerful popular movement
in which the sovereignty of the people was for the first time relied
upon on American soil by a great leader as the justification of his
acts. The spirit breathing through the Declaration of the People is the
spirit of the Declaration of Independence." Nothing which has been
brought out in the sixty-four years since Dr. Bruce wrote these words
has shaken or can shake their truth. Bacon was the torchbearer of the
Revolution.

Attempts to defend Sir John Harvey are as unconvincing as those to
belittle Bacon. Certainly the Sackville Papers, recently made available
to historians, contain nothing to warrant any change in the conclusion,
long accepted by Virginia historians, that Harvey's expulsion was richly
deserved.

Charles Campbell, in his _History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of
Virginia_, thus describes Harvey's administration: "He was extortionate,
proud, unjust, and arbitrary; he issued proclamations in derogation of
the legislative powers of the Assembly; assessed, levied, held, and
disbursed the colonial revenue without check or responsibility;
transplanted into Virginia exotic English statutes; multiplied penalties
and exactions and appropriated fines to his own use; he added the
decrees of the court of high commission of England to the ecclesiastical
constitutions of Virginia." Could we have a more perfect description of
a despot?

It remains to point out a few errors which crept into the original
manuscript. On page 21 "the falls of the Appomattox" should be "the
first bend of the Appomattox"; on page 75 "John Pott" should be "Francis
Pott"; on page 82 "Matthew Kemp" should be "Richard Kemp".

_Princeton, New Jersey_         Thomas J. Wertenbaker
_August, 1957_




CONTENTS


ABBREVIATIONS USED IN NOTES                                           xi

CHAPTER I--The Founding of Virginia                                    1

CHAPTER II--The Establishment of Representative Government            29

CHAPTER III--The Expulsion of Sir John Harvey                         60

CHAPTER IV--Governor Berkeley and the Commonwealth                    85

CHAPTER V--The Causes of Bacon's Rebellion                           115

CHAPTER VI--Bacon's Rebellion                                        146

CHAPTER VII--The Period of Confusion                                 195

CHAPTER VIII--The Critical Period                                    225

INDEX                                                                261




ABBREVIATIONS USED IN NOTES


Arb. Smith, _Works of Captain John Smith_, Edward Arber.
Scobell, _Scobell's Collection of Acts and Ordinances of General Use_.
F. R., _The First Republic in America_, Alexander Brown.
Gen., _The Genesis of the United States_, Alexander Brown.
Force, _Tracts and Other Papers Relating to the Colonies in North
  America_, Peter Force.
Nar. of Va., _Narratives of Early Virginia_, Lyon G. Tyler.
Va. Car., _Virginia Carolorum_, E. D. Neill.
Hen., _The Statutes at Large_, W. W. Hening.
Proceedings of Va. Co., _Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London_.
Cradle of Rep., _The Cradle of the Republic_, Lyon G. Tyler.
Bruce, Inst. Hist., _Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth
  Century_, P. A. Bruce.
Bruce, EC. Hist., _Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth
  Century_, P. A. Bruce.
Miller, _The Legislature of the Province of Virginia_, E. I. Miller.
P. R. O., British Public Record Office.
Stith, _History of Virginia_, William Stith.
Osg., _American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century_, H. L. Osgood.
Neill, Va. Co., _History of the Virginia Company of London_, E. D. Neill.
Fiske, Old Va., _Old Virginia and her Neighbors_, John Fiske.
Burk, _History of Virginia_, John Burk.
Va. Hist. Reg., _Virginia Historical Register_.
Beverley, _History of Virginia_, Robert Beverley.
Va. Mag., _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_.
Wise, _The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Virginia_, J. C. Wise.
Southern Lit. Mess., _Southern Literary Messenger_.
Campbell, _History of Virginia_, Charles Campbell.
McD., _McDonald Papers_, Virginia State Library.
Jour. H. of B., _Journals of the House of Burgesses_. Manuscript copies
  in the Virginia State Library.
Justice in Virginia, _Justice in Colonial Virginia_, O. P. Chitwood.
Sains., _Sainsbury Papers_, Virginia State Library.
Mass. S. IV., _Massachusetts Historical Collections, Series IV._
T. M., _The Beginning, Progress and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion_.
W. & M. Q., _William and Mary Quarterly_.
Inds' Pros., _Indians' Proceedings_.
Bac's Pros., _Bacon's Proceedings_.
Ing's Pros., _Ingram's Proceedings_.
Cotton, _Our Late Troubles in Virginia_, Mrs. A. Cotton.
Va. Vet., _Virginia Vetusta_, E. D. Neill.




CHAPTER I

THE FOUNDING OF VIRGINIA


In December, 1606, three little vessels--the _Sarah Constant_, the
_Discovery_ and the _Goodspeed_--set sail from England under Captain
Christopher Newport, for the distant shores of Virginia.[1] After a long
and dangerous voyage across the Atlantic the fleet, on the sixth of May,
1607, entered the Chesapeake Bay.[2] The adventurers spent several days
exploring this great body of water, landing parties to investigate the
nature of the shores, and to visit the Indian tribes that inhabited
them. They were delighted with the "faire meddowes, ... full of flowers
of divers kinds and colours", and with the "goodly tall trees" of the
forests with "Fresh-waters running" between, but they had instructions
not to settle near the coast, lest they should fall victims to the
Spaniards.[3] So they entered the broad mouth of a river which they
called the James, and made their way cautiously up into the country. On
the twenty-third of May they found a peninsula in the river, which
afforded a convenient landing place and was easy to defend, both from
the Indians and the Spaniards. This place they called Jamestown. Landing
their men, they set immediately to work building houses and erecting
fortifications. Thus did the English begin their first permanent
settlement in the New World.

The bold band of adventurers that came thus hopefully into this
beautiful and smiling country little realized that before them lay only
dangers and misfortunes. Could they have foreseen the terrible obstacles
to founding a colony in this land, they would have hesitated before
entering upon the enterprise.

Four things conspired to bring misfortune and disaster upon Virginia.
The form of government prescribed by the King and the Company was
unsuited to the infant settlement, and its defects kept the colonists
for many months in turmoil and disorder. The Indians proved a constant
source of danger, for they were tireless in cutting off stragglers,
ambushing small parties and in destroying the crops of the white men.
Famines came at frequent intervals to weaken the colonists and add to
their misfortunes. But by far the most terrible scourge was the
"sicknesse" that swept over Virginia year after year, leaving in its
wake horrible suffering and devastation.

The charter that James I granted to the London Company served as a
constitution for Virginia, for it prescribed the form of government and
made regulations that none could disregard. It provided for a Council,
resident in England, to which was assigned the management of the colony
and the supervision of its government.[4] This body was appointed by the
King and was strictly answerable to him through the Privy Council for
its every act.[5] The immediate government of the colony was entrusted
to a local Council, selected by the Council in England, and responsible
to it. The Virginia Council exercised extraordinary powers, assuming all
administrative, legislative and judicial functions, and being in no way
restrained by the wishes or demands of their fellow colonists.[6]
Although they were restricted by the charter and by the instructions of
the Council in England, the isolation of the settlement and the
turbulent spirit of the adventurers made them reckless in enforcing
their own will upon the colonists. More than once they were guilty of
unpardonable harshness and cruelty.

The charter did not provide for the appointment of a Governor. The
nominal leadership of the colony was entrusted to a President, chosen by
the local Council from among its members. This officer had no duty
distinct from that of the Councillors, other than to preside at their
meetings and to cast a double or deciding vote in case of deadlock.[7]
He was to serve but one year and if at any time his administration
proved unsatisfactory to his colleagues, they could, by a majority vote,
depose him. In like manner, any Councillor that had become obnoxious
could be expelled without specific charges and without trial.[8] These
unwise provisions led naturally to disorder and strife, and added much
to the misfortunes of the infant colony.[9]

The selections for the Council were made some days before the fleet
sailed, but the Company, fearing a conflict of authority during the
voyage, thought it best that they should be kept secret until the
colonists had reached Virginia. The names of the appointees were
embodied in "several instruments" which were entrusted to the commanders
of the vessels, with instructions that they should be opened within
twenty-four hours after they had arrived off the coast of America.[10]
Upon entering the Chesapeake Bay the adventurers read the papers, and
found that Christopher Newport, the commander of the fleet, Edward
Wingfield, Bartholomew Gosnold, George Kendall, John Ratcliffe, John
Martin and John Smith were those that had been chosen.[11]

After the landing the Council met, were sworn to office, and then
elected Wingfield President.[12] Captain John Smith, who had been
accused of mutiny during the voyage, was not allowed to take his seat,
and was kept under restraint until the twentieth of June.[13]

Hardly had the founding of Jamestown been effected when the weakness of
the constitution became apparent. The meetings of the Council were
discordant and stormy. The members were utterly unable to act with
vigor and determination, or to agree upon any settled course of action
in establishing the little colony. The President, because of the
limitation of his powers, could do nothing to restore harmony or to
enforce his own wishes and policies. Confusion and mismanagement
resulted. In less than a month after the first landing the inefficiency
of the government had created such discontent that the colonists
petitioned the Council for redress.[14] It was only the tact and
moderation of Captain Newport that appeased the anger of the settlers
and persuaded them to submit to the decrees of the governing body.[15]

On the second of July, Newport, with his little fleet, sailed for
England, leaving the ill-fated colonists to their own resources.[16] No
sooner had he gone than the spirit of discord reappeared. The quarrels
within the Council became more violent than ever, and soon resulted in
the complete disruption of that body. Captain Kendall, who seems to have
been active in fomenting ill feeling among his colleagues, was the first
to be expelled. Upon the charge of exciting discord he was deprived of
his seat and committed to prison.[17]

As Captain John Smith had, before the departure of Newport, been allowed
to take his place in the Council, there were now five members of that
body. The number was soon reduced to four by the death of Captain
Gosnold, who fell a victim to the sickness.[18] One would imagine that
the Council, thus depleted, would have succeeded in governing the colony
in peace, but the settlers were given no respite from their wrangling
and disputes. In September, Ratcliffe, Smith and Martin entered into an
agreement to depose President Wingfield and to oust him from the
Council. Before they proceeded against him, however, they pledged each
other that the expulsions should then stop, and that no one of the three
should be attacked by the other two.

The Councillors then appeared before Wingfield's tent with a warrant,
"subscribed under their handes, to depose the President; sayeing they
thought him very unworthy to be eyther President or of the Councell, and
therefore discharged him of both".[19] They accused him of
misappropriating funds, of improper division of the public stores, of
being an atheist, of plotting to desert Virginia in the pinnace left at
Jamestown by Captain Newport, of combining with the Spaniards for the
destruction of the colony. Wingfield, when he returned to England, made
a vigorous defense of his conduct, but it is now impossible to determine
whether or not he was justly accused. After his expulsion from office,
he was summoned before the court by the remnant of the Council to answer
these numerous charges. It might have gone hard with him, had he not
demanded a hearing before the King. As his enemies feared to deny him
this privilege, they closed the court, and committed him to prison on
board the pinnace, where he was kept until means were at hand to send
him to England.[20]

The removal of the President did not bring peace to the colony. If we
may believe the testimony of Wingfield, the triumvirate that now held
sway ruled the settlers with a harsh and odious tyranny. "Wear," he
says, "this whipping, lawing, beating, and hanging, in Virginia, known
in England, I fear it would drive many well affected myndes from this
honourable action."[21] One day Ratcliffe, who had been chosen to
succeed Wingfield, became embroiled with James Read, the smith. Read
forgot the respect due his superior, and struck the new President. So
heinous a crime was this affront to the dignity of the chief officer of
the infant colony, that the smith was brought to trial, convicted and
sentenced to be hanged. But he saved his life, upon the very eve of his
execution, by revealing to Ratcliffe a plot against the government,
headed, he declared, by Captain Kendall.[22] Immediately Kendall, who
had long been an object of suspicion, was tried for mutiny, found guilty
and executed.[23]

In December, 1607, when the colony was suffering severely for the want
of food, Captain Smith led an expedition into the territory of the
Chickahominies in quest of corn.[24] During his absence the President,
despite the protests of Martin, admitted Captain Gabriel Archer to the
Council.[25] Archer, who seems to have been a bitter enemy of Smith, had
no sooner attained this place of power, than he set to work to ruin the
adventurous captain. "Being settled in his authority", he "sought to
call Master Smythes lief in question, and ... indicted him upon a
Chapter in Leviticus for the death" of two men under his charge, that
had been murdered by the Indians. He was to have had his trial upon the
very day of his return from his thrilling adventures with the savages.
His conviction and immediate execution would doubtless have resulted,
had not the proceedings against him been interrupted by the arrival of
the First Supply from England.[26] Captain Newport, whose influence
seems always to have been exerted in favor of moderation and harmony,
persuaded the Council to drop the charges against Smith, to release him
from restraint, and to restore him to his seat in the Council.

Of extraordinary interest is the assertion of Wingfield that the arrival
of the fleet "prevented a Parliament, which ye newe Counsailour (Archer)
intended thear to summon".[27] It is not surprising that the settlers,
disgusted as they were with the violence and harshness of their rulers,
should have wished to share in the government. But we cannot but wonder
at their boldness in attempting to set aside the constitution given them
by the King and the Company. Had they succeeded in establishing direct
government by the people, it could not be supposed that James would have
permitted it to continue. But the attempt is very significant, as
indicating that they were desirous, even at this early date, of having a
voice in the management of affairs.

Archer and the unfortunate Wingfield sailed with the fleet when Captain
Newport returned to England, and a few months later Martin followed
them.[28] Since, with the First Supply had come a new Councillor,
Matthew Scrivener, the governing body once more numbered three.

During the summer of 1608 Smith was frequently away, chasing the phantom
of the passage to the South Sea, but this did not prevent the usual
quarrels. If we may believe the account in Smith's history, Ratcliffe
was deposed from the Presidency because of "pride and unreasonable
needlesse cruelty" and for wasting the public stores.[29] It is probable
that for some weeks Scrivener conducted the government, while Ratcliffe
was kept a prisoner.[30] In September, Captain Smith, returning from a
voyage in the Chesapeake Bay, "received the letters patents, and took
upon him the place of president".[31]

Smith was now supreme in the government, for the Council was reduced to
two, and his casting vote made his will superior to that of Scrivener.
But he was not long to enjoy this power. In October, 1608, Captain
Newport, arriving with the Second Supply, brought with him two "antient
souldiers and valient gentlemen"--Richard Waldo and Peter Wynne--both
bearing commissions as Councillors.[32] Soon afterward Ratcliffe was
restored to his seat. The Council, thus recruited, resumed its control
over the colony, "so that although Smith was President yet the Council
had the authority, and ruled it as they listed".[33]

Two months later, when Newport sailed again, Ratcliffe returned to
England. Smith wrote the English Council, "Captaine Ratcliffe is ... a
poore counterfeited Imposture. I have sent you him home, least the
company should cut his throat."[34] The next spring Waldo and Scrivener,
with nine others, were caught in a small boat upon the James by a
violent gale, and were drowned.[35] As Captain Wynne soon succumbed to
the sickness, Smith became the sole surviving Councillor.[36] During the
summer of 1609 the colony was governed, not, as the King and Company had
designed, by a Council, but by the will of this one man.

In the meanwhile the London Company was becoming aware that a mistake
had been made in entrusting the government of the colony to a body of
Councillors. The reports of Wingfield, Archer, Newport and Ratcliffe
made it evident that the lack of harmony in the Council had been a
serious hindrance to the success of the enterprise.[37] Feeling,
therefore, that this "error in the equality of the governors ... had a
little shaken so tender a body", the managers held an especial meeting
to effect a change.[38] A new charter was drawn up by Sir Edwin Sandys,
approved by the Company and assented to by the King.

In this document James relinquished into the hands of the Company not
only the direct management of the colony, but the power of drawing up a
new and more satisfactory system of government. Acting under this
authority, Sandys and his associates abolished the Council and entrusted
the entire control of the colony to an all-powerful Governor. The
disorder that had so impeded the success of the enterprise was to be
crushed under the iron hand of a despot. Doubtless Sandys would have
attempted to establish representative government at once in Virginia,
had conditions favored so radical a change. But the colony was too young
and feeble, and James could hardly be expected to give his consent. Yet
the many liberal members of the Company were deeply interested in
Virginia and were determined, should a favorable opportunity occur, to
establish there an Assembly similar in character to the English
Parliament.

The granting of the new charter aroused extraordinary interest in the
fortunes of the colony throughout England and stimulated the Company to
renewed efforts.[39] Thousands of pounds were contributed to defray the
expenses of another expedition, and hundreds of persons responded to the
appeals for settlers. The first Governor was a man of ability and
distinction--Thomas Lord De la Warr. Sir Thomas Gates was made
Lieutenant-Governor, George Summers, Admiral, and Captain Newport,
Vice-Admiral.[40] De la Warr found it impossible to leave at once to
assume control of his government, but the other officers, with nine
vessels and no less than five hundred colonists, sailed in June,
1609.[41] Unfortunately, in crossing the Gulf of Bahama, the fleet
encountered a terrific storm, which scattered the vessels in all
directions. When the tempest abated, several of the ships reunited and
continued on their way to Jamestown, but the _Sea Adventure_, which
carried Gates, Summers and Newport, was wrecked upon an island in the
Bermudas.[42] As a result of this misfortune none of the leaders of the
expedition reached Virginia until May, 1610, ten months later.

The other vessels, with most of the settlers, arrived at Jamestown in
August, 1609. The newcomers told Captain Smith of the Company's new plan
of government, and requested him to relinquish the old commission. This
the President refused to do. All the official papers relating to the
change had been aboard the _Sea Adventure_, and he would not resign
until he had seen them.[43] A long and heated controversy followed, but
in the end Smith gained his point.[44] It was agreed that until the
arrival of the _Sea Adventure_ the colony should remain under the old
charter, and that Smith should continue to act as President until the
twentieth of September, when he was to relinquish the government to
Captain Francis West.[45]

This arrangement did not restore harmony. West felt aggrieved that
Captain Smith should insist upon continuing the old order of affairs
despite the known wishes of the Company, and took occasion to ignore and
slight his authority. This so angered the President that he is said to
have plotted with the Indians to surprise and cut off a party of men
that his rival was leading up the James. Before this could be
accomplished, however, Smith met with a serious accident, which led to
his immediate overthrow. "Sleeping in his Boate ... accidentallie, one
fired his powder-bag, which tore the flesh ... in a most pittifull
manner; but to quench the tormenting fire ... he leaped over-board into
the deepe river, where ever they could recover him he was neere
drowned."[46] Three former Councillors--Ratcliffe, Archer and
Martin--who had come over with the new fleet, availed themselves of the
helplessness of their old foe to rid the colony of his presence.
Claiming, with some justice, that if Smith could retain his office under
the old charter, they were by the same power still members of the
Council, they held a meeting, deposed him from the Presidency and sent
him back to England.[47] Having thus disposed of the troublesome
Captain, they looked about them for some man suitable to head the colony
until the arrival of Gates. Neglecting the claims of West, whom they
probably considered too inexperienced for the place, they selected
Captain George Percy.[48]

In the meanwhile, the crew and passengers of the _Sea Adventure_ were
stranded in the Bermudas, upon what was called Devil's Island. Some of
their number were daring enough to venture out into the ocean in the
longboat, in an attempt to reach the colony, but they must have
perished, for they were never heard from again.[49] The rest of the
company, seeing no other way of escape, built two pinnaces and, in May,
1610, sailed away in them for Jamestown. A few days later, upon their
arrival in Virginia, Gates received the old patent and the seal from the
President and the period of the first royal government in Virginia came
to an end.[50]

But the "faction breeding" government by the Council was by no means the
only cause of trouble. Far more disastrous was the "sicknesse". When the
first expedition sailed for Virginia, the Council in England, solicitous
for the welfare of the emigrants, commanded them to avoid, in the choice
of a site for their town, all "low and moist places".[51] Well would it
have been for the colonists had they obeyed these instructions. Captain
Smith says there was in fact opposition on the part of some of the
leaders to the selection of the Jamestown peninsula, and it was amply
justified by the event. The place was low and marshy and extremely
unhealthful.[52] In the summer months great swarms of mosquitoes arose
from the stagnant pools of water to attack the immigrants with a sting
more deadly than that of the Indian arrow or the Spanish musket ball.

Scarcely three months had elapsed from the first landing when sickness
and death made their appearance. The settlers, ignorant of the use of
Peruvian bark and other remedies, were powerless to resist the progress
of the epidemic. Captain George Percy describes in vivid colors the
sufferings of the first terrible summer. "There were never Englishmen,"
he says, "left in a forreign country in such miserie as wee were in this
new discouvered Virginia. Wee watched every three nights, lying on the
bare-ground, what weather soever came;... which brought our men to bee
most feeble wretches.... If there were any conscience in men, it would
make their harts to bleed to heare the pitifull murmurings and outcries
of our sick men without reliefe, every night and day for the space of
sixe weekes; in the morning their bodies being trailed out of their
cabines like Dogges, to be buried."[53] So deadly was the epidemic that
when Captain Newport brought relief in January, 1608, he found but
thirty-eight of the colonists alive.[54]

Nor did the men that followed in the wake of the _Sarah Constant_, the
_Discovery_ and the _Goodspeed_ fare better. In the summer of 1608, the
sickness reappeared and once more wrought havoc among the unhappy
settlers. Captain Smith, who probably saved his own life by his frequent
exploring expeditions, on his return to Jamestown in July, "found the
Last Supply al sicke".[55] In 1609, when the fleet of Summers and
Newport reached Virginia, the newcomers, many of whom were already in
ill health, fell easy victims to malaria and dysentery. Smith declared
that before the end of 1610 "not past sixtie men, women and children"
were left of several hundred that but a few months before had sailed
away from Plymouth.[56] During the short stay of Governor De la Warr one
hundred and fifty, or more than half the settlers lost their lives.[57]

Various visitors to Virginia during the early years of the seventeenth
century bear testimony to the ravages of this scourge. A Spaniard named
Molina, writing in 1613, declared that one hundred and fifty out of
every three hundred colonists died before being in Virginia twelve
months.[58] DeVries, a Dutch trader to the colony, wrote, "During the
months of June, July and August it is very unhealthy, then people that
have lately arrived from England, die, during these months, like cats
and dogs, whence they call it the sickly season."[59] This testimony is
corroborated by Governor William Berkeley, who reported in 1671, "There
is not now oft seasoned hands (as we term them) that die now, whereas
heretofore not one of five escaped the first year."[60]

In 1623 a certain Nathaniel Butler, in an attack upon the London
Company, called "The Unmasked Face of our Colony in Virginia", drew a
vivid, though perhaps an exaggerated picture of the unhealthfulness of
the climate. "I found the plantations," he said, "generally seated upon
meer salt marshes, full of infectious bogs and muddy creeks and lakes,
and thereby subjected to all those inconveniences and diseases which are
so commonly found in the most unsound and most unhealthy parts of
England, whereof every country and climate hath some." It was by no
means uncommon, he declared, to see immigrants from England "Dying under
hedges and in the woods", and unless something were done at once to
arrest the frightful mortality Virginia would shortly get the name of a
slaughter house.[61]

The climate of eastern Virginia, unhealthful as it undoubtedly was in
the places where the first settlements were made, cannot be blamed for
all the epidemics that swept the colony. Much of the ill health of the
immigrants was due to unwholesome conditions on board the ships which
brought them from England. The vessels were usually crowded far beyond
their real capacity with wretched men, women and children, and were foul
beyond description.[62] Not infrequently great numbers died at sea. One
vessel is reported to have lost a hundred and thirty persons out of a
hundred and eighty-five. On the ships that left England in June, 1609,
both yellow fever and the London plague appeared, doing fearful havoc,
and making it necessary to throw overboard from two of the vessels alone
thirty-two unfortunate wretches.[63] The diseases, thus started, often
spread after the settlers had reached their new homes, and under
favoring conditions, developed into terrible epidemics.[64]

Less deadly than the "sicknesse", but still greatly to be dreaded, was
the hostility of the Indians.[65] The natives, resentful at the attempt
of the white men to establish themselves in their midst, proved a
constant menace to the colony. Their superstitious awe of the strange
newcomers, and their lack of effective weapons alone prevented untiring
and open war. Jamestown was but a few days old when it was subjected to
a violent assault by the savages. On the twentieth day of May, 1607, the
colonists, while at work without their arms in the fields, were attacked
by several hundred Indians. In wild dismay they rushed into the fort,
while the savages followed at their heels. "They came up allmost into
the ffort, shot through the tents, appeared in this Skirmishe (which
lasted hott about an hower) a very valient people." The guns of the
ships came to the aid of the English and their thunders struck dismay
into the hearts of the savages. Yet they retired without panic, taking
with them their dead and wounded. Four of the Council, standing in the
front ranks, were wounded by the natives, and President Wingfield, while
fighting valiently, had an arrow shot through his beard, "yet scaped
hurte".[66]

A few days after this event a gentleman named Clovell came running into
the fort with six arrows sticking in him, crying, "Arm, arm". He had
wandered too far from the town, and the Indians, who were still prowling
near, shot him from ambush. Eight days later he died.[67] Thus at the
very outset, the English learned the nature of the conflict which they
must wage against the Indians. In open fight the savages, with their
primitive weapons, were no match for them, but woe to any of their
number that strayed far from the fort, or ventured into the long grass
of the mainland. So frequently were small parties cut off, that it
became unsafe for the English to leave their settlements except in
bodies large enough to repel any attack.[68]

The epidemics and the wars with the Indians conspired to bring upon the
colony still another horrible scourge. The constant dread of attack in
the fields and the almost universal sickness made it impossible for the
settlers to raise crops sufficient for their needs. During the summer of
1607 there were at one time scarce five able men at Jamestown, and these
found it beyond their power even to nurse the sick and bury the dead.
And in later years, when corn was planted in abundance, the stealthy
savages often succeeded in cutting it down before it could be harvested.
There can be no surprise then that famines came at frequent intervals to
add to the misery of the ill-fated colonists. The most terrible of these
visited Virginia in the winter of 1609-10. Smith's Historie gives a
graphic account of the suffering during those fearful months. Those that
escaped starvation were preserved, it says, "for the most part, by
roots, herbes, acornes, walnuts, berries, now and then a fish: they that
had starch in these extremities, made no small use of it; yea, even the
very skinnes of our horses. Nay, so great was our famine, that a Salvage
we slew and buried, the poorer sort took him up againe and eat him; and
so did divers one another boyled and stewed with roots and herbs: And
one amongst the rest did kill his wife, powdered her, and had eaten part
of her before it was knowne; for which hee was executed, as hee well
deserved.... This was the time, which to this day we call the starving
time; it were too vile to say, and scarce to be believed, what we
endured."[69]

The misery of the wretched settlers in time of famine is vividly
described in a letter written in 1623 by a servant to his parents. The
people, he said, cried out day and night, "Oh that they were in England
without their limbs ... though they begged from door to door". He
declared that he had eaten more at home in a day than was now allowed
him in a week, and that his parents had often given more than his
present day's allowance to a beggar at the door. Unless the ship _Sea
Flower_ came soon, with supplies, his master's men would have but half a
penny loaf each a day for food, and might be turned away to eat bark off
the trees, or moulds off the ground. "Oh," he said, "that you did see my
daily and hourly sighs, groans, tears and thumps that I afford mine own
breast, and rue and curse the time of my birth and with holy Job I
thought no head had been able to hold so much water as hath and doth
daily flow from mine eyes."[70]

Thus was the immigrant to Virginia beset on all sides with deadly
perils. If he escaped the plague, the yellow fever and the scurvy during
his voyage across the Atlantic, he was more than apt to fall a victim to
malaria or dysentery after he reached his new home. Even if he survived
all these dangers, he might perish miserably of hunger, or be butchered
by the savage Indians. No wonder he cursed the country, calling it "a
miserie, a ruine, a death, a hell".[71]

It is remarkable that the enterprise, in the face of these stupendous
difficulties, should ever have succeeded. The explanation lies in the
great enthusiasm of all England for this attempt to extend the British
domains to the shores of the New World, and in the devotion of a few
brave spirits of the London Company, who would not be daunted by
repeated failures. It mattered not to them that thousands of pounds were
lost in the undertaking, that many hundreds of men perished, the
English flag and the English religion must gain a foothold upon the
American continent.

Sir Thomas Gates found the colony in a pitiable condition. The tomahawk
of the Indians, famine and pestilence had wrought terrible havoc with
the settlers. A mere handful of poor wretched men were left to welcome
the newcomers and to beg eagerly to be taken away from the ill-fated
country. The town "appeared rather as the ruins of some auntient
fortification, then that any people living might now in habit it: the
pallisadoes he found tourne downe, the portes open, the gates from the
hinges, the church ruined and unfrequented.... Only the block house ...
was the safetie of the remainder that lived: which yet could not have
preserved them now many days longer from the watching, subtile, and
offended Indians."[72]

Nor was it in the power of Gates to remedy these conditions, for he had
brought with him from Devil's Island but a limited supply of provisions.
So, with great reluctance, the Lieutenant-Governor decided to abandon
Virginia rather than sacrifice his people. As the colonists climbed
aboard the vessels which were to take them from the scene of their
sufferings, they would have set fire to the town had not Gates prevented
with his soldiers. He, himself, "was the last of them, when, about noon,
giving a farewell with a peale of small shott, he set sayle, and that
night, with the tide, fell down ... the river."[73]

But it was not destined that this enterprise, which was of such
importance to the English nation, should be thus abandoned. In April,
1610, De la Warr, the Lord Governor, had sailed for Virginia with three
vessels, about a hundred and fifty immigrants and supplies for the
relief of the colony.[74] Reaching Cape Comfort June the sixteenth, he
learned from a small party there of the intended desertion of Jamestown.
Immediately he sent a pinnace up the river to meet Gates, advise him of
his arrival and to order his return to the abandoned town. Upon
receiving these welcome tidings, Gates bore "up the helm" for Jamestown,
and the same night landed all his men.[75] Soon after, the Governor
reached the town and took formal possession of the government.

De la Warr began his administration by listening to a sermon from the
good pastor, Mr. Buck. He then made an address to the people, "laying
some blames on them for many vanities and their idleness", and
promising, if occasion required, to draw the sword of justice.[76]

The Governor was not unrestrained in his authority over the colonists,
for he was to "rule, punish, pardone and governe according to such
directions" as were given him by the London Company. In case of
rebellion or mutiny he might put into execution martial law. In matters
not covered by his instructions he was to "rule and governe by his owne
discretion or by such lawes" as he should think fit to establish.[77]
The Council, which had formerly been all-powerful, was now but an
advisory body, appointed by the Governor and removable at his
discretion. De la Warr chose for his Council Sir Thomas Gates, Sir
George Somers, Captain George Percy, Sir Ferdinando Weinman, Captain
Christopher Newport and William Strachey, Esquire.[78]

Forgetting their former quarrels and factions, the people united in a
zealous effort to serve their noble Governor. "You might shortly behold
the idle and restie diseases of a divided multitude, by the unity and
authority of the government to be substantially cured. Those that knew
not the way to goodnes before, but cherished singularity and faction,
can now chalke out the path of all respective dutie and service."[79]

For a while peace and prosperity seemed to have come at last to the
little colony. All set to work with a good will to build comfortable
houses and to repair the fort. The chapel was restored. The Governor
furnished it with a communion table of black walnut and with pews and
pulpit of cedar. The font was "hewn hollow like a canoa". "The church
was so cast, as to be very light within and the Governor caused it to
be kept passing sweet and trimmed up with divers flowers." In the
evening, at the ringing of the bell, and at four in the afternoon, each
man addressed himself to prayer.[80] "Every Sunday, when the Lord
Governor went to Church he was accompanied with all the Councillors,
Captains, other officers, and all the gentlemen, and with a guard of
fifty Halberdiers in his Lordships Livery, fair red cloaks, on each side
and behind him. The Lord Governor sat in the choir, in a green velvet
chair, with a velvet cushion before him on which he knelt, and the
Council, captains, and officers, on each side of him."[81]

But the misfortunes of the colony were far from being at an end. The
principal causes of disaster had not yet been removed. Before many weeks
had passed the "sickly season" came on, bringing the usual accompaniment
of suffering and death. "Not less than 150 of them died of pestilent
diseases, of callentures and feavors, within a few months after" Lord De
la Warr's arrival.[82] So universal was the sickness among the newcomers
that all the work had to be done by the old settlers, "who by use weare
growen practique in a hard way of livinge".[83]

The war with the Indians continued without abatement, causing constant
alarm to the settlers and keeping them closely confined to their forts.
At one time fourteen were treacherously massacred by the Queen of
Appomattox. The English revenged themselves by attacking the savages,
burning their villages and destroying their crops, but they could not
force them into friendly relations.[84]

Lord De la Warr, himself, was assailed by a series of maladies, that
came near costing him his life. "Presently after my arrival in James
Town," he wrote, "I was welcomed by a hot and violent Ague, which held
mee a time.... That disease had not long left mee, till ... I began to
be distempered with other greevous sickness, which successively &
severally assailed me: for besides a relapse into the former disease;
... the Flux surprised me, and kept me many daies: then the cramp
assaulted my weak body, with strong paines; & afterward the Gout
afflicted me in such sort, that making my body through weaknesse unable
to stirre, ... drew upon me the disease called Scurvy ... till I was
upon the point to leave the world."[85] Realizing that it would be fatal
for him to remain longer in Virginia, the Lord Governor set sail with
Captain Argoll for the West Indies, where, he hoped, he would recover
his health.[86] As Gates had left the colony some months before, the
government fell into the experienced hands of Captain George Percy.[87]

In the meanwhile the London Company, undismayed by their former
failures, were preparing a new expedition, which they hoped would
establish the colony upon a firm footing. Three hundred immigrants,
carefully selected from the better class of working men, were assembled
under the command of Sir Thomas Dale, and, on March the twenty-seventh,
1611, embarked for Virginia. Upon the arrival of the fleet at Jamestown,
Dale received the letters patent from Captain Percy, and assumed command
of the colony as Deputy for Lord De la Warr.[88]

The new Governor seems to have perceived at once that the chief source
of disaster had been the location of the settlement upon the Jamestown
peninsula. The small area which this place afforded for the planting of
corn, and the unhealthfulness of the climate rendered it most
undesirable as the site for a colony. Former Governors had refused to
desert the peninsula because of the ease with which it could be defended
against the Indians. But Dale at once began a search for a spot which
would afford all the security of Jamestown, but be free from its many
disadvantages. This he succeeded in finding up the river, some fifty
miles from Jamestown.[89] "I have surveyed," he wrote, "a convenient
strong, healthie and sweet seate to plant the new towne in, from whence
might be no more remove of the principall Seate." This place, which he
named Henrico, was located not far from the point of juncture of the
James and the Appomattox, at what is now called Farrar's Island. Here
the river makes a sweeping curve, forming a peninsula about one square
mile in extent.

[Illustration: DALE'S SETTLEMENTS ON THE UPPER JAMES]

In August, 1611, Sir Thomas Gates, returning to assume the command of
the colony, pushed vigorously the work upon the new settlement.[90] Dale
was sent up the river with no less than three hundred men, with
directions to construct houses and fortifications. The settlers, working
with new life and vigor in the more wholesome air of the upper James,
soon rendered the place almost impregnable to attack from the Indians.
They cut a ditch across the narrow neck of the peninsula, and fortified
it with high palisades. To prevent a sudden raid by the savages in
canoes from the other shore, five strong block houses were built at
intervals along the river bank. Behind these defenses were erected a
number of substantial houses, with foundations of brick and frame
superstructures. Soon a town of three streets had been completed, more
commodious and far more healthful than Jamestown.[91]

When this work had been completed, Dale led a force of men across to the
south bank of the river and took possession of the entire peninsula
lying between the Appomattox and the James. An Indian settlement just
below Turkey Island bend was attacked and destroyed, and the savages
driven away. The English built a palisade over two miles long and
reinforced at intervals with forts and block houses, from the James at
Henrico to the falls of the Appomattox. These fortifications secured
from the attacks of the savages "many miles of champion and woodland",
and made it possible for the English to lay out in safety several new
plantations or hundreds. Dale named the place Bermuda, "by reason of the
strength of the situation".

Here, for the first time, something like prosperity came to the colony.
Although the "sicknesse" was not entirely eliminated even at Henrico,
the percentage of mortality was greatly reduced. Soon there were in
Virginia several hundred persons that had lived through the fatal months
of June, July and August and were thoroughly "seasoned" or immune to the
native disorders. Not until 1618, when the settlers, in their greed for
land suitable for the cultivation of tobacco, deserted their homes on
the upper James for the marshy ground of the lower country, and new,
unacclimated persons began arriving in great numbers, did the pestilence
again assume its former proportions.

Thus protected from the ravages of disease and from the assaults of the
savages, Dale's men were able to turn their attention to the cultivation
of the soil. Soon they were producing an annual crop of corn sufficient
to supply their more pressing needs. And it was well for them that they
could become, to some extent, independent of England, for the London
Company, at last discouraged by continued misfortune, was often remiss
in sending supplies. Clothing became exceedingly scarce. Not only were
the gaudy uniforms of De la Warr's time lacking, but many persons were
forced to imitate the savages by covering themselves with skins and
furs.[92] The Company, however, succeeded in obtaining for them from the
King many suits of old armor that were of great value in their wars with
the savages. Coats of mail and steel that had become useless on the
battlefields of Europe and had for years been rusting in the Tower of
London, were polished up and sent to Virginia. Thus, behind the
palisades of Henrico or in the fort at Jamestown one might have seen at
this time soldiers encased in armor that had done service in the days of
Richard III and Henry VII.[93]

The London Company, when they sent Sir Thomas Gates to Virginia with the
letters patent of 1609, gave directions that the utmost severity should
be used in putting an end to lawlessness and confusion. Gates, who had
fought against the Spaniards in the Netherlands and had the soldier's
dislike of insubordination, was well suited to carry their wishes into
effect. No sooner had he arrived from Devil's Island in 1610 than he
posted in the church at Jamestown certain laws, orders and instructions
which he warned the people they must obey strictly.[94] These laws were
exceedingly severe. It was, for instance, ordered that "every man and
woman daly twice a day upon the first towling of the Bell shall upon the
working daies repaire into the Church, to hear divine Service upon pain
of losing his or her dayes allowance for the first omission, for the
second to be whipt, and for the third to be condemned to the Gallies for
six Months". Again, it was decreed that "no man shall give any
disgracefull words, or commit any act to the disgrace of any person ...
upon paine of being tied head and feete together, upon the guard everie
night for the space of one moneth.... No man shall dare to kill, or
destroy any Bull, Cow, Calfe, Mare, Horse, Colt, Goate, Swine, Cocke,
Henne, Chicken, Dogge, Turkie, or any tame Cattel, or Poultry, of what
condition soever, ... without leave from the Generall, upon paine of
death.... There shall no man or woman ... dare to wash any unclean
linnen ... within the Pallizadoes, ... nor rench, and make clean, any
kettle, pot or pan ... within twenty foote of the olde well ... upon
pain of whipping."[95]

During the administration of Gates and De la Warr these laws seem not to
have been enforced vigorously, but were utilized chiefly _in
terrorem_.[96] Under Dale and Argoll, however, not only were they put
into merciless operation, but were reinforced with a series of martial
laws, drawn from the code in use among the armies of the Netherlands.

The Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, as they were called, undoubtedly
brought about good order in the colony, and aided in the establishment
of prosperity, but they were ill suited for the government of free-born
Englishmen. They were in open violation of the rights guaranteed to the
settlers in their charters, and caused bitter discontent and resentment.

At times they were enforced with odious harshness and injustice. Molina
declared that the Governors were most cruel in their treatment of the
people, often using them like slaves.[97] The Virginia Assembly of 1624
gives a vivid, though perhaps an exaggerated, picture of the severity of
the government. "The Colony ... remained in great want and misery under
most severe and Cruell lawes sent over in printe," they said, "and
contrary to the express Letter of the Kinge in his most gracious
Charter, and as mercylessly executed, often times without tryall or
Judgment." Many of the people fled "for reliefe to the Savage Enemy, who
being taken againe were putt to sundry deathes as by hanginge, shooting
and breaking uppon the wheele and others were forced by famine to filch
for their bellies, of whom one for steelinge of 2 or 3 pints of oatmeale
had a bodkin thrust through his tounge and was tyed with a chain to a
tree untill he starved, if a man through his sicknes had not been able
to worke, he had noe allowance at all, and soe consequently perished.
Many through these extremities, being weary of life, digged holes in the
earth and there hidd themselves till they famished."[98] In 1612,
several men attempted to steal "a barge and a shallop and therein to
adventure their lives for their native country, being discovered and
prevented, were shot to death, hanged and broken upon the wheel".[99]
There was some criticism in England of the harshness of the laws, but
Sir Thomas Smith, then the guiding spirit of the London Company,
declared that they were beneficial and necessary, "in some cases _ad
terrorum_, and in others to be truly executed".[100]

As time passed and the population of the colony increased, it became
necessary to extend beyond the confines of Jamestown and Henrico. The
cultivation of tobacco, which was rapidly becoming the leading pursuit
of the people, required more ground than was comprised within the
fortified districts. Even the expansion of the settlement upon the upper
James to other peninsulas along the "Curls of the River" could not
satisfy the demand for arable land. At one time the very streets of
Jamestown were planted with tobacco.[101] Soon the people, despite their
dread of the savages, were deserting their palisades, and spreading out
in search of fertile soil.

This recklessness brought upon the colony a renewal of the disastrous
epidemics of the earlier period, and exposed the planters to imminent
danger from the savages. Fortunately, however, at this very time the
long sought peace with the Indians was brought about by the romantic
marriage of Pocahontas, the daughter of the powerful chief Powhatan,
with Captain John Rolfe.

In the spring of 1613 Sir Samuel Argoll, while cruising in the
Rappahannock in quest of corn, learned from the natives that the
princess was visiting Japazaws, a neighboring king, at his village upon
the Potomac. Argoll at once resolved to capture the daughter of the
greatest enemy of the white men, and to hold her until all the tools and
weapons stolen by the Indians had been returned.[102] Hastening into the
country of the Potomacs, he demanded the maid of Japazaws. The king,
fearing the hostility of the English more than the anger of Powhatan,
consented, although with great reluctance, and she was placed aboard
Argoll's ship.

The news of the capture of his favorite child filled Powhatan with rage
and grief. Imploring Argoll to do Pocahontas no harm, he promised to
yield to all his demands and to become the lasting friend of the white
men.[103] He liberated seven captives and sent with them "three pieces,
one broad Axe, and a long whip-saw, and one canow of Corne".[104]
Knowing that these did not constitute all the tools in the hands of the
king, the English refused to relinquish Pocahontas, but kept her a
prisoner at Jamestown.[105]

The young princess was treated with consideration and kindness by
Governor Dale. Her gentle nature, her intelligence and her beauty won
the respect and love of the sternest of her captors. Dale himself
undertook to direct her education. "I was moved," he exclaimed, "by her
desire to be taught and instructed in the knowledge of God, her
capableness of understanding, her aptness and willingness to receive any
good impression.... I caused her to be carefully instructed in the
Christian religion, who, after she had made some good progress therein,
renounced publicly her Country's idolatry; openly confessed her
Christian faith; and was, as she desired, baptized."[106]

Before many months had passed the charm of this daughter of the American
forest had inspired a deep love in the breast of Captain John Rolfe.
This worthy gentleman, after struggling long against a passion so
strange and unusual, wrote Dale asking permission to wed the princess. I
am not ignorant, he said "of the inconvenience which may ... arise ...
to be in love with one whose education hath bin rude, her manners
barbarous, her generation accursed".[107] But I am led to take this
step, "for the good of the plantation, for the honour of our countrie,
for the glory of God, for my owne salvation, and for the converting to
the true knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, an unbeleeving creature,
like Pokahuntas. To whom my heartie and best thoughts are, and have a
long time bin so intangled, and inthralled in so intricate a laborinth,
that I was awearied to unwinde myselfe thereout."[108]

Dale, overjoyed at this opportunity to secure the friendship of the
Indians, consented readily to the marriage. Powhatan, too, when he
learned of his daughter's affection for Captain Rolfe, expressed his
approval of the union, and sent Apachisco, an uncle of the bride, and
two of her brothers to represent him at the ceremony.

Both English and Indians regarded this wedding as a bond of friendship
between the two races. Apachisco, acting as deputy for Powhatan,
concluded with Governor Dale a peace which lasted eight years and was
fairly well kept by both parties.[109] "Besides this," wrote Captain
Ralph Hamor, "we became in league with our next neighbors, the
Chicahamanias, a lustie and daring people, free of themselves. These
people, as soone as they heard of our peace with Powhatan, sent two
messengers with presents to Sir Thomas Dale and offered ... their
service."[110] Thus was one of the greatest menaces to the prosperity
of the colony removed. Now the settlers could cultivate the soil, or
hunt and fish without fear of the treacherous savage, and leave their
cattle to range in comparative safety. John Rolfe himself wrote, "The
great blessings of God have followed this peace, and it, next to him,
hath bredd our plentie--everie man sitting under his fig tree in safety,
gathering and reaping the fruits of their labors with much joy and
comfort."[111]

In 1616 Sir Thomas Dale, who had been in command of the colony since the
departure of Gates in 1614, returned to England, leaving the government
in the hands of Captain George Yeardley. Despite the harshness and
cruelty of Dale and Gates, they must be credited with obtaining the
final success of the colony. These two stern soldiers of the Dutch wars
had found the settlers dispirited, reduced in numbers, fighting a losing
battle against pestilence, starvation and the savages. By their rigid
discipline and able leadership they had brought unity and prosperity,
had taught the people how to resist the sickness, and had secured a long
peace with the Indians.[112] Dale left about three hundred and fifty
persons in Virginia, most of them thoroughly acclimated and busily
engaged in building up prosperity for the colony.

Tobacco was already becoming the staple product of Virginia. As early as
1612 Captain Rolfe had been experimenting with the native leaf, in an
effort to make it suitable for the English market.[113] In 1613 he sent
a part of his crop to London, where it was tested by experts and
pronounced to be of excellent quality.[114] The colonists were greatly
encouraged at the success of the venture, for the price of tobacco was
high, and its culture afforded opportunities for a rich return. Soon
every person that could secure a little patch of ground was devoting
himself eagerly to the cultivation of the plant. It even became
necessary for Dale to issue an order that each man should "set two acres
of ground with corn", lest the new craze should lead to the neglect of
the food supply.[115] In 1617 _The George_ sailed for England laden
with 20,000 pounds of tobacco, which found a ready market at five
shillings and three pence a pound. John Rolfe's discovery was opening
for Virginia a veritable gold mine.

Fortunately the King, in 1612, had granted the Company an exemption for
seven years from custom duties upon goods brought from the colony. So,
for a while, at least, the Crown could not appropriate to its own use
the profits from the Virginia tobacco. Since, however, the exemption had
only a few years more to run, the Company hastened to secure what
immediate returns were available. They took from the planters the entire
crop, giving them for it three pence per pound, while they themselves
were able to obtain a much larger price from the English dealers.

The profits thus secured were at once utilized in new measures for
increasing and strengthening the colony. Encouraged by the discovery in
Virginia of so profitable a commodity, the Company became convinced that
now at last success was at hand. "Broadsides" were sent out to the
British people, depicting in glowing terms the advantages of the
country, and asking for immigrants and for financial support. Once more
a wave of enthusiasm for the enterprise swept over England. Money was
contributed liberally. The clergy, interested in the spread of the
Anglican Church, and in the conversion of the savages, worked ardently
for the success of the colony. Soon vessel after vessel was being fitted
out for the voyage across the Atlantic, and hundreds of artisans and
laborers were preparing to risk their all in the New World.[116]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] F. R., pp. 21, 22.

[2] F. R., p. 23.

[3] Arb. Smith, lxi-lxii.

[4] Gen., p. 55.

[5] Gen., p. 56.

[6] Gen., pp. 55, 70, 73.

[7] Gen., p. 77.

[8] Gen., p. 67.

[9] Gen., pp. 342, 411.

[10] Gen., p. 77.

[11] Arb. Smith, p. 91.

[12] Arb. Smith, p. 91.

[13] Arb. Smith, p. 91; F. R., pp. 27, 32. Smith denied the justice of
these charges. "Now Captaine Smith, who all this time from their
departure from the Canaries, was restrained as a prisoner, upon the
scandalous suggestions of some of the chiefe (envying his repute); who
fained he intended to ursurpe the government, murder the Councell, and
make himself king; that his confederats were dispearsed in all the three
ships, and that divers of his confederats that revealed it, would
affirme it: for this he was committed." Arb. Smith, p. 92.

[14] Arb. Smith, liii.

[15] Arb. Smith, liv.

[16] F.R., p. 39.

[17] Arb. Smith, lxxvii.

[18] Arb. Smith, lxxvi.

[19] Arb. Smith, lxxix.

[20] Arb. Smith, lxxxi.

[21] Arb. Smith, lxxxiv.

[22] Arb. Smith, lxxxiv.

[23] Arb. Smith, lxxxv.

[24] Arb. Smith, lxxxv.

[25] F. R., p. 54.

[26] Arb. Smith, lxxxvi.

[27] Arb. Smith, lxxxvi.

[28] F. R., p. 58.

[29] Arb. Smith, pp. 114, 115.

[30] Arb. Smith, p. 119.

[31] Arb. Smith, p. 121; F. R., p. 61.

[32] F. R., p. 68; Arb. Smith, p. 122.

[33] Arb. Smith, p. 122.

[34] Arb. Smith, p. 444.

[35] F. R., 70.

[36] F. R., 71.

[37] F. R., p. 73.

[38] F. R., p. 73.

[39] F. R., p. 80.

[40] F. R., p. 84.

[41] F. R., p. 84.

[42] Gen., pp. 1329, 1330, 346, 400; Force, III; Arb. Smith, p. 635.

[43] F. R., p. 93.

[44] Gen., pp. 331, 347.

[45] Gen., pp. 331, 332; F. R., p. 98.

[46] Arb. Smith, p. 484.

[47] Ratcliffe wrote the Earl of Salisbury, "This man is sent home to
answere some misdemenors, whereof I perswade me he can scarcely clear
himselfe from great imputation of blame." Gen., p. 334.

[48] F. R., p. 108.

[49] F. R., p. 115.

[50] F. R., p. 117.

[51] Gen., p. 84.

[52] Arb. Smith, p. 5.

[53] Arb. Smith, lxxii.

[54] F. R., p. 55.

[55] Nar. of Va., p. 146.

[56] Many of these, however, died of starvation or were killed by the
Indians. Nar. of Va., p. 200.

[57] Nar. of Va., p. 212.

[58] Nar. of Va., p. 220; Gen., p. 648.

[59] Va. Car.

[60] Hen., Vol. I; Gen., p. 499.

[61] Proceedings of Va. Co., p. 171.

[62] Gen., p. 489.

[63] Gen., p. 329.

[64] F. R., p. 98.

[65] Gen., p. 503.

[66] Arb. Smith, lii.

[67] Arb. Smith, liii.

[68] Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 17; Gen., p. 405, 419, 456.

[69] Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 17; Nar. of Va., p. 295; Gen., pp.
330, 392, 401, 404, 456.

[70] Va. Vet.

[71] Nar. of Va., p. 117.

[72] Gen., p. 405.

[73] Gen., p. 406; Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 18.

[74] F. R., p. 127.

[75] F. R., p. 128; Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 19; Gen., p. 407.

[76] Gen., p. 407.

[77] Gen., p. 379.

[78] F. R., p. 131.

[79] Force, Vol. III, Tract I, p. 20.

[80] F. R., pp. 129, 130.

[81] F. R., p. 130.

[82] F. R., p. 134.

[83] F. R., p. 134.

[84] F. R., pp. 135, 136.

[85] Gen., p. 479.

[86] Gen., p. 480.

[87] F. R., p. 137.

[88] F. R., p. 137.

[89] Gen., p. 492; Arb. Smith, p. 507; F. R., p. 150.

[90] Gen., p. 474.

[91] Arb. Smith, pp. 509, 510; F. R., p. 157; Cradle of Rep., p. 136.

[92] F. R., p. 226.

[93] F. R., p. 172.

[94] F. R., p. 126; Gen., pp. 342, 345, 528, 529; Force, Vol. III, Tract
II, pp. 9-19.

[95] Force, Vol. III, Tract II, pp. 9-19.

[96] Bruce, Inst. Hist., Vol. I, p. 474.

[97] Gen., p. 648.

[98] Nar. of Va., pp. 422, 423.

[99] F. R., pp. 148, 172.

[100] Gen., pp. 529, 530.

[101] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 222.

[102] Gen., p. 642.

[103] Gen., p. 643.

[104] Gen., pp. 643, 644.

[105] Nar. of Va., p. 308.

[106] Arb. Smith, p. 512.

[107] Nar. of Va., p. 241.

[108] Nar. of Va., pp. 240, 241.

[109] F. R., p. 205; Arb. Smith, p. 514.

[110] Arb. Smith, p. 515.

[111] F. R., p. 226.

[112] F. R., pp. 230, 236.

[113] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 211.

[114] F. R., p. 197; Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 217.

[115] F. R., p. 228; Gen., p. 782.

[116] F. R., p. 209.




CHAPTER II

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT


King James I, from the beginning of his reign, was deeply desirous of
planting the English nation upon the shores of the New World. It was
with envy and alarm that he witnessed the extension of the power of
Spain and of the Roman Catholic church across the Atlantic, while his
own subjects were excluded from a share in the splendid prize. He must
have perceived clearly that if the English wished to maintain their
position as a great naval and mercantile people, the establishing of
colonies in America was imperative. Peru, Mexico and the West Indies
added greatly to the wealth and power of the Spanish King; why should
England not attempt to gain a foothold near these countries, before it
became too late?

But James had no desire to arouse the hostility of Philip III. Despite
religious differences, despite the hatred of the English for the
Spaniards, he had reversed the policy of Elizabeth by cultivating the
friendship of these hereditary enemies. And so wedded was he to this
design, that later, when his son-in-law, Frederick of the Palatinate,
was being overwhelmed by a coalition of Catholic nations, he refused to
affront Spain by coming to his rescue. Yet he knew that Philip
considered America his own, and would resent any attempt of the English
to establish colonies on its shores. So the crafty James resolved to
disguise the founding of a royal colony under the guise of a private
venture.[117] If the Spaniards complained of the occupation of their
territory, he could free himself from blame by placing the
responsibility upon the London Company. "If it take not success," his
advisors told the King, "it is done by their owne heddes. It is but the
attempt of private gentlemen, the State suffers noe losse, noe
disreputation. If it takes success, they are your subjects, they doe it
for your service, they will lay all at your Majesty's feet and interess
your Majesty therein."[118]

James was quite liberal in granting charters to those that had
undertaken the settlement, and he encouraged them as much as was
consistent with his friendship for Spain. It was truly written of him
after his death, "Amongst the ... workes of the late Kinge, there was
none more eminent, than his gracious inclination ... to advance and sett
forward a New Plantation in the New World."[119] That he was deeply
interested in the undertaking is shown most strikingly by his consent to
the establishment of the Puritans in America. James hated the tenets of
Calvin from the depths of his soul, and could have no desire to see them
infect the English settlements in America, yet his solicitude for the
welfare of the colony induced him to yield to the request of the
Pilgrims for permission to settle there. How much greater was his
foresight than that of Louis XIV, who, by refusing to allow the
persecuted Huguenots to settle in any part of his domains, deprived the
French colonies of what might have been their most numerous and valuable
recruits! When some of the leading men of the London Company pleaded
with James for the Puritans, the King lent a ready ear. He was asked to
allow them "liberty of conscience under his ... protection in America;
where they would endeavour the advancement of his Majesty's dominions,
and the enlargement of the interests of the Gospel". James replied that
it was "a good and honest motion". He refused to tolerate them by public
authority and would not confirm under the broad seal their petition for
leave to worship as they chose, but he let it be understood that they
were not to be molested in their new homes in any way.[120] And in this
promise they finally decided to put their trust, feeling that "if
afterwards there should be a purpose or desire to wrong them, though
they had a seale as broad as ye house flore, it would not serve ye turn;
for ther would be means a new found to recall or reverse it".[121]

But the chief glory of the establishment of the English in America must
be given to the patriotic and persevering men of the Virginia Company.
It is erroneous and unjust to accuse them of mean and mercenary motives
in founding and maintaining the colony at Jamestown. Some of them,
perhaps, were dazzled with visions of a rich harvest of gold and silver,
but most must have realized that there was small chance of remuneration.
Many were merchants and business men of great foresight and ability, and
it is quite evident that they were fully aware of the risks of the
undertaking in which they ventured their money. What they did hope to
gain from the colony was the propagation of the English Church, the
extension of the English nation and its institutions, and the increase
of British trade.

Over and over again it was asserted that the first object of the
enterprise was to spread the Christian religion. In 1610 the London
Company declared it their especial purpose "to preach and baptize ...
and by propagation of the Gospell, to recover out of the armes of the
Divell, a number of poore and miserable soules, wrapt up unto death, in
almost invincible ignorance".[122] The first draft of the Virginia
charter of 1606 declared that the leading motive of this "noble work",
was "the planting of Christianity amongst heathens".[123] The charter of
1609 asserted that the "principle effect, which we can desire or expect
of this action, is the conversion and reduction of the people in those
parts unto the true worship of God".[124]

That they were also actuated by a desire to extend the British
possessions and trade is attested by numerous documents and letters. The
Company declared it their purpose to promote the "honor and safety of
the Kingdome, the strength of our Navy, the visible hope of a great and
rich trade".[125] One of the leading shareholders wrote that the colony
should be upheld for "ye Honor and profitt to our Nation, to make
provinciall to us a land ready to supply us with all necessary
commodytyes wanting to us: In which alone we suffer ye Spanish
reputation and power to swell over us."[126] The colonists themselves
declared that one of the objects of the settlement of America was the
extension of British territory and the enriching of the kingdom, "for
which respects many noble and well minded persons were induced to
adventure great sums of money to the advancement of so pious and noble a
worke".[127]

The Company, in fact, did no more than take the lead in the work. It was
really the English nation that had decided to second their King in
gaining a foothold in America, and it was they that insisted that this
foothold should not be relinquished. Again and again the London Company
appealed to the people for support, and never without success, for all
classes of Englishmen felt that they were interested in this new
venture. The spirit of the nation is reflected in the statement of the
Council for Virginia in 1610, that the Company "are so farre from
yielding or giving way to any hindrance or impeachment ... that many ...
have given their hands and subscribed to contribute againe and againe to
new supplies if need require".[128]

But although James I and his people were agreed as to the necessity of
extending the English nation to America, they were not in accord in
regard to the form of government which should be established there. The
King, who was always restive under the restraint placed upon him by the
English Parliament, had no desire to see the liberal institutions of the
mother country transplanted to Virginia. He wished, beyond doubt, to
build a colonial empire which should be dependent upon himself for its
government and which should add to the royal revenues. In this way he
would augment the power of the Crown and render it less subject to the
restraint of Parliament. But to found colonies that would set up little
assemblies of their own to resist and thwart him, was not at all his
intention.

On the other hand, many of the leading spirits of the London Company
hoped "to establish a more free government in Virginia".[129] Some,
perhaps, feared that the liberties of the English people might be
suppressed by the King, and they looked hopefully to this new land as a
haven for the oppressed. "Many worthy Patriots, Lords, Knights,
gentlemen, Merchants and others ... laid hold on ... Virginia as a
providence cast before them."[130] In the meetings of the Company were
gathered so many that were "most distasted with the proceedings of the
Court, and stood best affected to Religion and Liberty", that James
began to look upon the body as a "Seminary for a seditious
Parliament".[131]

The leader of these liberals was Sir Edwin Sandys. This man, who was
widely known as an uncompromising enemy of despotism, was heartily
detested by the King.[132] In his youth he had gone to Geneva to study
the reformed religion and while there had become most favorably
impressed with the republican institutions of the little Swiss state. He
was afterwards heard to say that "he thought that if God from heaven did
constitute and direct a forme of government on Earth it was that of
Geneva".[133] Returning to England, he had entered Parliament, where he
had become known as an eminent advocate of liberal principles. He had
contended for the abolition of commercial monopolies; had demanded that
all accused persons be given the assistance of counsel; had denounced
many of the unjust impositions of the Crown; had raised "his voice for
the toleration of those with whom he did not wholly agree"; and had
aided in drawing up the remonstrance against the conduct of James
towards his first Parliament.[134]

But Sandys and his friends were not without opposition in the London
Company. Many of the "adventurers", as the stockholders were called,
were by no means willing to permit the liberal party to utilize the
Company as an instrument for propagating their political tenets. The
great struggle between the forces of progress and reaction that was
convulsing Parliament and the nation, was fought over again in the
Quarter Courts. At times the meetings resounded with the quarrels of the
contending factions. Eventually, however, Sandys was victorious, and
representative government in America was assured.

Sandys seems to have planned to secure from the King successive charters
each more liberal than its predecessor, and each entrusting more fully
the control of the colony to the Company. This could be done without
arousing the suspicions of James under the pretext that they were
necessary for the success of the enterprise. When at length sufficient
power had been delegated, Sandys designed to establish in Virginia a
representative assembly, modelled upon the British Parliament.

Under the provisions of the charter of 1606 Virginia had been, in all
but form, a royal colony. The King had drawn up the constitution, had
appointed the Council in England, and had controlled their policies.
This charter had granted no semblance of self-government to the
settlers. But it was declared "They shall have and enjoy all the
liberties, franchises, and immunities ... to all intents and purposes,
as if they had been abiding and born, within ... this realm of
England".[135] This promise was not kept by the Kings of England.
Several of the provisions of the charter itself were not consistent with
it. In later years it was disregarded again and again by the royal
commissions and instructions. Yet it was of the utmost importance, for
it set a goal which the colonists were determined to attain. Throughout
the entire colonial period they contended for all the rights of native
Englishmen, and it was the denial of their claim that caused them to
revolt from the mother country and make good their independence.
Provision had also been made for trial by jury. James had decreed that
in all cases the Council should sit as a court, but in matters of
"tumults, rebellion, conspiracies, mutiny, and seditions ... murther,
manslaughter", and other crimes punishable with death, guilt or
innocence was to be determined by a jury of twelve. To what extent the
Council made use of the jury system it is impossible to say, but
Wingfield states that on one occasion he was tried before a jury for
slander, and fined £300.[136]

The second charter had been granted in 1609. This document is of great
importance because through it the King resigned the actual control of
the colony into the hands of the Virginia Company. And although this did
not result immediately in the establishment of representative
government, it strengthened the hands of Sandys and made it possible for
him to carry out his designs at a future date. Under this charter the
Company might have set up liberal institutions at once in Virginia, but
conditions were not ripe, either in England or in America, for so
radical a change.

In 1612 the third charter had been granted. This had still further
strengthened the Company and made them more independent of the King. It
gave them the important privilege of holding great quarterly meetings or
assemblies, where all matters relating to the government of the colony
could be openly discussed. Still Virginia remained under the autocratic
rule of Dale and Gates.

In 1617 or 1618, however, when the liberals were in full control of the
Company, it was decided to grant the colonists the privilege of a
parliament.[137] In April, 1618, Lord De la Warr sailed for Virginia to
reassume active control of affairs there, bringing with him instructions
to establish a new form of government. What this government was to have
been is not known, but it was designed by Sir Edwin Sandys, and beyond
doubt, was liberal in form.[138] Possibly it was a duplicate of that
established the next year by Governor Yeardley. Most unfortunately, Lord
De la Warr, whose health had been shattered by his first visit to
Virginia, died during the voyage across the Atlantic, and it became
necessary to continue the old constitution until the Company could
appoint a successor.[139]

In November, 1618, George Yeardley was chosen Governor-General of
Virginia, and was intrusted with several documents by whose authority he
was to establish representative government in the colony.[140] These
papers, which became known as the Virginia Magna Charta, were the very
corner-stone of liberty in the colony and in all America. Their
importance can hardly be exaggerated, for they instituted the first
representative assembly of the New World, and established a government
which proved a bulwark against royal prerogative for a century and a
half.

Governor Yeardley sailed from England January, 1619, and reached
Virginia on the 29th of April. After some weeks of preparation, he
issued a general proclamation setting in operation the Company's orders.
It was decreed, "that all those who were resident here before the
departure of Sir Thomas Dale should be freed and acquitted from such
publique services and labors which formerly they suffered, and that
those cruel laws by which we had so long been governed were now
abrogated, and that now we were to be governed by those free laws which
his Majesty's subjects live under in Englande.... And that they might
have a hand in the governing of themselves, it was granted that a
General Assembly should be held yearly once, whereat were to be present
the Governor and Counsell, with two Burgesses from each plantation
freely to be elected by the inhabitants thereof; this Assembly to have
power to make and ordaine whatsoever lawes and orders should by them be
thought good and proffittable for our subsistence."[141]

The exact date of the election for Burgesses is not known.[142] The
statement that the representatives were to be "chosen by the
inhabitants" seems to indicate that the franchise was at once given to
all male adults, or at least to all freemen. "All principall officers in
Virginia were to be chosen by ye balloting box." From the very first
there were parties, and it is possible that the factions of the London
Company were reflected at the polls in the early elections. The Magna
Charta made provision for the establishment of boroughs, which were to
serve both as units for local government and as electoral districts. No
attempt was made to secure absolute uniformity of population in the
boroughs, but there were no glaring inequalities. With the regard for
the practical which has always been characteristic of Englishmen, the
Company seized upon the existing units, such as towns, plantations and
hundreds, as the basis of their boroughs. In some cases several of these
units were merged to form one borough, in others, a plantation or a town
or a hundred as it stood constituted a borough. As there were eleven of
these districts and as each district chose two Burgesses, the first
General Assembly was to contain twenty-two representatives.[143]

The Assembly convened at Jamestown, August 9th, 1619. "The most
convenient place we could finde to sitt in," says the minutes, "was the
Quire of the Churche Where Sir George Yeardley, the Governor, being sett
down in his accustomed place, those of the Counsel of Estate sate nexte
him on both hands excepte onely the Secretary then appointed Speaker,
who sate right before him, John Twine, the clerk of the General
Assembly, being placed nexte the Speaker, and Thomas Pierse, the
Sergeant, standing at the barre, to be ready for any service the
Assembly shoulde comand him. But forasmuche as men's affaires doe little
prosper where God's service is neglected, all the Burgesses tooke their
places in the Quire till a prayer was said by Mr. Bucke, the
Minister.... Prayer being ended,... all the Burgesses were intreatted to
retyre themselves into the body of the Churche, which being done, before
they were fully admitted, they were called in order and by name, and so
every man tooke the oathe of Supremacy and entered the Assembly."[144]

The body at once claimed and made good its right to exclude Burgesses
who they thought were not entitled to seats. The Speaker himself raised
an objection to admitting the representatives of Warde's plantation,
because that settlement had been made without a commission from the
London Company. But Captain Warde promised to secure a patent as soon as
possible, and the objection was waived. The Assembly refused absolutely,
however, to seat the Burgesses from Martin's Hundred. Captain Martin had
been one of the first Council for Virginia, and as a reward for his long
services had been granted privileges that rendered him almost
independent of the government at Jamestown. He was summoned before the
Assembly and requested to relinquish these extraordinary rights, but he
refused to do so. "I hold my patent," he said, "for my service don,
which noe newe or late comer can meritt or challenge."[145] So the
Assembly, feeling that it would be mockery to permit the Burgesses from
Martin's Hundred to assist in the making of laws which their own
constituents, because of their especial charter, might with impunity
disobey, refused to admit them.[146]

The legislative powers granted the Virginia Assembly in the Magna
Charta, and continued with slight alterations after the revocation of
the charter of the London Company, were very extensive. The Assembly
could pass laws dealing with a vast variety of matters appertaining to
the safety and welfare of the colony. Statutes were enacted in the
session of 1619 touching upon Indian affairs, the Church, land patents,
the relations of servants and landlords, the planting of crops, general
morality in Virginia, the price of tobacco, foreign trade, etc. The
collected laws of the entire colonial period fill many volumes, and
cover a vast variety of subjects. But there were three things which
limited strictly the Assembly's field of action. They must pass no
statutes contravening first, the laws of England; secondly, the
charters; thirdly, the instructions sent them by the London Company.
When the colony passed into the hands of the King, all statutes were
forbidden that conflicted with the charters, or with the instructions of
the Crown. These restrictions lasted during the entire colonial period,
but they were not always carefully regarded. The Company, and later the
King, retained two ways of nullifying legislation which was
unauthorized, or was distasteful to them. First, there was the veto of
the Governor. As the guardian of the interests of England and his
monarch, this officer could block all legislation. Secondly, the
Company, and later the King, could veto laws even though the Governor
had consented to them.

But the most important power exercised by the Assembly was its control
over taxation in Virginia. In the very first session it made use of this
privilege by ordering, "That every man and manservant of above 16 years
of age shall pay into the handes and Custody of the Burgesses of every
Incorporation and plantation one pound of the best Tobacco".[147] The
funds thus raised were utilized for the payment of the officers of the
Assembly.

The levy by the poll, here used, was continued for many years, and
became the chief support of the government. As the colony grew, however,
and the need for greater revenues was felt, customs duties and other
forms of taxation were resorted to. Large sums were raised by an export
duty upon tobacco. At times tariffs were placed upon the importation of
liquors, slaves and other articles. But these duties had to be used with
great care, for the carrying of the colony was done chiefly by English
merchants, and Parliament would permit nothing detrimental to their
interests.

The Assembly claimed the exclusive right to levy general taxes. The
Governor and Council time and again tried to wrest this privilege from
them, but never with success.[148] The Burgesses, realizing that their
hold upon the exchequer was the chief source of their power, were most
careful never to relinquish it. From time to time the Governors sought
to evade this restraint by levying taxes under the guise of fees. But
this expedient invariably excited intense irritation, and yielded a
revenue so small that most Governors thought it best to avoid it
entirely. Of more importance were the quit-rents, a tax on land, paid to
the King by all freeholders. But this was frequently avoided, and,
except at rare intervals, the funds raised by it were left in Virginia
to be expended for local purposes. The greatest blow to the power of the
Burgesses was struck by the King in 1680, when he forced through the
Assembly a law granting to the government a perpetual income from the
export duty on tobacco. This revenue, although not large, was usually
sufficient to pay the Governor's salary, and thus to render him less
dependent upon the Assembly. Finally, it must not be forgotten that the
English government, although it refrained from taxing the colony
directly, imposed an enormous indirect tax by means of a tariff upon
tobacco brought into England. These duties were collected in England,
but there can be no doubt that the incidence of the tax rested partly
upon the Virginia planters. Despite these various duties, all levied
without its consent, the Assembly exercised a very real control over
taxation in Virginia, and used it as an effective weapon against the
encroachments of the Governors.

From the very first the General Assembly showed itself an energetic and
determined champion of the rights of the people. Time and again it
braved the anger of the Governor and of the King himself, rather than
yield the slightest part of its privileges. During the decade preceding
the English Revolution only the heroic resistance of this body saved the
liberal institutions of the colony from destruction at the hands of
Charles II and James II.

The General Assembly was not only a legislative body, it was also a
court of justice, and for many years served as the highest tribunal of
the colony. The judicial function was entrusted to a joint committee
from the two houses, whose recommendations were usually accepted without
question. Since this committee invariably contained more Burgesses than
Councillors, the supreme court was practically controlled by the
representatives of the people. During the reign of Charles II, however,
the Assembly was deprived of this function by royal proclamation, and
the judiciary fell almost entirely into the hands of the Governor and
Council.

The General Assembly consisted of two chambers--the House of Burgesses
and the Council. In the early sessions the houses sat together and
probably voted as one body.[149] Later, however, they were divided and
voted separately. The Burgesses, as time went on, gradually increased in
numbers until they became a large body, but the Council was always
small.

The Councillors were royal appointees. But since the King could not
always know personally the prominent men of the colony, he habitually
confirmed without question the nominations of the Governor. The members
of the Council were usually persons of wealth, influence and ability. As
they were subject to removal by the King and invariably held one or more
lucrative governmental offices, it was customary for them to display
great servility to the wishes of his Majesty or of the Governor. It was
very unusual for them to oppose in the Assembly any measure recommended
by the King, or in accord with his expressed wishes. Although the
Councillors were, with rare exceptions, natives of Virginia, they were
in no sense representative of the people of the colony.

As the upper house of the Assembly, the Council exercised a powerful
influence upon legislation. After the separation of the chambers their
consent became necessary for the passage of all bills, even money bills.
Their legislative influence declined during the eighteenth century,
however, because of the growing spirit of liberalism in Virginia, and
the increasing size of the House of Burgesses.

The executive powers entrusted to the Council were also of very great
importance. The Governor was compelled by his instructions to secure its
assistance and consent in the most important matters. And since the
chief executive was always a native of England, and often entirely
ignorant of conditions in the colony, he was constantly forced to rely
upon the advice of his Council. This tendency was made more pronounced
by the frequent changes of Governors that marked the last quarter of the
seventeenth century. So habitually did the Council exercise certain
functions, not legally within their jurisdiction, that they began to
claim them as theirs by right. And the Governor was compelled to respect
these claims as scrupulously as the King of England respects the
conventions that hedge in and limit his authority.

Before the end of the seventeenth century the Council had acquired
extraordinary influence in the government. With the right to initiate
and to block legislation, with almost complete control over the
judiciary, with great influence in administrative matters, it
threatened to become an oligarchy of almost unlimited power.

But it must not be supposed that the influence of the Council rendered
impotent the King's Governor. Great powers were lodged in the hands of
this officer by his various instructions and commissions. He was
commander of the militia, was the head of the colonial church, he
appointed most of the officers, attended to foreign affairs, and put the
laws into execution. His influence, however, resulted chiefly from the
fact that he was the representative of the King. In the days of Charles
I, in the Restoration Period and under James II, when the Stuarts were
combating liberal institutions, both in England and in the colonies, the
Governor exercised a powerful and dangerous control over affairs in
Virginia. But after the English Revolution his power declined. As the
people of England no longer dreaded a monarch whose authority now rested
solely upon acts of Parliament, so the Virginians ceased to fear his
viceroy.

The powers officially vested in the Governor were by no means solely
executive. He frequently made recommendations to the Assembly, either in
his own name or the name of the King, and these recommendations at times
assumed the nature of commands. If the Burgesses were reluctant to obey,
he had numerous weapons at hand with which to intimidate them and whip
them into line. Unscrupulous use of the patronage and threats of the
King's dire displeasure were frequently resorted to. The Governor
presided over the upper house, and voted there as any other member.
Moreover, he could veto all bills, even those upon which he had voted in
the affirmative in the Council. Thus he had a large influence in shaping
the laws of the colony, and an absolute power to block all legislation.

Such, in outline, was the government originated for Virginia by the
liberal leaders of the London Company, and put into operation by Sir
George Yeardley. It lasted, with the short intermission of the
Commonwealth Period, for more than one hundred and fifty years, and
under it Virginia became the most populous and wealthy of the English
colonies in America.

The successful cultivation of tobacco in Virginia, as we have seen, put
new life into the discouraged London Company. The shareholders, feeling
that now at last the colony would grow and prosper, exerted themselves
to the utmost to secure desirable settlers and to equip them properly.
Soon fleets of considerable size were leaving the English ports for
America, their decks and cabins crowded with emigrants and their holds
laden with clothing, arms and farming implements.[150] During the months
from March 1620 to March 1621 ten ships sailed, carrying no less than
1051 persons.[151] In the year ending March, 1622, seventeen ships
reached Virginia, bringing over fifteen hundred new settlers.[152] And
this stream continued without abatement until 1624, when disasters in
Virginia, quarrels among the shareholders and the hostility of the King
brought discouragement to the Company. In all, there reached the colony
from November, 1619, to February, 1625, nearly five thousand men, women
and children.[153]

Although tobacco culture was the only enterprise of the colony which had
yielded a profit, it was not the design of Sandys and his friends that
that plant should monopolize the energies of the settlers. They hoped to
make Virginia an industrial community, capable of furnishing the mother
country with various manufactured articles, then imported from foreign
countries. Especially anxious were they to render England independent in
their supply of pig iron. Ore having been discovered a few miles above
Henrico on the James, a furnace was erected there and more than a
hundred skilled workmen brought over from England to put it into
operation. Before the works could be completed, however, they were
utterly demolished by the savages, the machinery thrown into the river,
all the workmen slaughtered,[154] and the only return the Company
obtained for an outlay of thousands of pounds was a shovel, a pair of
tongs and one bar of iron.[155] Efforts were made later to repair the
havoc wrought by the Indians and to reëstablish the works, but they came
to nothing. Not until the time of Governor Spotswood were iron furnaces
operated in Virginia, and even then the industry met with a scant
measure of success.

The Company also made an earnest effort to promote the manufacture of
glass in Virginia. This industry was threatened with extinction in
England as a result of the great inroads that had been made upon the
timber available for fuel, and it was thought that Virginia, with its
inexhaustible forests, offered an excellent opportunity for its
rehabilitation. But here too they were disappointed. The sand of
Virginia proved unsuitable for the manufacture of glass. The skilled
Italian artisans sent over to put the works into operation were
intractable and mutinous. After trying in various ways to discourage the
enterprise, so that they could return to Europe, these men brought
matters to a close by cracking the furnace with a crowbar. George
Sandys, in anger, declared "that a more damned crew hell never
vomited".[156]

In order to show that they were sincere in their professions of interest
in the spiritual welfare of the Indians, the Company determined to erect
a college at Henrico "for the training up of the children of those
Infidels in true Religion, moral virtue and civility".[157] The clergy
of England were enthusiastic in their support of this good design, and
their efforts resulted in liberal contributions from various parts of
the kingdom.[158] Unfortunately, however, the money thus secured was
expended in sending to the college lands a number of "tenants" the
income from whose labor was to be utilized in establishing and
supporting the institution.[159] As some of these settlers fell victims
to disease and many others were destroyed in the massacre of 1622, the
undertaking had to be abandoned, and of course all thought of converting
and civilizing the savages was given up during the long and relentless
war that ensued.

Even more discouraging than these failures was the hostility of the King
to the cultivation of tobacco in Virginia, and his restrictions upon its
importation into England. Appeals were made to him to prohibit the sale
of Spanish tobacco, in order that the Virginia planters might dispose of
their product at a greater profit. This, it was argued, would be the
most effective way of rendering the colony prosperous and self
sustaining. But James, who was still bent upon maintaining his Spanish
policy, would not offend Philip by excluding his tobacco from England.
Moreover, in 1621, he issued a proclamation restricting the importation
of the leaf from Virginia and the Somers Isles to fifty-five thousand
pounds annually.[160] This measure created consternation in Virginia and
in the London Company. The great damage it would cause to the colony and
the diminution in the royal revenue that would result were pointed out
to James, but for the time he was obdurate.[161] Indeed, he caused
additional distress by granting the customs upon tobacco to a small
association of farmers of the revenue, who greatly damaged the interests
of the colony. In 1622, James, realizing that his policy in regard to
tobacco was injuring the exchequer, made a compromise with the Company.
The King agreed to restrict the importation of Spanish tobacco to 60,000
pounds a year, and after two years to exclude it entirely. All the
Virginia leaf was to be admitted, but the Crown was to receive one third
of the crop, while the other two thirds was subjected to a duty of six
pence a pound.[162] This agreement proved most injurious to the Company,
and it was soon abandoned, but the heavy exactions of the King
continued. Undoubtedly this unwise policy was most detrimental to
Virginia. Not only did it diminish the returns of the Company and make
it impossible for Sandys to perfect all his wise plans for the colony,
but it put a decided check upon immigration. Many that would have gone
to Virginia to share in the profits of the planters, remained at home
when they saw that these profits were being confiscated by the
King.[163]

Yet the strenuous efforts of the London Company would surely have
brought something like prosperity to the colony had not an old enemy
returned to cause the destruction of hundreds of the settlers. This was
the sickness. For some years the mortality had been very low, because
the old planters were acclimated, and few new immigrants were coming to
Virginia. But with the stream of laborers and artisans that the Sandys
régime now sent over, the scourge appeared again with redoubled fury. As
early as January, 1620, Governor Yeardley wrote "of the great
mortallitie which hath been in Virginia, about 300 of ye inhabitants
having dyed this year".[164] The sickness was most deadly in the newly
settled parts of the colony, "to the consumption of divers Hundreds, and
almost the utter destruction of some particular Plantations".[165] The
London Company, distressed at the loss of so many men, saw in their
misfortunes the hand of God, and wrote urging "the more carefull
observations of his holy laws to work a reconciliation".[166] They also
sent directions for the construction, in different parts of the colony,
of four guest houses, or hospitals, for the lodging and entertaining of
fifty persons each, upon their first arrival.[167] But all efforts to
check the scourge proved fruitless. In the year ending March, 1621 over
a thousand persons died upon the immigrant vessels and in Virginia.[168]
Despite the fact that hundreds of settlers came to the colony during
this year, the population actually declined. In 1621 the percentage of
mortality was not so large, but the actual number of deaths increased.
During the months from March, 1621, to March, 1622, nearly twelve
hundred persons perished. It was like condemning a man to death to send
him to the colony. Seventy-five or eighty per cent. of the laborers that
left England in search of new homes across the Atlantic died before the
expiration of their first year. The exact number of deaths in 1622 is
not known, but there is reason to believe that it approximated thirteen
hundred.[169] Mr. George Sandys, brother of the Secretary of the London
Company, wrote, "Such a pestilent fever rageth this winter amongst us:
never knowne before in Virginia, by the infected people that came over
in ye _Abigall_, who were poisoned with ... beer and all falling sick &
many dying, every where dispersed the contagion, and the forerunning
Summer hath been also deadly upon us."[170] Not until 1624 did the
mortality decline. Then it was that the Governor wrote, "This summer,
God be thanked, the Colony hath very well stood to health".[171] The
dread sickness had spent itself for lack of new victims, for the
immigration had declined and the old planters had become "seasoned".

History does not record an epidemic more deadly than that which swept
over Virginia during these years. It is estimated that the number of
those that lost their lives from the diseases native to the colony and
to those brought in from the infected ships amounts to no less than four
thousand.[172] When the tide of immigration was started by Sir Edwin
Sandys in 1619, there were living in Virginia about nine hundred
persons; when it slackened in 1624 the population was but eleven
hundred. The sending of nearly five thousand settlers to Virginia had
resulted in a gain of but two hundred. It is true that the tomahawk and
starvation accounts for a part of this mortality, but by far the larger
number of deaths was due to disease.

Yet hardly less horrible than the sickness was the Indian massacre of
1622. This disaster, which cost the lives of several hundred persons,
struck terror into the hearts of every Englishman in Virginia. The
colonists had not the least intimation that the savages meditated harm
to them, for peace had existed between the races ever since the marriage
of Rolfe and Pocahontas. Considering the protection of their palisades
no longer necessary after that event, they had spread out over the
colony in search of the most fertile lands. Their plantations extended
at intervals for many miles along both banks of the James, and in the
case of a sudden attack by the Indians it would obviously be difficult
for the settlers to defend themselves or to offer assistance to their
neighbors.

The apparent friendship of the Indians had created such great intimacy
between the two races, that the savages were received into the homes of
the white men and at times were fed at their tables.[173] At the command
of the London Company itself some of the Indian youths had been adopted
by the settlers and were being educated in the Christian faith. So
unsuspecting were the people that they loaned the savages their boats,
as they passed backward and forward, to formulate their plans for the
massacre.[174]

The plot seems to have originated in the cunning brain of
Opechancanough. This chief, always hostile to the white men, must have
viewed with apprehension their encroachment upon the lands of his
people. He could but realize that some day the swarms of foreigners that
were arriving each year would exclude the Indians from the country of
their forefathers. Perceiving his opportunity in the foolish security of
the English and in their exposed situation, he determined to annihilate
them in one general butchery.

His plans were laid with great cunning. Although thousands of natives
knew of the design, no warning reached the white men until the very eve
of the massacre. While Opechancanough was preparing this tremendous
blow, he protested in the strongest terms his perpetual good will and
love, declaring that the sky would fall before he would bring an end to
the peace.[175] In order to lull the suspicions of the planters, "even
but two daies before the massacre", he guided some of them "with much
kindnesse through the woods, and one Browne that lived among them to
learne the language", he sent home to his master. The evening before the
attack the Indians came as usual to the plantations with deer, turkeys,
fish, fruits and other provisions to sell.[176]

That night, however, a warning was received, which although too late to
save the most remote settlements, preserved many hundreds from the
tomahawk. Chanco, an Indian boy who had been adopted by an Englishman
named Race, revealed the entire plot to his master. The man secured his
house, and rowed away before dawn in desperate haste to Jamestown, to
give warning to the Governor. "Whereby they were prevented, and at such
other plantations as possibly intelligence could be given."[177]

The assault of the savages was swift and deadly. In all parts of the
colony they fell upon the settlers, and those that had received no
warning were, in most cases, butchered before they could suspect that
harm was intended. Sometimes the Indians sat down to breakfast with
their victims, "whom immediately with their owne tooles they slew most
barbarously, not sparing either age or sex, man woman or childe".[178]
Many were slain while working in the fields; others were trapped in
their houses and butchered before they could seize their weapons. The
savages, "not being content with their lives,... fell againe upon the
dead bodies, making as well as they could a fresh murder, defacing,
dragging, and mangling their dead carkases into many peeces".[179]

That the plot was so successful was due to the completeness of the
surprise, for where the English made the least resistance the savages
were usually beaten off. A planter named Causie, when attacked and
wounded and surrounded by the Indians, "with an axe did cleave one of
their heads, whereby the rest fled and he escaped; for they hurt not any
that did either fight or stand upon their guard. In one place where they
had warning of it, (they) defended the house against sixty or more that
assaulted it."[180]

At the plantation of a Mr. Harrison, where there were gathered seven men
and eighteen or nineteen women and children, the savages set fire to a
tobacco house and then came in to tell the men to quench it. Six of the
English, not suspecting treachery, rushed out, and were shot full of
arrows. Mr. Thomas Hamor, the seventh man, "having finished a letter he
was writing, followed after to see what was the matter, but quickly they
shot an arrow in his back, which caused him to returne and barricade up
the dores, whereupon the Salvages set fire to the house. But a boy,
seizing a gun which he found loaded, discharged it at random. At the
bare report the enemy fled and Mr. Hamor with the women and children
escaped."[181] In a nearby house, a party of English under Mr. Hamor's
brother, were caught by the Indians without arms, but they defended
themselves successfully with spades, axes and brickbats.[182]

One of the first to fall was Reverend George Thorpe, a member of the
Virginia Council, and a man of prominence in England.[183] Leaving a
life of honor and ease, he had come to Virginia to work for the
conversion of the Indians. He had apparently won the favor of
Opechancanough, with whom he often discoursed upon the Christian
religion. At the moment of his murder, his servant, perceiving the
deadly intent of the savages, gave him warning, but his gentle nature
would not permit him to believe harm of those whom he had always
befriended, and he was cut down without resistance.[184]

The barbarous king failed in his design to destroy the English race in
Virginia, but the massacre was a deadly blow to the colony. No less than
three hundred and fifty-seven persons were slaughtered, including six
Councillors. The news of the disaster brought dismay to the London
Company. For a while they attempted to keep the matter a secret, but in
a few weeks it was known all over England. Although the massacre could
not have been foreseen or prevented, it served as a pretext for numerous
attacks upon Sandys and the party which supported him. It discouraged
many shareholders and made it harder to secure settlers for the colony.
Even worse was the effect in Virginia. The system of farming in
unprotected plantations, which had prevailed for some years, had now to
be abandoned and many settlements that were exposed to the Indians were
deserted. "We have not," wrote the Assembly, "the safe range of the
Country for the increase of Cattle, Swyne, etc; nor for the game and
fowle which the country affords in great plentye; besides our duties to
watch and warde to secure ourselves and labor are as hard and chargeable
as if the enemy were at all times present."[185]

The massacre was followed by a venomous war with the Indians, which
lasted many years. The English, feeling that their families and their
homes would never be safe so long as the savages shared the country with
them, deliberately planned the extermination of all hostile tribes in
Virginia. Their conversion was given no further consideration. "The
terms betwixt us and them," they declared, "are irreconcilable."[186]
Governor Wyatt wrote, "All trade with them must be forbidden, and
without doubt either we must cleere them or they us out of the
Country."[187]

But it soon became apparent that neither people would be able to win an
immediate or decisive victory. The Indians could not hope to destroy the
English, now that their deeply laid plot had failed. In open battle
their light arrows made no impression upon the coats of plate and of
mail in which the white men were incased, while their own bodies were
without protection against the superior weapons of their foes. On the
other hand, it was very difficult for the colonists to strike the
savages, because of the "advantages of the wood and the nimbleness of
their heels".[188] Even though they "chased them to and fro", following
them to their villages and burning their huts, they found it very
difficult to do them serious harm.

Finally the English hit upon the plan of bringing distress upon the
savages by destroying their corn. Although the Virginia tribes subsisted
partly upon game, their chief support was from their fields of maize,
and the entire failure of their crop would have reduced hundreds of them
to the verge of starvation.[189] Each year the white men, in small
companies, in various parts of the country, brought ruin to the corn
fields. Sometimes the savages, in despair at the prospect of famine,
made valiant efforts to defend their fields, but were invariably beaten
off until the work of destruction was done.

The natives retaliated with many sudden raids upon the more exposed
parts of the colony, where they burned, pillaged and murdered. The
planter at work in his fields might expect to find them lurking in the
high grass, while their ambushes in the woods made communication from
plantation to plantation very dangerous. "The harmes that they do us,"
wrote the Assembly, "is by ambushes and sudden incursions, where they
see their advantages."[190] In 1625 Captain John Harvey declared that
the two races were "ingaged in a mortall warre and fleshed in each
others bloud, of which the Causes have been the late massacre on the
Salvages parte.... I conceive that by the dispersion of the Plantations
the Salvages hath the advantage in this warre, and that by their
suddaine assaults they do us more harme than we do them by our set
voyages".[191]

When the English had recovered from the first shock of the massacre,
they planned four expeditions against the tribes living on the river
above Jamestown. Mr. George Sandys attacked the Tappahatomaks, Sir
George Yeardley the Wyanokes, Captain William Powell the Chickahominies
and the Appomatocks, and Captain John West the Tanx-Powhatans. The
savages, without attempting to make a stand, deserted their villages and
their crops and fled at the approach of the English. Few were killed,
for they were "so light and swift" that the white men, laden with their
heavy armor, could not overtake them.[192] In the fall Sir George
Yeardley led three hundred men down the river against the Nansemonds and
against Opechancanough. The natives "set fire to their own houses, and
spoiled what they could, and then fled with what they could carry; so
that the English did make no slaughter amongst them for revenge. Their
Corne fields being newly gathered, they surprised all they found, burnt
the houses (that) remained unburnt, and so departed."[193]

It is remarkable that the colonists could continue this war while the
sickness was raging among them. At the very time that Yeardley was
fighting Opechancanough, hundreds of his comrades were dying "like cats
and dogs". "With our small and sicklie forces," wrote Mr. George Sandys,
"we have discomforted the Indians round about us, burnt their houses,
gathered their corn and slain not a few; though they are as swift as
Roebucks, like the violent lightening they are gone as soon as
perceived, and not to be destroyed but by surprise or famine."[194]

How bitter was the war is shown by an act of treachery by the English
that would have shamed the savages themselves. In 1623, the Indians,
discouraged by the destruction of their crops, sent messengers to
Jamestown, asking for peace. The colonists determined to take advantage
of this overture to recover their prisoners and at the same time to
strike a sudden blow at their enemy. Early in June, Captain William
Tucker with twelve well armed men was sent "in a shalope under colour to
make peace with them". On the arrival of this party at the chief town of
Opechancanough, the savages thronged down to the riverside to parley
with them, but the English refused to consider any terms until all
prisoners had been restored. Assenting to this, the savages brought
forth seven whites and they were placed aboard the vessel. Having thus
accomplished their purpose, the soldiers, at a given signal, let fly a
volley into the midst of the crowd, killing "some 40 Indians including 3
of the chiefest".[195]

In 1624 the English won a great victory over the most troublesome of the
Indian tribes, the Pamunkeys. Governor Wyatt, in leading an expedition
against this people had evidently expected little resistance, for he
brought with him but sixty fighting men. The Pamunkeys, however, had
planted that year a very large crop of corn, which they needed for the
support of themselves and their confederates, and they determined to
protect it at all hazards. So Wyatt and his little band were surprised,
on approaching their village to find before them more than eight hundred
warriors prepared for battle. The English did not falter in the face of
this army, and a fierce contest ensued. "Fightinge not only for
safeguards of their houses and such a huge quantity of corn", but for
their reputation with the other nations, the Pamunkeys displayed unusual
bravery. For two days the battle went on. Whenever the young warriors
wavered before the volleys of musketry, they were driven back into the
fight by the older men. Twenty-four of the English were detached from
the firing line and were employed in destroying the maize. In this they
were so successful that enough corn was cut down "as by Estimation of
men of good judgment was sufficient to have sustained fower thousand men
for a twelvemonth". At last the savages in despair gave up the fight and
stood nearby "rufully lookinge on whilst their Corne was cutt down". "In
this Expedition," wrote the colonists, "sixteene of the English were
hurte our first and seconde day, whereby nyne of the best shott were
made unserviceable for that tyme, yett never a man slayne, nor none
miscarried of those hurtes, Since when they have not greatly troubled
us, nor interrupted our labours."[196]

The series of misfortunes which befel the London Company during the
administration of Sir Edwin Sandys culminated in the loss of their
charter. For some time King James had been growing more and more hostile
to the party that had assumed control of the colony. It is highly
probable that he had had no intimation, when the charter of 1612 was
granted, that popular institutions would be established in Virginia, and
the extension of the English parliamentary system to America must have
been distasteful to him. The enemies of Sandys had been whispering to
the King that he "aymed at nothing more than to make a free popular
state there, and himselfe and his assured friends to be the leaders of
them".[197] James knew that Sandys was not friendly to the prerogative
of the Crown. It had been stated "that there was not any man in the
world that carried a more malitious heart to the Government of a
Monarchie".[198]

In 1621 the controlling party in the London Company was preparing a new
charter for Virginia. The contents of this document are not known, but
it is exceedingly probable that it was intended as the preface to the
establishment of a government in the colony far more liberal than that
of England itself. It was proposed to have the charter confirmed by act
of Parliament, and to this James had consented, provided it proved
satisfactory to the Privy Council.[199] But it is evident that when the
Councillors had examined it, they advised the King not to assent to it
or to allow it to appear in Parliament. Indeed the document must have
stirred James' anger, for not only did he end all hopes of its passage,
but he "struck some terrour into most undertakers for Virginia", by
imprisoning Sir Edwin Sandys.[200]

Even more distasteful to the King than the establishment of popular
institutions in the little colony was the spreading of liberal doctrines
throughout England by the Sandys faction of the Company. James could no
longer tolerate their meetings, if once he began to look upon them as
the nursery of discontent and sedition. The party that was so determined
in its purpose to plant a republican government in Virginia might stop
at nothing to accomplish the same end in England. James knew that
national politics were often discussed in the assemblies of the Company
and that the parties there were sometimes as "animated one against the
other" as had been the "Guelfs and Gebillines" of Italy.[201] He decided
that the best way to end these controversies and frustrate the designs
of his enemies was to annul the charter of the Company and make Virginia
a royal colony.

The first unmistakable sign of his hostility came in June 1622, when he
interfered with the election of their treasurer. It was not, he told
them, his intention "to infringe their liberty of free election", but he
sent a list of names that would be acceptable to him, and asked them to
put one of these in nomination. To this the Company assented readily
enough, even nominating two from the list, but when the election was
held, the King's candidates were overwhelmingly defeated.[202] When
James heard this, he "flung himself away in a furious passion", being
"not well satisfied that out of so large a number by him recommended
they had not made any choice".[203] The incident meant that James had
given the Company an unmistakable intimation that it would be well for
them to place the management of affairs in the hands of men more in
harmony with himself, and that they had scornfully refused.

The Company was now doomed, for the King decided that the charter must
be revoked. He could not, of course, annul a grant that had passed under
the Great Seal, without some presence of legal proceedings, but when
once he had determined on the ruin of the Company, means to accomplish
his end were not lacking. John Ferrar wrote, "The King, notwithstanding
his royal word and honor pledged to the contrary ... was now determined
with all his force to make the last assault, and give the death blow to
this ... Company."[204]

James began by hunting evidence of mismanagement and incapacity by the
Sandys party. He gave orders to Captain Nathaniel Butler, who had spent
some months in Virginia, to write a pamphlet describing the condition of
the colony. _The Unmasking of Virginia_, as Butler's work is called was
nothing less than a bitter assault upon the conduct of affairs since the
beginning of the Sandys administration. Unfortunately, it was not
necessary for the author to exaggerate much in his description of the
frightful conditions in the colony; but it was unfair to place the blame
upon the Company. The misfortunes of the settlers were due to disease
and the Indians and did not result from incapacity or negligence on the
part of Sandys. The Company drew up "A True answer to a writing of
Information presented to his Majesty by Captain Nathaniel Butler",
denying most of the charges and explaining others, but they could not
efface the bad impression caused by the _Unmasking_.[205]

In April, 1623, James appointed a commission to make enquiry into the
"true estate of ... Virginia".[206] This body was directed to
investigate "all abuses and grievances ... all wrongs and injuryes done
to any adventurers or planters and the grounds and causes thereof, and
to propound after what sort the same may be better managed".[207] It
seems quite clear that the commissioners understood that they were
expected to give the King "some true ground to work upon", in his attack
on the Company's charter.[208] In a few weeks they were busy receiving
testimony from both sides, examining records and searching for evidence.
They commanded the Company to deliver to them all "Charters, Books,
Letters, Petitions, Lists of names, of Provisions, Invoyces of Goods,
and all other writing whatsoever". They examined the clerk of the
Company, the messenger and the keeper of the house in which they held
their meetings.[209] They intercepted private letters from Virginia,
telling of the horrible suffering there, and made the King aware of
their contents.[210]

In July the commission made its report. It found that "the people sent
to inhabit there ... were most of them by God's visitation, sicknes of
body, famine, and by massacres ... dead and deceased, and those that
were living of them lived in miserable and lamentable necessity and
want.... That this neglect they conceived, must fall on the Governors
and Company here, who had power to direct the Plantations there.... That
if his Majesty's first Grant of April 10 1606, and his Majesty's most
prudent and princely Instructions given in the beginning ... had been
pursued, much better effects had been produced, than had been by the
alteration thereof, into so popular a course."[211] James was much
pleased with the report, and it confirmed his determination to "resume
the government, and to reduce that popular form so as to make it agree
with the monarchial form".[212]

Before taking the matter to the courts, the King resolved to offer the
Company a compromise. If they would give up the old charter, he said, a
new one would be granted them, preserving all private interests, but
restoring the active control of the colony to the Crown. The government
was to be modelled upon the old plan of 1606, which had already given so
much trouble. "His Majesty," the Company was told, "hath ... resolved by
a new Charter to appoint a Governor and twelve assistants, resident here
in England, unto whom shall be committed the government.... And his
Majesty is pleased that there shall be resident in Virginia a Governor
and twelve assistants, to be nominated by the Governor and assistants
here ... whereby all matters of importance may be directed by his
Majesty."[213] The Company was commanded to send its reply immediately,
"his Majesty being determined, in default of such submission, to proceed
for the recalling of the said former charters".[214]

A special meeting of the stockholders was called, October 30th, 1623, to
consider the King's proposal. Every man present must have known that the
rejection of the compromise would mean the loss of all the money he had
invested in the colony, and that if the King's wishes were acceded to
his interests would be preserved. But the Company was fighting for
something higher than personal gain--for the maintenance of liberal
institutions in America, for the defence of the rights of English
citizens. After a "hot debate" they put the question to the vote, and
the offer was rejected, there being "only nine hands for the delivering
up of the Charters, and all the rest (being about three score more) were
of a contrary opinion".[215]

As a last hope the Company resolved to seek the assistance of
Parliament. A petition was drawn up to be presented to the Commons, and
the shareholders that were members of that body were requested to give
it their strenuous support when it came up for consideration. The
petition referred to Virginia as a "child of the Kingdom, exposed as in
the wilderness to extreme danger and as it were fainting and labouring
for life", and it prayed the House to hear "the grievances of the Colony
and Company, and grant them redress".[216] The matter was brought before
the Commons in May, 1624, but before it could be considered, a message
was received from the King warning them "not to trouble themselves with
this petition as their doing so could produce nothing but a further
increase Schisme and factions in the Company". "Ourself," he announced,
"will make it our own work to settle the quiet, and wellfare of the
plantations."[217] This was received with some "soft mutterings" by the
Commons, but they thought it best to comply, and the Company was left to
its fate.[218]

In the meanwhile the King had placed his case in the hands of
Attorney-General Coventry, who had prepared a _quo warranto_ against the
Company.[219] Although all hope of retaining the charter was gone, the
Sandys party were determined to fight to the end. They voted to employ
attorneys and to plead their case before the King's Bench. The _quo
warranto_ came up June 26th, 1624, and "the Virginia Patent was
overthrown", on a mistake in pleading.[220] With this judgment the
London Company practically ceased to exist, and Virginia became a royal
province.

FOOTNOTES:

[117] F. R., p. 6.

[118] F. R., p. 76.

[119] Gen., p. 1027.

[120] F. R., p. 265.

[121] F. R., p. 271.

[122] Gen., p. 339.

[123] F. R., p. 6.

[124] Gen. p. 236. Compare F. R., pp. 262, 263, 264, 31, 248, 80; Gen.,
pp. 49, 146.

[125] F. R., p. 80.

[126] F. R., p. 49.

[127] Gen., p. 50.

[128] Gen., p. 355.

[129] F. R., p. 558.

[130] F. R., p. 85.

[131] F. R., p. 237.

[132] F. R., vi.

[133] F. R., p. 251.

[134] F. R., p. 75.

[135] Gen., pp. 60, 61.

[136] Arb. Smith, lxxxiii.

[137] F. R., p. 266.

[138] F. R., p. 266.

[139] F. R., pp. 281, 282.

[140] F. R., p. 293.

[141] F. R., p. 312.

[142] F. R., p. 315.

[143] Nar. of Va., pp. 249, 250.

[144] Nar. of Va., p. 251.

[145] F. R., p. 317.

[146] Nar. of Va., pp. 252, 253, 254, 255, 260, 261.

[147] Nar. of Va., p. 276.

[148] In 1662 the Assembly granted power to the Governor and Council for
three years to levy a small tax by the poll. The county taxes for
defraying local expenses, were assessed and collected by the justices of
the peace. The vestries controlled the raising of the parish dues.

[149] Miller, p. 41.

[150] F. R., p. 376.

[151] F. R., p. 415.

[152] F. R., p. 464.

[153] F. R., p. 612.

[154] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. II, pp. 448, 449.

[155] _Ibid._

[156] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. II, pp. 442, 443.

[157] F. R., p. 322.

[158] F. R., p. 335.

[159] F. R., p. 336.

[160] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 264.

[161] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 265.

[162] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 269.

[163] P. R. O., CO1-3.

[164] F. R., p. 372.

[165] F. R., p. 377.

[166] F. R., p. 377.

[167] F. R., p. 377.

[168] F. R., p. 415.

[169] F. R., p. 506.

[170] F. R., p. 506.

[171] F. R., p. 608.

[172] P. R. O., CO1-36-37.

[173] Stith, p. 210.

[174] Stith, p. 210.

[175] Arb. Smith, p. 573.

[176] Arb. Smith, p. 573.

[177] Arb. Smith, p. 578.

[178] Arb. Smith, p. 573.

[179] Arb. Smith, p. 574.

[180] Arb. Smith, p. 575.

[181] Arb. Smith, p. 576.

[182] Arb. Smith, p. 576.

[183] Stith, p. 211.

[184] Stith, pp. 211, 212.

[185] F. R., pp. 576, 577.

[186] F. R., p. 576.

[187] F. R., p. 508.

[188] F. R., p. 576.

[189] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, pp. 155 to 159.

[190] F. R., p. 576.

[191] F. R., p. 611.

[192] Arb. Smith, p. 594.

[193] Arb. Smith, p. 559; F. R., pp. 475, 495.

[194] F. R., p. 510.

[195] F. R., pp. 514, 515.

[196] P. R. O., CO1-3.

[197] F. R., p. 530.

[198] F. R., p. 529.

[199] F. R., p. 393.

[200] F. R., pp. 436, 437.

[201] F. R., p. 542.

[202] F. R., p. 477.

[203] F. R., p. 478.

[204] F. R., pp. 531, 532.

[205] F. R., p. 524.

[206] F. R., p. 520.

[207] F. R., p. 520.

[208] F. R., p. 521.

[209] F. R., p. 541.

[210] F. R., p. 535.

[211] F. R., pp. 519, 520.

[212] F. R., p. 542.

[213] F. R., p. 551.

[214] F. R., p. 542.

[215] F. R., p. 554.

[216] F. R, pp. 595, 596.

[217] F. R., pp. 597, 598.

[218] F. R., p. 598.

[219] F. R., p. 587.

[220] F. R., pp. 601, 602.




CHAPTER III

THE EXPULSION OF SIR JOHN HARVEY


The people of Virginia sympathized deeply with the London Company in its
efforts to prevent the revocation of the charter. The Governor, the
Council and the Burgesses gave active assistance to Sandys and his
friends by testifying to the wisdom of the management and contradicting
the calumnies of their enemies. In the midst of the controversy the
Privy Council had appointed a commission which they sent to Virginia to
investigate conditions there and to gather evidence against the Company.
This board consisted of John Harvey, John Pory, Abraham Piersey and
Samuel Matthews, men destined to play prominent rôles in Virginia
history, but then described as "certayne obscure persons".[221] When the
commissioners reached the colony they made known to the Assembly the
King's desire to revoke the charter and to take upon himself the
direction of the government. They then asked the members to subscribe to
a statement expressing their gratitude for the care of the King, and
willingness to consent to the contemplated change. The Assembly returned
the paper unsigned. "When our consent," they said, "to the surrender of
the Pattents, shalbe required, will be the most proper time
to make reply: in the mean time wee conceive his Majesties intention of
changing the government hath proceeded from much misinformation."[222]

After this they ignored the commissioners, and addressed themselves in
direct letters and petitions to the King and the Privy Council.[223]
They apprehended, they wrote, no danger from the present government,
which had converted into freedom the slavery they had endured in former
times.[224] They prayed that their liberal institutions might not be
destroyed or the old Smith faction of the Company placed over them
again.[225] These papers they sent to England by one of their number,
John Pountis, even refusing to let the commissioners see them. But Pory
succeeded in securing copies from the acting secretary, Edward
Sharpless.[226] The Council, upon learning of this betrayal, were so
incensed against the secretary that they sentenced him to "stand in the
Pillory and there to have his Ears nailed to it, and cut off".[227] His
punishment was modified, however, so that when he was "sett in the
Pillorie", he "lost but a part of one of his eares".[228] The King, upon
learning of this incident, which was represented to him "as a bloody and
barbarous act", became highly incensed against the Council.[229]

In the meanwhile James had appointed a large commission, with Viscount
Mandeville at its head, "to confer, consult, resolve and expedite all
affaires ... of Virginia, and to take care and give order for the
directing and government thereof".[230] This body met weekly at the
house of Sir Thomas Smith, and immediately assumed control of the
colony.[231] Their first act was to decide upon a form of government to
replace the Virginia Magna Charta. In conformance with the wishes of the
King they resolved to return to the plan of 1606. In their
recommendations no mention was made of an Assembly. It seemed for a
while that the work of Sandys was to be undone, and the seeds of liberty
in Virginia destroyed almost before they had taken root. Fortunately,
however, this was not to be. The commission, perhaps wishing to allay
the fears of the colonists, reappointed Sir Francis Wyatt Governor, and
retained most of the old Council. This made it certain that for a while
at least the government was to be in the hands of men of lofty character
and liberal views.[232] More fortunate still for Virginia was the death
of James I. This event removed the most determined enemy of their
Assembly, and placed upon the throne a man less hostile to the Sandys
faction, less determined to suppress the liberal institutions of the
colony.

Soon after his accession Charles I abolished the Mandeville commission
and appointed in its place a committee of the Privy Council.[233] For a
while he seemed inclined to restore the Company, for he consulted with
Sandys and requested him to give his opinion "touching the best form of
Government".[234] But he finally rejected his proposals, declaring that
he had come to the same determination that his father had held. He was
resolved, he said, that the government should be immediately dependent
upon himself and not be committed to any company or corporation.[235]
But, like his father, he was "pleased to authorise Sir Francis Wyatt
knight to be governor there, and such as are now employed for his
Majesties Councell there to have authoritie to continue the same
employment". No provision was made for a representative body, the power
of issuing decrees, ordinances and public orders being assigned to the
Council.

But the Assembly was saved by the unselfish conduct of Wyatt and
Yeardley and their Councils.[236] Had these men sought their own gain at
the expense of the liberty of their fellow colonists, they would have
welcomed a change that relieved them from the restraint of the
representatives of the people. The elimination of the Burgesses would
have left them as absolute as had been Wingfield and the first Council.
But they were most anxious to preserve for Virginia the right of
representative government, and wrote to England again and again pleading
for the reëstablishment of the Assembly.[237] "Above all," they said,
"we humbly intreat your Lordships that we may retaine the Libertie of
our Generall Assemblie, than which nothing can more conduce to our
satisfaction or the publique utilitie."[238] In 1625 Yeardley himself
crossed the ocean to present a new petition. He pleaded with Charles "to
avoid the oppression of Governors there, that their liberty of Generall
Assemblyes may be continued and confirmed, and that they may have a
voice in the election of officers, as in other Corporations".[239] After
the overthrow of the Company charter, there could be no legal election
of Burgesses and no legislation save by proclamation of the Governor and
Council. Yet Wyatt, in order to preserve as far as possible some form of
representative government, held conventions or informal meetings of
leading citizens, to confer with the Council on important matters. They
issued papers under the title of "Governor, Councell and Collony of
Virginia assembled together",[240] and it is possible that the people
elected their delegates just as they had formerly chosen Burgesses.
Since, however, acts passed by these assemblages could not be enforced
in the courts, all legislation for the time being took the form of
proclamations.[241]

Finally Charles yielded to the wishes of the people, and, in the fall of
1627, sent written instructions to the officials in Virginia to hold an
election of Burgesses and to summon a General Assembly.[242] The King's
immediate motive for this important step was his desire to gain the
planters' acceptance through their representatives of an offer which he
made to buy all their tobacco. In the spring of 1628 the Council wrote,
"In obedience to his Majesties Commands wee have given order that all
the Burgesses of Particular Plantations should shortly be assembled at
James Citty that by the general and unanimous voice of the whole Colony
his Majesty may receave a full answere."[243] Although the Assembly must
have realized that its very existence might depend upon its compliance
with the King's wishes, it refused to accept his proposition. The
planters were willing to sell their tobacco to his Majesty, but only
upon more liberal terms than those offered them. Charles rejected the
counter-proposals of the Virginians, with some show of anger, but he did
not abolish the Assembly, and in ensuing years sessions were held with
great regularity.[244]

The apprehensions of the colonists during this trying period were made
more acute by the resignation of Sir Francis Wyatt. In the winter of
1625-26 the Council wrote the Virginia commissioners, "The Governor hath
long expected a Successor, and the necessity of his private estate
compelling him not to put off any longer his return for England, wee
hope it is already provided for."[245] Great must have been the relief
in the colony when it was learned that Sir George Yeardley had been
chosen to succeed Governor Wyatt. Yeardley had been the bearer of the
Virginia Magna Charta, under which the first Assembly had been
established, and his services had not been forgotten by the people. But
he was not destined to see the restoration of the Burgesses, for he died
in November, 1627.[246] We have lost, wrote the Council in great grief,
"a main pillar of this our building & thereby a support to the whole
body".[247]

By virtue of previous appointment, Captain Francis West, brother of the
Lord De la Warr who had lost his life in the service of Virginia, at
once assumed the reins of government. Captain West continued in office
until March 5th, 1629, when he resigned in order to return to
England.[248] John Harvey, a member of the Virginia commission of 1624,
was the King's next choice for Governor, but pending his arrival, the
office fell to one of the Council--Dr. John Pott. This man had long been
a resident of Virginia, and had acted as Physician-General during the
years when the sickness was at the worst. He is described as "a Master
of Arts ... well practiced in chirurgery and physic, and expert also in
the distilling of waters, (besides) many other ingenious devices".[249]
He had made use of these accomplishments to poison large numbers of
Indians after the massacre of 1622.[250] This exploit caused the
temporary loss of his place in the Council, for when James I settled the
government after the fall of the Company, Pott was left out at the
request of the Earl of Warwick, because "he was the poysoner of the
salvages thear".[251] In 1626 his seat was restored to him. He seems to
have been both democratic and convival, and is described as fond of the
company of his inferiors, "who hung upon him while his good liquor
lasted".[252]

In the spring of 1630 Sir John Harvey arrived in Virginia.[253] This man
proved to be one of the worst of the many bad colonial governors.
Concerned only for his own dignity and for the prerogative of the King,
he trampled without scruple upon the liberties of the people, and his
administration was marked throughout by injustice and oppression.

His first efforts as Governor were to attempt to win the friendship and
support of one of the Council and to bring humiliation and ruin upon
another. He had been in Virginia but a few weeks when he wrote the King
asking especial favors for Captain Samuel Matthews. "This gentleman," he
said, "I found most readie to set forward all services propounded for
his Majesties honor, ... and without his faithful assistance perhaps I
should not soe soon have brought the busines of this Country to so good
effect." It would be a just reward for these services, he thought, to
allow him for a year or two to ship the tobacco of his plantation into
England free of customs.[254] At the same time Harvey seemed bent upon
the utter undoing of Dr. Pott. Claiming that the pleasure loving
physician while Governor had been guilty of "pardoninge wilfull Murther,
markinge other mens Cattell for his owne, and killing up their hoggs",
Harvey suspended him from the Council and, pending the day of his trial,
confined him to his plantation.[255]

It seems quite certain that this treatment of the two Councillors was
designed to impress upon the people a just appreciation of the
Governor's power. Harvey felt keenly the restriction of the Council. It
had been the intention of James and after his death Charles to restore
the government of the colony to its original form, in which all matters
were determined by the Council. "His Majesties ... pleasure," wrote the
Privy Council in 1625, "is that all judgements, decrees, and all
important actions be given, determined and undertaken by the advice and
voices of the greater part."[256] If these instructions were adhered to,
the Governor would become no more than the presiding officer of the
Council. To this position Harvey was determined never to be reduced. He
would, at the very outset, show that he was master in Virginia, able to
reward his friends, or to punish those that incurred his displeasure.

Dr. Pott could not believe that the proceedings against him were
intended seriously, and, in defiance of the Governor's commands, left
his plantation to come to Elizabeth City. "Upon which contempt," wrote
Harvey, "I committed him close prisoner, attended with a guard." At the
earnest request of several gentlemen, the Governor finally consented
that he might return to his plantation, but only under bond. Pott,
however, refused to avail himself of the kindness of his friends, and so
was kept in confinement.[257] On the 9th of July he was brought to
trial, found guilty upon two indictments, and his entire estate
confiscated.[258]

That Pott was convicted by a jury of thirteen men, three of them
Councillors, is by no means conclusive evidence of his guilt. The close
connection between the executive and the courts at this time made it
quite possible for the Governor to obtain from a jury whatever verdict
he desired. In fact it became the custom for a new administration, as
soon as it was installed in power, to take revenge upon its enemies by
means of the courts.

Pott's guilt is made still more doubtful by the fact that execution of
the sentence was suspended "untill his Majesties pleasure might be
signified concerning him", while the Council united in giving their
security for his safe keeping.[259] Harvey himself wrote asking the
King's clemency. "For as much," he said, "as he is the only Physician in
the Colonie, and skilled in the Epidemicall diseases of the planters,
... I am bound to entreat" your Majesty to pardon him.[260] It would
seem quite inexplicable that Harvey should go to so much trouble to
convict Dr. Pott, and then write immediately to England for a pardon,
did not he himself give the clue to his conduct. "It will be," he said,
"a means to bring the people to ... hold a better respect to the
Governor than hitherto they have done."[261] Having shown the colonists
that he could humble the strongest of them, he now sought to teach them
that his intercession with the King could restore even the criminal to
his former position.

When Dr. Pott was at Elizabeth City his wife was reported to be ill, but
this did not deter her from making the long and dangerous voyage to
England to appeal to the King "touching the wrong" done her
husband.[262] Charles referred the matter to the Virginia commissioners,
who gave her a hearing in the presence of Harvey's agent. Finding no
justification for the proceedings against him, they wrote Harvey that
for aught they could tell Pott had demeaned himself well and that there
seemed to have been "some hard usage against him".[263] The sentence of
confiscation seems never to have been carried out, but Pott was not
restored to his seat in the Council.[264]

This arbitrary conduct did not succeed in intimidating the other
Councillors. These men must have felt that the attack upon Dr. Pott was
aimed partly at the dignity and power of the Council itself. If Harvey
could thus ruin those that incurred his displeasure, the Councillors
would lose all independence in their relations with him. Soon they were
in open hostility to the Governor. Claiming that Harvey could do nothing
without their consent, and that all important matters had to be
determined "by the greater number of voyces at the Councell Table", they
entered upon a policy of obstruction. It was in vain that the Governor
declared that he was the King's substitute, that they were but his
assistants, and that they were impeding his Majesty's business; they
would yield to him only the position of first among equals. Early in
1631 Harvey was filling his letters to England with complaints of the
"waywardness and oppositions of those of the Councell". "For instead of
giving me assistance," he declared, "they stand Contesting and disputing
my authoritie, avering that I can doe nothinge but what they shall
advise me, and that my power extendeth noe further than a bare casting
voice."[265] He had received, he claimed, a letter from the King,
strengthening his commission and empowering him to "doe justice to all
men, not sparinge those of the Councell", which he had often shown them,
but this they would not heed. "I hope," he wrote, "you never held me to
be ambitious or vainglorious, as that I should desire to live here as
Governor to predominate, or prefer mine owne particular before the
generall good." My position in Virginia is most miserable, "chiefly
through the aversions of those from whom I expected assistance". He had
often tried to bring peace and amity between them, but all to no
purpose, for he was scorned for his efforts. He would be humbly thankful
if his Majesty would be pleased to strengthen his commission, "that the
place of Governor and the duty of Councellors may be knowne and
distinguished".[266]

It is probable that the Councillors also wrote to England, to place
before the King their grievances against Harvey, for before the end of
the year letters came from the Privy Council, warning both sides to end
the dispute and to proceed peacefully with the government of the colony.
In compliance with these commands they drew up and signed a document
promising "to swallow up & bury all forepart Complainte and accusations
in a generall Reconciliation". They thanked their Lordships for advice
that had persuaded their "alienated & distempered" minds to thoughts of
love and peace and to the execution of public justice. The Council
promised to give the Governor "all the service, honor & due Respect
which belongs unto him as his Majesties Substitute".[267] It is quite
evident, however, that this reconciliation, inspired by fear of the
anger of the Privy Council, could not be permanent. Soon the Council,
under the leadership of Captain Matthews, who had long since forfeited
Harvey's favor, was as refractory as ever.

A new cause for complaint against the Governor arose with the founding
of Maryland. In 1623 George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, had
received a grant of the great southeastern promontory in Newfoundland,
and had planted there a colony as an asylum for English Catholics.
Baltimore himself had been detained in England for some years, but in
1627 came with his wife and children to take personal control of his
little settlement. His experience with the severe Newfoundland winter
persuaded him that it would be wise to transfer his colony to a more
congenial clime. "From the middle of October," he wrote Charles I, "to
the middle of May there is a sad face of winter upon all the land; both
sea and land so frozen for the greater part of the time as they are not
penetrable ... besides the air so intolerable cold as it is hardly to be
endured.... I am determined to commit this place to fishermen that are
able to encounter stormes and hard weather, and to remove myself with
some forty persons to your Majesties dominion of Virginia; where, if
your Majesty will please to grant me a precinct of land, with such
privileges as the King your father ... was pleased to grant me here, I
shall endeavour to the utmost of my power, to deserve it."[268]

In 1629 he sailed for Virginia, with his wife and children, and arrived
at Jamestown the first day of October. His reception by Governor Pott
and the Council was by no means cordial. The Virginians were loath
either to receive a band of Catholics into their midst, or to concede to
them a portion of the land that they held under the royal charters.
Desiring to be rid of Baltimore as speedily as possible, they tendered
him the oath of supremacy. This, of course, as a good Catholic he could
not take, for it recognized the English sovereign as the supreme
authority in all ecclesiastical matters. Baltimore proposed an
alternative oath of allegiance, but the Governor and Council refused to
accept it, and requested him to leave at once. Knowing that it was his
intention to apply for a tract of land within their borders, the
Virginians sent William Claiborne after him to London, to watch him and
to thwart his designs.

Despite Claiborne's efforts a patent was granted Baltimore, making him
lord proprietor of a province north of the Potomac river, which received
the name of Maryland. Baltimore, with his own hand, drew up the charter,
but in April, 1632, before it had passed under the Great Seal, he died.
A few weeks later the patent was issued to his eldest son, Cecilius
Calvert. The Virginians protested against this grant "within the Limits
of the Colony", claiming that it would interfere with their Indian trade
in the Chesapeake, and that the establishment of the Catholics so near
their settlements would "give a generall disheartening of the
Planters".[269] But their complaints availed nothing. Not only did
Charles refuse to revoke the charter, but he wrote the Governor and
Council commanding them to give Lord Baltimore every possible assistance
in making his settlement. You must, he said, "suffer his servants and
Planters to buy and transport such cattle and comodities to their
Colonie, as you may conveniently spare ... and give them ... such lawful
assistance as may conduce to both your safetyes".[270]

The second Lord Baltimore appointed his brother, Leonard Calvert,
Governor of Maryland, and sent him with two vessels and over three
hundred men to plant the new colony. In February, 1634, the expedition
reached Point Comfort, where it stopped to secure from the Virginians
the assistance that the King had promised should be given them.

They met with scant courtesy. The planters thought it a hard matter that
they should be ordered to aid in the establishment of this new colony.
They resented the encroachment upon their territories, they hated the
newcomers because most of them were Catholics, they feared the loss of a
part of their Indian trade, and they foresaw the growth of a dangerous
rival in the culture of tobacco. Despite the King's letter they refused
to help Calvert and his men. "Many are so averse," wrote Harvey, "that
they crye and make it their familiar talke that they would rather knock
their Cattell on the heades than sell them to Maryland."[271] The
Governor, however, not daring to disobey his sovereign's commands, gave
the visitors all the assistance in his power. "For their present
accomodation," he said, "I sent unto them some Cowes of myne owne, and
will do my best to procure more, or any thinge else they stand in need
of."[272] This action secured for Harvey the praise of the Privy
Council, but it made him more unpopular with his Council and the people
of Virginia.

After a stay of several weeks at Point Comfort, Calvert sailed up the
Chesapeake into the Potomac, and founded the town of Saint Mary's. This,
however, was not the first settlement in Maryland. In 1631, William
Claiborne, returning from England after his unsuccessful attempt to
block the issuing of Baltimore's charter, had established a settlement
upon Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay. Here he had built dwellings and
mills and store houses, and had laid out orchards and gardens. In thus
founding a colony within Baltimore's territory he was sustained by the
Council. When Calvert arrived in 1634 he sent word to Claiborne that he
would not molest his settlement, but since Kent Island was a part of
Maryland, he must hold it as a tenant of Lord Baltimore. Upon receipt of
this message Claiborne laid the matter before his colleagues of the
Virginia Council, and asked their commands. The answer of the
Councillors shows that they considered the new patent an infringement
upon their prior rights and therefore of no effect. They could see no
reason, they told Claiborne, why they should render up the Isle of Kent
any more than the other lands held under their patents. As it was their
duty to maintain the rights and privileges of the colony, his settlement
must continue under the government and laws of Virginia.

Despite the defiant attitude of the Virginians, it is probable that
Calvert would have permitted the Kent Islanders to remain unmolested,
had not a report spread abroad that Claiborne was endeavoring to
persuade the Indians to attack Saint Mary's. A joint commission of
Virginians and Marylanders declared the charge false, but suspicion and
ill will had been aroused, and a conflict could not be avoided. In
April, 1635, Governor Calvert, alleging that Claiborne was indulging in
illicit trade, fell upon and captured one of his merchantmen. In great
indignation the islanders fitted out a vessel, the _Cockatrice_, to
scour the Chesapeake and make reprisals. She was attacked, however, by
two pinnaces from Saint Mary's and, after a severe conflict in which
several men were killed, was forced to surrender. A few weeks later
Claiborne gained revenge by defeating the Marylanders in a fight at the
mouth of the Potomac.

In these encounters the Kent Islanders had the sympathy of the Virginia
planters. Excitement ran high in the colony, and there was danger that
an expedition might be sent to Saint Mary's to overpower the intruders
and banish them from the country. Resentment against Harvey, who still
gave aid and encouragement to Maryland, became more bitter than ever.
His espousal of the cause of the enemies of Virginia made the planters
regard him as a traitor. In 1635 Samuel Matthews wrote to Sir John
Wolstenholme, "The Inhabitants also understood with indignation that the
Marylanders had taken Capt. Claibournes Pinnaces and men ... which
action of theirs Sir John Harvey upheld contrary to his Majesties
express commands."[273] The Councillors held many "meetings and
consultations" to devise plans for the overthrow of the new colony, and
an active correspondence was carried on with Baltimore's enemies in
England in the vain hope that the charter might yet be revoked.[274]

Matters were now moving rapidly to a crisis. Harvey's administration
became more and more unpopular. Sir John Wolstenholme, who kept in close
touch with the colony, declared that the Governor's misconduct in his
government was notorious at Court and in the city of London.[275] When,
in the spring of 1635, he was rudely thrust out of his office, the
complaints against him were so numerous that it became necessary to
convene the Assembly to consider them.[276]

To what extent Harvey usurped the powers of the General Assembly is not
clear, but it seems very probable that he frequently made use of
proclamations to enforce his will upon the people.[277] It was quite
proper and necessary for the Governor, when the houses were not in
session, to issue ordinances of a temporary character, but this was a
power susceptible of great abuse. And for the Governor to repeal
statutes by proclamation would be fatal to the liberties of the people.
That Harvey was guilty of this usurpation seems probable from the fact
that a law was enacted declaring it the duty of the people to disregard
all proclamations that conflicted with any act of Assembly.[278]

Also there is reason to believe that Harvey found ways of imposing
illegal taxes upon the people. John Burk, in his _History of Virginia_,
declares unreservedly that it was Harvey's purpose "to feed his avarice
and rapacity, by assessing, levying, and holding the public revenue,
without check or responsibility".[279]

In 1634 an event occurred which aroused the anger of the people, widened
the breach between the Governor and the Council, and made it evident to
all that Harvey would not hesitate upon occasion to disregard property
rights and to break the laws of the colony. A certain Captain Young came
to Virginia upon a commission for the King. Wishing to build two
shallops while in the colony and having need of a ship's carpenter,
Young, with the consent of Harvey, seized a skilled servant of one of
the planters. This arbitrary procedure was in direct defiance of a
statute of Assembly of March, 1624, that declared that "the Governor
shall not withdraw the inhabitants from their private labors to any
service of his own upon any colour whatsoever".[280]

Upon hearing of the incident Captain Samuel Matthews and other members
of the Council came to Harvey to demand an explanation. The Governor
replied that the man had been taken because Young had need of him "to
prosecute with speed the King's service", and "that his Majesty had
given him authority to make use of any persons he found there".[281]
This answer did not satisfy the Councillors. Matthews declared "that if
things were done on this fashion it would breed ill bloude in Virginia",
and in anger "turning his back, with his truncheon lashed off the heads
of certain high weeds that were growing there".[282] Harvey, wishing to
appease the Councillors, said, "Come gentlemen, let us goe to supper &
for the night leave this discourse", but their resentment was too great
to be smoothed over, and with one accord rejecting his invitation,
"they departed from the Governour in a very irreverent manner".[283]

Harvey, in his letters to the English government tried to convey the
impression that he was uniformly patient with the Council, and courteous
in all the disputes that were constantly arising. That he was not always
so self restrained is shown by the fact that on one occasion, he became
embroiled with one of the Councillors, Captain Stevens, and knocked out
some of his teeth with a cudgel.[284] Samuel Matthews wrote that he had
heard the Governor "in open court revile all the Councell and tell them
they were to give their attendance as assistants only to advise with
him". The Governor attempted, he declared, to usurp the whole power of
the courts, without regard to the rights of the Councillors, "whereby
justice was now done but soe farr as suited with his will, to the great
losse of many mens estates and a generall feare in all".[285]

In 1634 the King once more made a proposal to the colonists for the
purchase of their tobacco, and demanded their assent through the General
Assembly. The Burgesses, who dreaded all contracts, drew up an answer
which was "in effect a deniall of his Majesties proposition", and, in
order to give the paper the character of a petition, they all signed it.
This answer the Governor detained, fearing, he said, that the King
"would not take well the matter thereof, and that they should make it a
popular business, by subscribing a multitude of hands thereto, as
thinking thereby to give it countenance".[286] The Governor's arbitrary
action aroused great anger throughout the colony. Matthews wrote Sir
John Wolstenholme, "The Consideration of the wrong done by the Governor
to the whole Colony in detayning the foresaid letters to his Majesty did
exceedingly perplex them whereby they were made sensible of the
condition of the present Government."[287]

The crisis had now come. During the winter of 1634-35 the Councillors
and other leading citizens were holding secret meetings to discuss the
conduct of the Governor. Soon Dr. John Pott, whose private wrongs made
him a leader in the popular discontent, was going from plantation to
plantation, denouncing the Governor's conduct and inciting the people to
resistance. Everywhere the angry planters gathered around him, and
willingly subscribed to a petition for a redress of grievances. In
April, 1635, Pott was holding one of these meetings in York, at the
house of one William Warrens, when several friends of the Governor
presented themselves for admission. "A servant meeting them told them
they must not goe in ... whereupon they desisted and bended themselves
to hearken to the discourse among them." In the confusion of sounds that
came out of the house they could distinguish many angry speeches against
Harvey and cries against his unjust and arbitrary government. When Pott
read his petition, and told the assemblage that it had the support of
some of the Councillors, they all rushed forward to sign their names.

When Harvey heard of these proceedings he was greatly enraged. Summoning
the Council to meet without delay, he issued warrants for Dr. Pott and
several others that had aided in circulating the petition. "After a few
days Potts was brought up prisoner, having before his apprehending bin
in the lower parts of the Country there also mustering his names at a
meeting called for that purpose."[288] He does not seem to have feared
the angry threats of the Governor, for when put in irons and brought
before the Council, he readily consented to surrender the offending
petition. At the same time he asserted "that if he had offended he did
appeal to the King, for he was sure of noe justice from Sir John
Harvey". When some of the other prisoners, in their hearing before the
Council, asked the cause of their arrest, the Governor told them they
should be informed at the gallows.

Shortly after this the Council was summoned to deliberate on the fate of
the accused. The Governor, fearing that he might not secure conviction
from a jury, "declared it necessary that Marshall law should be executed
upon" them. When the Councillors refused to consent to any other than a
legal trial, Harvey flew into a furious passion. For a while he paced
back and forth in the room hardly able to contain himself. At length he
sat down in his chair, and with a dark countenance commanded his
colleagues to be seated. A long pause ensued, and then he announced that
he had a question that they must answer each in his turn, without
deliberation or consultation. "What," he enquired, "doe you think they
deserve that have gone about to persuade the people from their obedience
to his Majesties substitute?" "And I begin with you," he said, turning
to Mr. Minifie. "I am but a young lawyer," Minifie replied, "and dare
not uppon the suddain deliver my opinion." At this point Mr. Farrar
began to complain of these strange proceedings, but Harvey commanded him
to be silent. Captain Matthews also protested, and the other Councillors
soon joined him in refusing to answer the Governor's question. "Then
followed many bitter Languages from him till the sitting ended."

At the next meeting Harvey asked what the Council thought were the
reasons that the petition had been circulated against him, and demanded
to know whether they had any knowledge of the matter. Mr. Minifie
replied that the chief grievance of the people was the detaining of the
letter of the Assembly to the King. This answer seems to have aroused
the Governor's fury, for, arising from his seat, and striking Mr.
Minifie a resounding blow upon the shoulder, he cried, "Doe you say soe?
I arrest you upon suspicion of treason to his Majesty." But Harvey found
that he could not deal thus arbitrarily with the Councillors. Utie and
Matthews rushed up and seizing him cried, "And we you upon suspicion of
treason to his Majestie". Dr. Pott, who was present and had probably
been waiting for this crisis, held up his hand as a signal to
confederates without, "when straight about 40 musketiers ... which
before that time lay hid, came ... running with their peeces presented"
towards the house. "Stay here," commanded Pott, "until there be use of
you."

In the meanwhile the Councillors crowded around Harvey. "Sir," said
Matthews, "there is no harm intended you save only to acquaint you with
the grievances of the Inhabitants and to that end I desire you to sit
downe in your Chayre."

And there, with the enraged Governor seated before him, he poured out
the recital of the people's wrongs. When he had finished there came an
ominous pause. Finally Matthews spoke again. "Sir," he said, "the
peoples fury is up against you and to appease it, is beyond our power,
unlesse you please to goe for England, there to answer their
complaints." But this Harvey refused to do. He had been made Governor of
Virginia by the King, he said, and without his command he would not
leave his charge.

But before many days the Governor changed his mind. He found himself
deserted by all and entirely in the power of the Councillors. As
sentinals were placed "in all wayes & passages so that noe man could
travell or come from place to place", he could make no effort to raise
troops. Dr. Pott and the other prisoners were set at liberty. A guard
was placed around Harvey, ostensibly to protect him, but really with the
purpose of restraining him. A letter came from Captain Purifee, a
Councillor then in the "lower parts" of the colony, which spoke of
designs of the people to bring Harvey to account for his many wrongs. In
alarm the Governor consented to take the first ship for England. He
endeavored, however, to name his successor, to induce Matthews, Pierce,
and Minifie to go with him to England, and to secure a promise from the
Council not to molest Maryland. But they would consent to none of these
things.

In the meantime an Assembly had been called to consider the innumerable
grievances against the Governor. When they met at Jamestown, Harvey sent
them a letter, declaring the session illegal and ordering them to
disperse to their homes. "Notwithstanding his threats ... the assembly
proceeded according to their former intentions." Harvey then dispatched
a letter to the Council, ordering them to send him his royal commission
and instructions, but these documents had been intrusted to the keeping
of Mr. Minifie with directions not to surrender them. The Council then
turned themselves to the task of selecting a successor to Harvey. Their
unanimous vote was given to Captain Francis West, the senior member of
the board and formerly Governor. Feeling that since the expulsion of
Harvey had been primarily a movement to protect the rights of the
people, the Burgesses should have some voice in the election of the new
Governor, they appealed to the Assembly for the ratification of their
choice. West was popular in the colony, and "the people's suffrages"
were cast for him as willingly as had been those of the Council. The
Assembly then drew up resolutions setting forth the misconduct of Harvey
and justifying their course in sending him back to England. These
documents were entrusted to one Thomas Harwood, who was to deliver them
to the King. Of what happened after Harvey's departure we have little
record, but it is probable that the colonists revenged themselves upon
the deposed Governor by confiscating all his ill gotten possessions.

It was decided that Dr. Pott should go to England to stand trial as his
appeal to the King had taken the case beyond the jurisdiction of the
Virginia courts. He and Harwood sailed upon the same vessel with Sir
John. It is not hard to imagine with what dark looks or angry words Pott
and Harvey greeted each other during their long voyage across the
Atlantic. Doubtless Harwood and Pott held many a consultation upon what
steps should be taken when they reached England to secure a favorable
hearing for the colony, and to frustrate Harvey's plans for revenge. It
was Harwood's intention to hasten to London, in order to forestall the
Governor and "to make friends and the case good against him, before he
could come".[289] But Sir John was too quick for him. Hardly had the
ship touched the dock at Plymouth, than he was off to see the mayor of
the city. This officer, upon hearing of the "late mutiny and rebellion"
in Virginia, put Pott under arrest, "as a principal author and agent
thereof", and seized all the papers and letters that had been entrusted
to Harwood. Having thus gotten his hands upon the important documents,
Harvey proceeded to London to complain of the indignities shown him and
to ask for the punishment of his enemies.

When Charles I learned that the Virginians had deposed his Governor and
sent him back to England, he was surprised and angered. It was, he
said, an assumption of regal power to oust thus unceremoniously one of
his officers, and he was resolved to send Harvey back, if for one day
only. And should the Governor acquit himself of the charges against him,
he was to be inflicted upon the colony even longer than had at first
been intended. The case came before the Privy Council in December
1635.[290] In the charges that were made against Harvey nothing was said
of the illegal and arbitrary measures that had caused the people to
depose him. All reference was omitted to the detaining of the Assembly's
letter, to the support given Maryland, to the abuse of the courts, to
illegal taxes and proclamations. Possibly the agents of the Virginians
felt that such accusations as these would have no weight with the
ministers of a monarch so little in sympathy with liberal government, so
they trumped up other charges to sustain their cause. Despite the
assertion of Harwood that Harvey "had so carryed himself in Virginia,
that if ever hee retourned back thither hee would be pistolled or
Shott", he was acquitted and restored to his office. West, Utie,
Matthews, Minifie and Pierce, whom Harvey designated as the "chief
actors in the munity", were ordered to come to England, there to answer
before the Star Chamber the charge of treason.[291]

As the time approached for him to return to Virginia, Harvey began to
show symptoms of nervousness. Feeling possibly that the threats of
"pistolling" were not to be taken lightly, he requested the King to
furnish him a royal vessel in which to make the journey. The appearance
of one of the King's own ships in the James, he thought, would "much
abate the bouldness of the offenders". This request was granted, and,
after some months of delay, Harvey set forth proudly in the _Black
George_. But Charles had not cared to send a really serviceable vessel
to Virginia, and for a while it seemed that the _Black George_ would
relieve the colonists of their troubles by taking Sir John to the
bottom. The vessel, it would appear, sprang a leak
before it had been many hours at sea, and was forced to return to port.
The Governor then decided that a merchant vessel would suffice for his
purposes, and set sail again, upon a ship of the Isle of Wight.

He reached Point Comfort in January, 1637. Not wishing to wait until his
ship reached Jamestown before asserting his authority, he landed at once
and established a temporary capital at Elizabeth City. He had received
instructions to remove from the Council all the members that had taken
part in the "thrusting out", and he brought with him commissions for
several new members. Orders were issued immediately for this
reconstructed Council to convene in the church at Elizabeth City. There,
after the oath had been administered, he published a proclamation of
pardon to all persons implicated in the "mutiny", from which, however,
West, Matthews, and the other leaders were excluded. The Governor then
proceeded to displace all officials whom he considered hostile to his
administration. "Before I removed from Elizabeth City," he wrote, "I
appointed Commissioners and sheriffs for the lower counties, and for the
plantation of Accomack, on the other side of the Bay."

The "thrusting out" did not cause Harvey to become more prudent in the
administration of the government. His restoration, which Charles had
meant as a vindication of the royal authority, the Governor seems to
have interpreted as a license for greater tyranny. If the accusations of
his enemies may be credited, he went to the greatest extremes in
oppressing the people and in defying their laws. With the Council now
completely under his control, he was master of the courts, and inflicted
many great wrongs by means of "arbitrary and illegal proceedings in
judgment". Confiscations and other "most cruel oppressions", it was
declared, were used to punish all that showed themselves hostile to his
government. He and his officers did not scruple to impose many unjust
fines, which they converted "to their own private use", nor to strike
terror into the people with whippings and "cutting of ears".[292]

Nor did Sir John neglect to take revenge upon those old enemies that had
so defied and humiliated him. West, Utie, Matthews and Pierce were sent
at once to England, and their goods, cattle and servants seized. Beyond
doubt it was against Samuel Matthews that Harvey bore the most bitter
animosity, and it was his estate that suffered most. The Governor had
been heard to say that if one "stood, tother should fall, and if hee
swomme, the other should sinke". Matthews was one of the wealthiest men
of the colony, his property consisting largely of cattle, but Sir John
now swore that he would not leave him "worth a cow taile". At the next
session of the Quarter Court, suit was entered against Matthews by one
John Woodall, for the recovery of certain cattle. The learned judges,
upon investigation, found that in the year 1622 Matthews held two cows
rightfully belonging to Woodall. It was their opinion that the increase
of these cows "unto the year 1628 ... might amount unto the number of
fifteen". "Computing the increase of the said fifteen head from the year
1628 to the time of their inquiry, they did return the number of fiftye
head to the said Woodall."[293]

When Matthews heard that his estate had been seized and "havoc made
thereof", he entered complaint with the Privy Council and secured an
order requiring Harvey to restore all to his agents in Virginia. But the
Governor was most reluctant to give up his revenge upon his old enemy.
For seven months he put off the agents and at last told them that he had
received new orders from the Privy Council, expressing satisfaction with
what had been done and bidding him proceed.[294] Thereupon Secretary
Kemp and other friends of the Governor entered Matthews' house, broke
open the doors of several chambers, ransacked all his trunks and chests,
examined his papers, and carried away a part of his goods and eight of
his servants.[295] Soon after, however, Harvey received positive
commands from the Privy Council to make an immediate restoration of all
that had been taken. In January, 1639, he wrote that he had obeyed their
Lordships exactly, by calling a court and turning over to Matthews'
agents many of his belongings.[296] But Harvey denied that he had ever
appropriated the estate to his own use, and claimed that he had been
misrepresented by "the Cunning texture of Captain Mathews, his
complaint".[297]

Among those that felt most keenly the Governor's resentment was a
certain clergyman, Anthony Panton. This man had quarrelled with Harvey's
best friend and chief advisor in the stormy days of the expulsion,
Secretary Matthew Kemp. Panton had incurred Kemp's undying resentment by
calling him a "jackanapes", "unfit for the place of secretary", and
declaring that "his hair-lock was tied up with ribbon as old as St.
Paul's".[298] The belligerent parson was now brought to trial, charged
with "mutinous speeches and disobedience to Sir John Harvey", and with
disrespect to the Archbishop of Canterbury. His judges pronounced him
guilty and inflicted a sentence of extreme rigor. A fine of £500 was
imposed, he was forced to make public submission in all the parishes of
the colony, and was banished "with paynes of death if he returned, and
authority to any man whatsoever to execute him."[299]

In the meanwhile the Governor's enemies in England had not been idle.
Matthews, Utie, West and Pierce, upon landing in 1637, had secured their
liberty under bail, and had joined with Dr. Pott in an attempt to
undermine Harvey's influence at Court. Had Sir John sent witnesses to
England at once to press the charges against them before the Star
Chamber, while the matter was still fresh in the memory of the King, he
might have brought about their conviction and checked their plots. But
he neglected the case, and Charles probably forgot about it, so the
whole matter was referred to the Lord Keeper and the Attorney-General
where it seems to have rested.[300] The exiles had no difficulty in
finding prominent men willing to join in an attack upon Harvey. Before
many months had passed they had gained the active support of the
"sub-committee" of the Privy Council to which Virginia affairs were
usually referred.[301] Harvey afterwards complained that members of this
committee were interested in a plan to establish a new Virginia Company
and for that reason were anxious to bring discredit upon his
government.[302] It was not difficult to find cause enough for removing
Sir John. Reports of his misconduct were brought to England by every
vessel from the colony. Numerous persons, if we may believe the
Governor, were "imployed in all parts of London to be spyes", and to
"invite the meanest of the planters newly come for England into
Taverns", where they made them talkative with wine and invited them to
state their grievances.[303]

The English merchants trading to Virginia also entered complaint before
the Privy Council against Harvey's administration. They sought relief
from a duty of two pence per hogshead on all tobacco exported from the
colony, from a fee of six pence a head on immigrants, and a requisition
of powder and shot laid upon vessels entering the James.[304] The Privy
Council, always careful of the welfare of British trade, wrote the
Governor and the Council, demanding an explanation of these duties and
requiring an account of the powder and shot. Harvey replied at great
length, justifying the duties and begging their Lordships not to credit
"the malitious untruths of such who by all means do goe about and studie
to traduce us".

But the Privy Council, not waiting to receive all of Harvey's defense,
decided to remove him and to appoint in his place Sir Francis
Wyatt.[305] The new Governor was directed to retain the old Council and
to confirm Kemp as Secretary.[306] But he was authorized to restore to
Matthews any part of his estate yet withheld from him, and to reopen in
the Virginia courts the case against Anthony Panton.[307] The day of
reckoning had now arrived. When Wyatt reached Virginia, he lost no time
in bringing Harvey to account for his misdeeds. He was arraigned before
the courts, where he was forced to answer countless complaints of
injustice and oppression, and to restore to their owners his ill gotten
gains. Kemp wrote, in March, 1640, that Sir John was being persecuted
with great rigor, that most of his estate had been confiscated, and at
the next court would assuredly be swept away.[308] A few weeks later
Harvey wrote to Secretary Windebank, to relate his misfortunes. "I am so
narrowly watched," he complained, "that I have scarce time of priviledge
for these few lines, which doe humbly crave of you to acquaint his
Majesty how much I groan under the oppressions of my prevayling enemies,
by whom the King's honor hath soe much suffered and who are now advanced
to be my judges, and have soe farr already proceeded against me as to
teare from me my estate by an unusuall way of inviting my creditors to
clamour." He wished to return to England, there to repair his fortunes
and seek revenge upon his enemies, but for some time he was detained in
Virginia. The new Governor thought best to keep him in the colony where
it would be difficult for him to plot against the administration. Harvey
wrote, "I am denyed my passage for England notwithstanding my many
infirmities and weaknesses of body doe crave advice and help beyond the
skill and judgment which this place can give."[309]

"Sir John being ... layed flatt," the Governor next turned his attention
to Kemp.[310] Sir Francis, who had strong reasons for hating the
Secretary, summoned him into court to explain his offenses against
Anthony Panton. Realizing that he had little hope of clearing himself,
Kemp sought to leave for England, but his enemies restrained him. "I am
extremely injured," he wrote in April, 1640, "and shall suffer without
guilt, unless my friends now assist me, ... the Governor and Council
here ... aim at my ruin."[311]

But Wyatt feared to retain Harvey and Kemp permanently in Virginia. Both
had powerful friends who might take the matter before the King or the
Privy Council. So, in the end, both made their way to England, taking
with them the charter and many important letters and records.[312] It
was now their turn to plot and intrigue to overthrow the party in
power.[313] And so quickly did their efforts meet success that before
Wyatt had been in office two years he was recalled and Sir William
Berkeley made Governor in his place.

FOOTNOTES:

[221] F. R., p. 556; Osg., Vol. III, p. 47.

[222] F. R., p. 574.

[223] F. R., p. 572.

[224] Osg., Vol. III, p. 50.

[225] Osg., Vol. III, p. 50.

[226] F. R., p. 584.

[227] F. R., p. 584.

[228] P. R. O., CO1-3.

[229] F. R., p. 584.

[230] F. R, p. 634.

[231] Osg., Vol. III, p. 74.

[232] F. R., p. 639.

[233] F. R., p. 640.

[234] F. R., p. 641.

[235] F. R., pp. 641, 642.

[236] F. R., p. 647.

[237] F. R., p. 648.

[238] F. R., p. 573.

[239] P. R. O., CO1-3-7.

[240] P. R. O., CO1-3-5.

[241] Hen., Vol. I, pp. 129, 130.

[242] F. R., p. 648; P. R. O., CO1-4.

[243] P. R. O., CO1-20.

[244] Bruce, Ec. Hist, Vol. I, p. 287.

[245] P. R. O, CO1-4.

[246] F. R., p. 647.

[247] P. R. O., CO1-4-18.

[248] Gen., p. 1047.

[249] Neill, Va. Co., p. 221.

[250] F. R., p. 568.

[251] F. R., p. 639.

[252] Fiske, Old Va., Vol. I, p. 252.

[253] Bruce, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 130.

[254] P. R. O., CO1-5-29.

[255] P. R. O., CO1-5.

[256] F. R., p. 644.

[257] P. R. O., CO1-5-31.

[258] P. R. O., CO1-5-32; Hen., Vol. I., p. 145.

[259] P. R. O., CO1-5; Hen., Vol. I, p. 146.

[260] P. R. O., CO1-5.

[261] P. R. O., CO1-5-32.

[262] P. R. O., CO1-5-33.

[263] P. R. O., CO1-5-33.

[264] P. R. O., CO1-6.

[265] P. R. O., CO1-6-34.

[266] P. R. O., CO1-6-35, 57.

[267] P. R. O., CO1-6-37.

[268] Fiske, Old Va., Vol. I, pp. 262, 263.

[269] P. R. O., CO1-6-39.

[270] P. R. O., CO1-6-39.

[271] P. R. O., CO1-6-46.

[272] P. R. O., CO1-6-46.

[273] P. R. O., CO1-6-52.

[274] P. R. O., CO1-6-46.

[275] P. R. O., CO1-8-60.

[276] Hen., Vol. I, p. 223.

[277] Bruce, Inst. Hist., Vol. II, p. 324.

[278] Hen., Vol. I, p. 264.

[279] Burk, Vol. II, pp. 28, 29.

[280] Hen., Vol. I, p. 124.

[281] P. R. O., CO1-8.

[282] P. R. O., CO1-8.

[283] P. R. O., CO1-8.

[284] P. R. O., CO1-8-63.

[285] P. R. O., CO1-8.

[286] P. R. O., CO1-8.

[287] P. R. O., CO1-8.

[288] P. R. O., CO1-8-48.

[289] P. R. O., CO1-8-61.

[290] P. R. O., CO1-8-62.

[291] P. R. O., CO1-8-61.

[292] Report of Com. on Hist. Mans. 3.

[293] P. R. O., CO1-10-14.

[294] P. R. O., CO1-9-121.

[295] P. R. O., CO1-9-121.

[296] P. R. O., CO1-10-6.

[297] P. R. O., CO1-10-6.

[298] Fiske, Old Va., Vol. I, p. 295.

[299] P. R. O., CO1-10-32.

[300] P. R. O., CO1-10-73.

[301] P. R. O., CO1-10-10.

[302] P. R. O., CO1-10-10.

[303] P. R. O., CO1-10-15.

[304] P. R. O., CO1-10-5.

[305] P. R. O., CO1-10-3.

[306] P. R. O., CO1-10-43.

[307] P. R. O., CO1-10-26, 32.

[308] P. R. O., CO1-10-61.

[309] P. R. O., CO1-10-67.

[310] P. R. O., CO1-10-64. 1.

[311] P. R. O., CO1-10-64.

[312] Report of Com. on Hist. Man., 3.

[313] Report of Com. on Hist. Man., 3.




CHAPTER IV

GOVERNOR BERKELEY AND THE COMMONWEALTH


Sir William Berkeley, who succeeded Governor Wyatt in 1642, is one of
the striking figures of American colonial history. Impulsive, brave,
dogmatic, unrelenting, his every action is full of interest. He early
displayed a passionate devotion to the house of Stuart, which remained
unshaken amid the overthrow of the monarchy and the triumph of its
enemies. When the British Commons had brought the unhappy King to the
block, Berkeley denounced them as lawless tyrants and pledged his
allegiance to Charles II. And when the Commonwealth sent ships and men
to subdue the stubborn Governor, they found him ready, with his raw
colonial militia, to fight for the prince that England had repudiated.
Throughout his life his chief wish was to win the approbation of the
King, his greatest dread to incur his censure.

Berkeley did not know fear. When, in 1644, the savages came murdering
through the colony, it was he that led the planters into the forests to
seek revenge. In 1666, when a Dutch fleet sailed into the James and
captured a number of English vessels, the Governor wished to sally out
in person with a few merchantmen to punish their temerity.

He possessed many of the graces of the courtier, and seems to have
charmed, when he so desired, those with whom he came in contact. His
friends are most extravagant in his praises, and their letters refer to
him as the model soldier, statesman and gentleman.

The overthrow of Sir Francis Wyatt was a severe blow to the enemies of
the old Harvey faction. Anthony Panton entered a protest against the
change of administration, claiming that it had been brought about by
surreptitious means and that no just complaint could be made against
Governor Wyatt.[314] At his petition Berkeley was ordered to postpone
his departure for Virginia until the matter could be investigated
further. Upon signing an agreement, however, to protect the interests of
Wyatt and his friends, he was allowed to sail and reached the colony in
1642.

The new Governor soon showed that he had no intention of persecuting
Harvey's enemies, or of continuing the bitter quarrels of the preceding
administrations. In his first Council we find Samuel Matthews, William
Pierce and George Minifie, all of whom had been implicated in the
"thrusting out".[315] Whether proceeding under directions from the
English government, or actuated by a desire to rule legally and justly,
he conferred a priceless blessing upon the colony by refusing to use the
judiciary for political persecution. So far as we can tell there was no
case, during his first administration, in which the courts were
prostituted to personal or party ends. Thomas Ludwell afterwards
declared that it was a convincing evidence of Berkeley's prudence and
justice that after the surrender to the Commonwealth, when his enemies
might easily have hounded him to his ruin, "there was not one man that
either publickly or privately charged him with injustice".[316] In
March, 1643, he affixed his signature to a law allowing appeals from the
Quarter Courts to the Assembly. This right, which seems not to have been
acknowledged by Sir John Harvey, was of the very highest importance. It
gave to the middle class a share in the administration of justice and
afforded an effectual check upon the abuse of the courts by the Governor
and Council.

Berkeley greatly endeared himself to the poor planters by securing the
abolition of a poll tax that contributed to the payment of his own
salary.[317] "This," the Assembly declared, "is a benefit descending
unto us and our posterity which we acknowledge contributed to us by our
present Governor."[318] Berkeley also made an earnest effort to relieve
the burden of the poor by substituting for the levy upon tithables
"assessments proportioning in some measure payments according to mens
abilities and estates" But the colonial legislators soon found a just
distribution of the taxes a matter of great difficulty, and we are told
that the new measures, "through the strangeness thereof could not but
require much time of controverting and debating".[319] In 1648 the
experiment was abandoned and the old oppressive tax upon tithables
revived.[320]

During the first administration of Berkeley numerous other measures were
adopted tending to augment the liberty and prosperity of the people. In
1643 a law was passed prohibiting the Governor and Council from imposing
taxes without the consent of the Assembly.[321] At the same session
Berkeley assented to a statute exempting the Burgesses from arrest
during sessions of Assembly and for ten days after dissolution.[322] The
fees of the Secretary of State were limited and fixed in order to
prevent excessive and unjust charges by that officer.[323]

That the colonists were not insensible of the Governor's liberal conduct
is shown by their generosity to him on more than one occasion. In 1642
they presented him with

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/30284